Dear Moderators...

Joined: 20 Oct 2005 Location: Toronto Insane Asylum

It's just sad that there is no more support for this project by the userbase. iPod Linux has seem to become it's own society. Everyone wants, no one gives.

Wh don't you guys try to help the devs? As Yorgle said, you would be much more prductive learning something new than you would by sitting and bitching (can I say that?) about the project. Just because there hasn't been a "Major release" in a while doesnt mean the project is ead! Hell, I remember when we thought it was impossible to get IPL to work on 5.5G's! Now mine runs it, albeit a bit slowly. And everything else such as the partionless solutions have furthered the project.

Contributor Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Location: Ontario, Canada

I apologize in advance for the digression and any possible flaming that may show up in my post but I fully agree with nedthehead and shall give a slice of my opinion on the matter. Let me start with this:

Quote:

Everyone wants, no one gives.

Believe it or not, we (the real iPodLinux community) are not people who have any type of responsibility nor obligation towards end users. You are not our masters and we are not your slaves. If you want something, do it yourself. If you can't, learn how to or kindly ask someone else if its not much of a trouble, but never demand it. Such is the spirit of Linux and much of open source. Unlike commercial companies such as Apple, open source projects like iPodLinux are purely volunteer. Developers join expecting no obligations and never should they receive any. True, some may decide to do things for others in the spirit of generosity, but that does not give any demanding right to those receiving that generosity.

On my own end, "we want this" and "iPodLinux is dead because I don't have everything I want" disgusts me. Take me and the ZeroSlackr project for example. I started working on Project ZeroSlackr out of the blue long before even the iPhone was announced. My goal? Unify and create an easy-to-use system that can help new users easily install and learn about iPodLinux. My reason? Further my own learnings while being able to help others. Nowhere does "because others demand it" or "because its popular" comes in. Rather, truth be told, I myself do not even use iPodLinux let alone any of the applications that I have integrated into ZeroSlackr, the sole exceptions being PZ2's periodic table, iBoy (in the past), and iDoom on occasion for demonstrative purposes. I have integrated numerous different content not because I have any need for them but rather because I believe that it will be helpful towards others who do spend time trying to install things themselves but encounter difficulties (but not those who just want everything done for them without even trying once).

In other words, I do stuff because I like helping new users who deserve the help and because I feel like it, but never because a few ignorant individual demand it. Like nedthehead said, there doesn't seem to be much other contributions done by users and a sure-fire lack of support for this project by the user base. I work on Project ZeroSlackr purely during my spare time, but only when it does not conflict with my studies and real life (which, regardless of your opinions, takes priority). I take out time that I could be using for other personal things and undoubtly the same goes with other contributors/developers. If I see that the only people who use ZeroSlackr are those as described above, however, I have nothing against stopping development and abandoning it. As the only person working on it, such action would be trivial for me. No doubt the same is for any programmer of any open source project.

~Keripo

Joined: 02 Nov 2005 Location: /dev/null

First, wow. This is getting serious.

Second, Keripo, you said exactly what I wanted to say (except the part of working on iPodLinux).

Third, If you do not contribute to iPodLinux (like I do not), just shut up. If you want to bitch about the project, then show us how have you contributed. Unless you did, just stop posting <censored> (of course, you can post, but don't even dare to say bad stuff about the project).

Joined: 22 Aug 2006 Location: Townsville, Australia

Yorge wrote:

Remember; development work on the project (and things keeping it from "dying" (the concept of that is just ridiculous)) doesn't happen exclusively by the core devs. Feel free to complain, but not about us. You're just as capable of picking up a book and learning how to do some things that you claim you can't do.

Keripo Test Account wrote:

*Most of what he/she said*

Both half of what WhiteN'Nerdy and myself wrote, the software that is coming in nowdays is alright, but if the Sponsor wiki page wasn't down right now, you'd see that it's not donations and spare iPods coming to my house with a Very Happy

, you'd see that it wasn't going to any "non-privellidged" user. If it were, then you'd see that Project Status page change a bit more often, but it hasn't, in 3 years. I think that's what has spiked most of this hate-mail.

Yorge wrote:

Personally, I think it would be easier to just buy older ipods instead of newer ones. It's cheaper to do, you're guaranteed it will work "out of the box", and you can start using it immediately.

As you can see in every single sub-forum, they're aren't ads going around saying "Get iPodLinux, but make sure it's not a 2G, 3G or 6G Wink

".
Most of our new users (if any user) finds out about iPodLinux after they have an iPod that's not compatible. And unfortunatly Yorge, not everyone here can just skip down to the Apple Store and ask for a 3G iPod or 1G Nano (imo Retro Mini ftw).

Yorge wrote:

If you hate our project so much, feel free to not use it... no one is forcing you.

That's not why WhiteN'Nerdy posted, that's not why StJimmy posted. They and about everyone else who yelled and marched off to zacaj's community were pissed off because SO MANY simple ideas and topics were instantly flamed/locked, unfairly.
Just then I did a search for "lock" and came up with a few theads (1, 2, 3), where a [family-alert]head cries out and the idea is destroyed.

What else angers me is how people argue the decryptor that the zacaj community is working on. To most people how has attempted to decrypt the iPod, they'd say right away that it wouldn't work. But so what? I've seen plenty of times of <censored> like this being brainstormed into an actual working project (I'm sure some of you have also been in the XboxLinux project and know what I mean).

&@Megabyte: These threads aren't how the project sucks anymore, it's about how there's no more actual change to the community's look at things.

Quote:

Either you go back and continue coding you're project like a good little boy, or you speak up (not so many people have done it properly though) and get banned.

Thanks Yorge for not locking this, perhaps we can actually make a thread to clear this once and for all. ( Rolling Eyes

)

Contributor Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Location: Ontario, Canada

Tux The M$ Slayer wrote:

Just then I did a search for "lock" and came up with a few theads (1, 2, 3), where a [family-alert]head cries out and the idea is destroyed.

That I'll have to agree with. I see specific post deletions as a better alternative to full thread locks. This, however, really depends on the mood of the mod. Thus the many ensuing mod-flaming threads. It just happens that most of the mods are also developers (or rather, the other way around).

Quote:

Yorge wrote:

Personally, I think it would be easier to just buy older ipods instead of newer ones. It's cheaper to do, you're guaranteed it will work "out of the box", and you can start using it immediately.

As you can see in every single sub-forum, they're aren't ads going around saying "Get iPodLinux, but make sure it's not a 2G, 3G or 6G Wink

".
Most of our new users (if any user) finds out about iPodLinux after they have an iPod that's not compatible. And unfortunatly Yorge, not everyone here can just skip down to the Apple Store and ask for a 3G iPod or 1G Nano (imo Retro Mini ftw).

Agreed on that point. Such a note ("No support for...") should probably be added/sticked at the top of all the "Installation from" subforums (as well as to the list of bold, red text though it seems no-one reads those points anymore).

Quote:

What else angers me is how people argue the decryptor that the zacaj community is working on. To most people how has attempted to decrypt the iPod, they'd say right away that it wouldn't work. But so what? I've seen plenty of times of <censored> like this being brainstormed into an actual working project (I'm sure some of you have also been in the XboxLinux project and know what I mean).

Theres a difference. Those projects are ones with an actual, organized plan and approach and a feasible goal and methodology. Here, brute force is neither a real approach nor close to feasible. Sure it can work, but this is effort and energy aimed at the wrong place. The waste of time and processing power that would be needed to do the decryption, even if we're lucky, is far better spent on something more useful (e.g., as I constantly point out, Folding@Home, etc.). If you're really intent on trying to crack the iPod's firmware, get smart and funnel your efforts elsewhere. Trying to hack the official iPod games or finding loop-holes/exploits in the official firmware, for example, are far more realistic approaches and far more likely to result in a payload.

Quote:

Thanks Yorge for not locking this, perhaps we can actually make a thread to clear this once and for all. ( Rolling Eyes

)

I agree with your point but not your sarcasm. If further, intense flaming ensues, it would be better to either split the thread or remove such posts.

