guiyoforward Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Hi there, As usual, I start by a disclaimer: thanks MAxxus, Jas, semthex, vitality, and all of those I'm leaving out and that contribute to making OSx86 happen. I have a question though: as far as I understand, Maxxus worked with no kernel source, patching the binaries directly. As far as I can imagine, that has to be really really difficult, using assembly language directly, and it also leaves quite a few potential holes - isn't the subject of the patch dealt with somewhere else in the binary? Having the kernel sources, I *imagined* it would be much much easier to patch and hack the kernel. However, given the time and effort that's been invested in making 10.4.8 work, it certainly does not look like a walk in the park either. So in a nutshell: can we say if either of the two methods is "easier"? For fun, if binary is harder, just a conspiracy theory conclusion: was Maxxus Steve Job's frontman? Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/31535-on-the-relative-difficulty-of-binarysource-kernel-hacking/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
np101137 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Having a source code is definatly alot easier Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/31535-on-the-relative-difficulty-of-binarysource-kernel-hacking/#findComment-219644 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infamous Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I think it's like almost impossible to hack the kernel binaries. Maxxus is a true guru. Anyway I don't think he was somewhat "connected" to Apple. But it surely is a great marketing, the whole hackintosh project. There are thousands of people willing to buy Apple computer ASAP just because they could taste it on their computers. And they will surely tell/convince their friends too. Example: just because of this community and everything around, i'm getting a Mac for myself, girlfriend is amazed and getting MacBook, sister's actually saving for Mini. Then imagine 5 friends visiting my sister. Those are another 5 sold Mini's It goes like that. All this "hacking stuff" is just a great advertising. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/31535-on-the-relative-difficulty-of-binarysource-kernel-hacking/#findComment-219653 Share on other sites More sharing options...
aberracus Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 i think exactly as Infamous, its a " Mac Virus" Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/31535-on-the-relative-difficulty-of-binarysource-kernel-hacking/#findComment-219675 Share on other sites More sharing options...
boo50 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 completely agreed i think what Mifki and Semthex are the first people who really get the working kernel for our Hack's. i think what Maxuss is just an Apple myth...... and very very good advertising..... i'm too using hackintosh now and sure what my next computer will be a MAC. but not in a nearest future, because now i get a 100% Mac clone with new kernel from Mifki and it rocks !! times faster than previous by Maxuss ( Apple =)) ) my mac works as it must... also couple of my friends, who see Mac OS at my HACKINTOSH buy new Mini's... Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/31535-on-the-relative-difficulty-of-binarysource-kernel-hacking/#findComment-219896 Share on other sites More sharing options...
semthex Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Basicly bin-hacking something is totally diffrent to source code hacking, both approaches got their difficults and you need a diffrent base knowledge for any approach. Working with sources got the advantage it gives you much more possibilitys to add new things. Bin hacking means writing Opcodes in hex if you need to add something. This is much worser than writting some code since it needs much calculating but it is very logical and straight. Let's say I know what I am talking about, people who are with me know why :-) Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/31535-on-the-relative-difficulty-of-binarysource-kernel-hacking/#findComment-219908 Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaemonES Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 And kernel patched by Maxxuss was free of EFI, HPET and many other things, that now we must cut from kernel sources. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/31535-on-the-relative-difficulty-of-binarysource-kernel-hacking/#findComment-219911 Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_muad_dib Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 offcourse it's easier with the souce code. to hack a binary you need to find a way to trace the its execution(that is not always straightforward) and find the right offset to edit/delete. we were very lucky.. cos we had darwin to use as debugging environment. without it... it would have been almost impossible the last sencence is true if you think that maxxuss was/is a normal person and not an apple hoax offcourse Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/31535-on-the-relative-difficulty-of-binarysource-kernel-hacking/#findComment-219913 Share on other sites More sharing options...
aberracus Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 For me Maxuss was a normal guy , but a very talented one, i hope Semthek and Mifkin could work together with the ppl from the efi group and the irc group to tackle leopard kernel wich is as we know binary code. i also hope that suggestion of semthex means something in that way... Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/31535-on-the-relative-difficulty-of-binarysource-kernel-hacking/#findComment-220021 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts