Linux returns to PS3. Yes, that's both fat & slim models.

[lisalover1]

Warning, be careful out there guys!
http://kotaku.com/#!5763803/how-custom- ... s3-at-risk

You know what? Screw Kotaku. I've had enough of their sensationalist crap. I'm going to Joystiq. It isn't even amusing to read their misguided attempts at journalism anymore; this is just... just... facepalm.

[gtmtnbiker]

http://www.psnathome.com/general/ps3-hackers-can-now-ban-legitimate-users-and-unban-consoles.html

It will be fun seeing how Sony deals with this. Essentially this means checkmate for their current ban wave. They cannot risk banning innocent users (which this little tool makes possible) and risk a class action lawsuit. Especially not in the EU, they'll get absolutely ass-raped by the courts. It would be extremely foolish for Sony to continue banning consoles based on their current criteria.

I'm not sure that it's easy to spoof another console ID. From what I read, it's a 64 character hex string (1024 bits). It would take a long time to cycle through and successfully find a valid console ID.

[Niode]

http://www.psnathome.com/general/ps3-hackers-can-now-ban-legitimate-users-and-unban-consoles.html

It will be fun seeing how Sony deals with this. Essentially this means checkmate for their current ban wave. They cannot risk banning innocent users (which this little tool makes possible) and risk a class action lawsuit. Especially not in the EU, they'll get absolutely ass-raped by the courts. It would be extremely foolish for Sony to continue banning consoles based on their current criteria.

I'm not sure that it's easy to spoof another console ID. From what I read, it's a 64 character hex string (1024 bits). It would take a long time to cycle through and successfully find a valid console ID.

Considering next to nothing is encrypted in the PS3, I'm pretty sure it would be trivial to work out how Sony assigns system serial numbers and effectively create a random serial generator. Hell, it might even be enough to just change the serial number, Sony might not even check if it's a genuine serial number. Considering they only use SSL for credit card payments (which can be decrypted by the way, or snooped from within a custom firmware, depending on how the information is sent it could even be picked up from a DNS redirect - ie the way that most people circumvented the firmware checks in the first place to get on PSN when Sony brought out a useless firmware 'upgrade') it wouldn't surprise me if they're that incompetent.

Also regarding who's fault it is, It's definitely Sony's fault for banning innocent users. The hackers didn't ban them. Only Sony can ban users. So Sony IF (and that's a big IF) they were responsible and actually gave a shit about their users would halt their banning process for fear of banning an innocent user. However, they probably won't, and when those people get banned, they'll go crying to Sony and Sony won't give a fuck. The depressing thing is, those fucking Sony fanboy retards would probably go out and buy another PS3 anyway. Which just reinforces Sony's actions and give them even more justification to be dicks to their customers.

[ZeroAX]

If someone frames an innocent and the innocent gets punished, there is blame in the person that framed AND there is blame in the person that punished.

I think that if Sony is aware that the ban can be circumvented like this they should halt the bans - it is much worse to punish an innocent than to let several guilty* go unpunished (I think that applies in general within the U.S. legal system as well, so...)

Ivo.

True, but usually the one who framed the innocent is the one who deserves to be punished severely. The prosecutor (general use of the word) can't really be considered guilty, unless he knowingly punished someone innocent.

Though I agree, banning innocent users is very very bad, and sony should stop the banning until they find a way to this. But to say this is more Sony's fault than the hacker's would require you to be stupidly blind.

[EvilRyu2099]

Also regarding who's fault it is, It's definitely Sony's fault for banning innocent users. The hackers didn't ban them. Only Sony can ban users. So Sony IF (and that's a big IF) they were responsible and actually gave a shit about their users would halt their banning process for fear of banning an innocent user. However, they probably won't, and when those people get banned, they'll go crying to Sony and Sony won't give a fuck. The depressing thing is, those fucking Sony fanboy retards would probably go out and buy another PS3 anyway. Which just reinforces Sony's actions and give them even more justification to be dicks to their customers.

YOu should thank HOltz for that then..

[Ivo]

True, but usually the one who framed the innocent is the one who deserves to be punished severely. The prosecutor (general use of the word) can't really be considered guilty, unless he knowingly punished someone innocent.

(...) But to say this is more Sony's fault than the hacker's would require you to be stupidly blind.

I think you are failing to miss than in the legal system, there are already procedures in check to ensure that the "prosecutor" has to be really sure the guy is guilty - that is why I would agree that in general the prosecutor can't be considered at fault (assuming he did his job) the framed guy is only convicted if he was truly well framed.

I don't think the above applies to the case with Sony, and also the hacker's in question wouldn't be intentionally framing a specific person on purpose but just randomly shuffling around "the blame" (which I still don't approve) to make the investigation harder to conduct (and not to specifically screw someone on purpose). Under that point of the view the hacker is just no caring about harming innocents, which IMO is very similar to Sony if they continue banning users without knowing if they were misdirected.

Ivo.

[Niode]

True, but usually the one who framed the innocent is the one who deserves to be punished severely. The prosecutor (general use of the word) can't really be considered guilty, unless he knowingly punished someone innocent.

(...) But to say this is more Sony's fault than the hacker's would require you to be stupidly blind.

I think you are failing to miss than in the legal system, there are already procedures in check to ensure that the "prosecutor" has to be really sure the guy is guilty - that is why I would agree that in general the prosecutor can't be considered at fault (assuming he did his job) the framed guy is only convicted if he was truly well framed.

I don't think the above applies to the case with Sony, and also the hacker's in question wouldn't be intentionally framing a specific person on purpose but just randomly shuffling around "the blame" (which I still don't approve) to make the investigation harder to conduct (and not to specifically screw someone on purpose). Under that point of the view the hacker is just no caring about harming innocents, which IMO is very similar to Sony if they continue banning users without knowing if they were misdirected.

Ivo.

Exactly. If you think Sony is entirely blameless in this situation then you are clearly deluded. It seriously worries me that hardware that you own is no longer yours. It is held hostage by Sony. They can do whatever they like with your system whether you like it or not. That's a VERY scary prospect. If you don't think that, then you either don't care about your rights as a consumer (another scary prospect) or you are a moron.

[ZeroAX]

I think you are failing to miss than in the legal system, there are already procedures in check to ensure that the "prosecutor" has to be really sure the guy is guilty - that is why I would agree that in general the prosecutor can't be considered at fault (assuming he did his job) the framed guy is only convicted if he was truly well framed.

I don't think the above applies to the case with Sony, and also the hacker's in question wouldn't be intentionally framing a specific person on purpose but just randomly shuffling around "the blame" (which I still don't approve) to make the investigation harder to conduct (and not to specifically screw someone on purpose). Under that point of the view the hacker is just no caring about harming innocents, which IMO is very similar to Sony if they continue banning users without knowing if they were misdirected.

Ivo.

Yeah, but doesn't that mean that the hacker's actions are closer to that of a terrorist? Blind attacks (or blind violence in the case of real terrorism). Isn't that worse? They attack innocent people on random.

And we have still not seen Sony's response to this, or a story about an actual innocent user being banned from PSN. It will be interesting to see how they respond.

I'm not defending Sony, as I always say corporations are evil bastards, but this is one of those cases of blind fanboysm getting in the way. It's not like these days every company doesn't do it (as I said, it is exactly what Microsoft does, yet no one attacks them for it.)

[Ivo]

Yeah, but doesn't that mean that the hacker's actions are closer to that of a terrorist? Blind attacks (or blind violence in the case of real terrorism). Isn't that worse? They attack innocent people on random.

I do not see it as the same because if you take away the bans, the hackers are not actually doing any harm to the legitimate user.

In a case of terrorism, even absent a forceful intervention by authorities that by itself leads to civilian casualties, the "hostages" or "victims" are definitively harmed or at least inconvenienced.

As far as I understand this "impersonation" that the hackers are hypothetically able to do does not "steal the identity" of the legitimate user (so the hacker would not be able to pass himself off as the legitimate user for example, something which would be inherently an inconvenience to the legitimate user even absent the bans).
This hack seems to simply "redirect" a punishment from Sony to an innocent - I do not agree with this action and I definitively see blame for the harm visited upon the innocent, which is why I (unlike Niode) do not just simply say it is all Sony's fault if that happens.

However in such a case, I think the "authority" should either figure out a way of not harming any legitimate users or abstain from punishing the hackers (the ban does not even really stop them from playing pirated games offline, AFAIK), as the hackers just by themselves are not harming any legitimate users (and arguably are not really affecting Sony just by hacking).

Ivo.

[ZeroAX]

hm, true enough. Though I still think it can be compared with some form of terrorism (perhaps those terrorists who put bombs and then warn the police to empty the building before it blows up. No one is hurt, but danger still exists....oh well thinking too much about this).

Though I believe your last paragraph states (perhaps) the true nature of the problem. It's not to stop hackers from playing pirated games (though losing PSN access might stop some of them. I know I wanted to play LBP2 online and that's why I didn't hack me PS3, even though I wanted me some emulators), it's to protect customers from online cheaters (who gain access to cheats by hacking their console).

Really the security engineering department of Sony really screwed up big time. It's a wonder we haven't heard any stories of the entire department being fired.