Jump to content
Welcome to InsanelyMac Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

  • Announcements

    • Allan

      Forum Rules   04/13/2018

      Hello folks! As some things are being fixed, we'll keep you updated. Per hour the Forum Rules don't have a dedicated "Tab", so here is the place that we have our Rules back. New Users Lounge > [READ] - InsanelyMac Forum Rules - The InsanelyMac Staff Team. 
Sign in to follow this  
munky

OS X does NOT use TPM!

17 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Its news to most users on this forum who claim that os x wont work because of tpm, and that the kernel is hacked to remove tpm support and other rubbish like that. Thanks munky, maybe you could sticky it in the osx86/ homebrew section?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What!!!

 

You fakers, Maxxus, Semthex and all of you claiming to have hacked the kernel and what not.

 

 

 

:angel:

 

Not Really. I had read this before, while doing research, but I didnot really believe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its true, the only thing needed to hack a kernel for a core 2 duo system is remove efi (about 1 or 2 nops) and hardcode the fsb (another 1 or 2 nops)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the final version will feature TPM. I still believe that Apple has a surprise for all the OSX86 users. If I am right, we'll see how long it takes until hackers can bypass Apple's measures to prevent Leopard from installing on non-Apple hardware...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no it wont, the newer macs have no tpm chip. tiger hasnt used it ever. leopard has never used it. And never will

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it checked to see if the hardware was there iirc, considering 10.4.1 was only intended for the DTK machines, and considering it was just a standard 915 board, apple had to introduce at least some checks, but no cryptography was being done through the TPM chip, just a check (i may be wrong, as i havent had much hands on with 10.4.1) Also, 10.4.1 was internal Beta, whereas the later builds 10.4.4 etc were released into the public with real macs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supposedly there may be this to contend with as well-

http://www.macrumors.com/2007/12/20/apple-...ghting-patents/

 

"The other filing, patent application #20070288886, deals with attempts to fight software piracy.

 

A digital rights management system permits an application owner to cause code to be injected into the application's run-time instruction stream so as to restrict execution of that application to specific hardware platforms. In a first phase, an authorizing entity (e.g., an application owner or platform manufacturer) authorizes one or more applications to execute on a given hardware platform. Later, during application run-time, code is injected that performs periodic checks are made to determine if the application continues to run on the previously authorized hardware platform. If a periodic check fails, at least part of the application's execution string is terminated--effectively rendering the application non-usable. The periodic check is transparent to the user and difficult to circumvent.

"

 

Their link doesn't work for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the original intel developer transition kit that ran 10.4.1 - 10.4.3 (before the launch of the real intel macs) checked for the presence of a TPM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe the original intel developer transition kit that ran 10.4.1 - 10.4.3 (before the launch of the real intel macs) checked for the presence of a TPM.

 

This is what I remember as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe the final version will feature TPM. I still believe that Apple has a surprise for all the OSX86 users. If I am right, we'll see how long it takes until hackers can bypass Apple's measures to prevent Leopard from installing on non-Apple hardware...

maybe ApL pays people to lurk in this awesome forum taking notes from all the smart people, only to run back and tell their team leader at headquarters (in hopes of some bonus, or promotion, like maybe free jelly donuts in the cafeteria or some energy drink)what the evil OSx86 are doing :D ..... er ..... :)

 

Seriously, the creators of the keystone components of doze and Apple, DOS and BSD, did they get anything? Even credit? I imagine this: a handfull of bright students working for fun, and maybe some school credit developing, naively smiling, then putting their work in the hand of their proud professor, who looks upon them with fatherly favor, while in his other hand he hands the intellectual material to the highest bidder, who then slaps a copyright on it and calls it theirs.

 

Sorry I got carried away, :P I started out wanting to say that I don't know how a corp can claim ownership to something that they didn't make originally. And then not have some sort of co-operation with the community of users. Or, maybe I am wrong and there are cooperations on some level. I don't know I am not an insider. Or maybe "successful rich" people are just cleaver thieves that steal from the people who are to busy actually doing something to realize that they are being stollen from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×