Ps. The Sponsors page does work - you just have to log in to view the page (and quite a few others). As far as I know, this is a server problem of sort which is being worked on by some of the devs/server maintainers when they aren't having to read/respond to threads like these.

Joined: 16 Feb 2007 Location: Birmingham, England

Quote:

Syn xD

Hey Syn. I thought you were banned?

Joined: 09 Aug 2005 Location: New York, New York

haha, i just read on zacaj's forum that WhiteNerdy's dad caught him writing this, and that we shouldn't expect to see him for a while. hahahahaha.

Moderator Joined: 26 Oct 2005

Their "project" is just a stupid idea that won't work. They're making assumptions about the encryption algorithm, but they're also trying to bruteforce an algorithm that the NSA can't even crack. They're focusing on AES 128, which cannot be cracked via bruteforce, and for all purposes, can't be cracked at all. They're trying to do what even the most advanced cryptologists can't even do, yet they don't even understand what a 128 bit key is. We lock/shutdown projects that are totally worthless and insane and will never come to fruition.

You want to port freeBSD to the ipod? Sure, it could be done. It won't ever be done though, so why have it taking up database space? Totally pointless.

Alex

http://ipodlinux.org/User:BleuLlama · Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:38 pm

imphasing wrote:

You want to port freeBSD to the ipod? Sure, it could be done.

Actually, I had looked into this a little bit... there are no existing ARM ports of FreeBSD, so I shelved it.

I think that's another thing that being an experienced programmer gives you... a good sense of perspective and scale, knowing which projects work, and the ability to listen and learn from more experienced programmers.

You're able to tell which projects are trivial, and which ones are straightforward, and the difference between them.

an example;

Trivial: build MikMod for the iPod

Straightforward: crack the encryption

Sure, it's a one step process, but it's far from trival... The amount of effort needed and security knowledge needed (or hardware knowledge needed) is intense... not to mention the amount of time and cpu power needed... which are also intense.

My feeling currently is; if you want to try to crack nano2/nano3/classic, knock yourself out. You just need to be willing to accept failure, and accept that your computer and your time *will* be wasted in the effort.

Personally, my time and effort in such a venture a worth a lot more than I could spend on a half dozen iPods that iPL already works on.

But if you all want to devote every waking hour cracking AES (or one of the other half dozen encryption types that it could be) and are unable to see the scale of the project, and the pointlessness of brute forcing it, then go for it... there's no way in hell anyone is going to be able to stop you and your stubbornness and lack of willingness to listen to advice.

Call me crazy, but I prefer to focus my effort on things that yield results.

have fun!

Joined: 18 Oct 2007

I don't think you get what this is made for...

You know about F@H, and you know how it works (uses some CPU power). There's aso similar projects for finding a mathematical calculation to find the next prime number. A calculation to do such may be close to impossible, but they don't have a set goal for it, do they? Their project has been a great idea to borrow some processing power to find such an operation.

Now, look at the iPod Decrypter. What's the goal? Decrypt newer iPods. What's the set date? None. Will this even work? Maybe, maybe not...And I also find it stupid that you say "you just need to be willing to accept favor". Of course people using this are willing to accept failure! This is simply an app that allows someone to easily find the code to crack the encryption on new iPods. Define failure, to start with...

Also, you talk of the method to the encryption on the iPods. Maybe you don't remember this:

Quote:

All of the new iPods have OpenSSL - a freeware encryption software.

Easily read in the Legal section of the iPod

"Redistribution and use in source in binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted providing that the following conditions are met;

1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of condtions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: "This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL project for use in the OpenSSL toolkit, (http://www.openssl.org/)"
4. The names "OpenSSL Toolkit, and "OpenSSL Project" must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without prior permission, please contact [email protected].
5. Products derived from this software may not be called "OpenSSL" nor may "OpenSSL" appear in their names without prior written permission of the OpenSSL project
6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following acknowledgement, "This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit."

Anyway..

Apple isn't releasing the source of the firmware, but yet this is in the OpenSSL TOS. Also you are allowed to modify the binary that the OpenSSL software is installed on.

All of that said, and this being on the iPod firmware, is giving hackers, and everyone in the world permission to mod their iPods, and modify the firmware. Only on the new generation of iPods.

So, what this is saying is that something on the new iPods (firmware, games, etc.) is encrypted using OpenSSL, and if you check out the topic at Zacaj's Forums it says that you must have OpenSSL installed to use it. Why is it making sense to decrypt an iPod that uses OpenSSL...using OpenSSL?

There's no point in arguing about this anymore, since all we're doing now is analyzing every semicolon and period that someone has written. It feels like this is more of an English class than an argument on decrypting the new iPods.

http://ipodlinux.org/User:BleuLlama · Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:29 pm

Reread my post for a response to yours....specifically the portion about sense of scale.

OpenSSL is an application/library... not an encryption standard. Standard installations of OpenSSL have upwards of a dozen different encryption stadards, with long bitlengths...

.. and you're assuming Apple didn't modify any of them at all. All you need to do is slightly change the AES or DES algorithms, and you get completely different results... (but it would be reasonable to assume they haven't done this.)

google for estimates of time to brute force 128 and 256 AES keys... it's not accomplishable within our lifetimes using every available computer on the planet. but like I said... feel free to try... you might get lucky.

Contributor Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Location: Ontario, Canada

Folding@Home = for the good of humanity

Decrypting@iPod = for the stupidity of humanity

Using your computer for Folding@Home instead of Decrypting@iPod = for the sake of humanity and all that we call "intelligence"

I'm not against trying to break encryption. I'm against needlessly wasting computer processing power and energy for it when such resources can be better used elsewhere. Sorry but no matter how hard I'm trying to stay neutral in this, I cannot bring myself to agree on the failure of common sense.

Joined: 18 Oct 2007

Yorgle wrote:

Reread my post for a response to yours....specifically the portion about sense of scale.

OpenSSL is an application/library... not an encryption standard. Standard installations of OpenSSL have upwards of a dozen different encryption stadards, with long bitlengths...

.. and you're assuming Apple didn't modify any of them at all. All you need to do is slightly change the AES or DES algorithms, and you get completely different results... (but it would be reasonable to assume they haven't done this.)

google for estimates of time to brute force 128 and 256 AES keys... it's not accomplishable within our lifetimes using every available computer on the planet. but like I said... feel free to try... you might get lucky.

Don't jump to assumptions, I did read the original topic that that quote came from. It could very well be true that they changed the methodology of encryption, at which point using the stardard OpenSSL would make no progress whatsoever. However, isn't it illegal to change the OpenSSL system, which is an Open Source project, and not release it to the public?

On the point of wasting time, however, you're not the one attempting all the possible encryption keys. Just like F@H, it's all in a script (or more than that, but the gist is understood).

And don't jump to conclusions about how I am. I'm not stubborn and unwilling to listen to advice. Your advice is that I don't run this program because I'll just be wasting time and whatnot. Still, the point of the project is not to find success, but rather to try what seems to be the closest anyone will be getting to decrypting the new iPods.

I agree that this will take forever, and that it won't get anywhere anytime soon (maybe even never) but don't judge me in the blink of an eye.

EDIT: And if the Developers want to recieve an iPod Nano 3rd gen (or 2nd gen) tell me. I'll try my best to send one.

Contributor Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Location: Ontario, Canada

No one will hold anything against you for your own personal running of the program on your own personal computer. Your computer, your choices. When one starts trying to aggressively promote the program and convince others that they should also use the program while also trying to insult others (as in the case of White'N'Nerdy), then clarifications need to be made. Yorgle is not judging you; he is presenting the facts such that others who read this thread may have a clearer idea of things. If there are flaws in something, users should be made aware of them. A user's end choice of using it or not is entirely up to them. Yorgle's post is just trying to be more informative. Others like myself and yourself are also allowed to present their own viewpoints; such is done so that users can develop a more complete perspective. We are not judges of each other and shall not do such.

On a side note, re-read the conditions of Open-SSL. Apple fulfills it. #1 does not apply since Apple is not releasing the source code (and no, #1 does not force Apple to do so). #2 is met since you see the text. #3 is debatable - I'm sure if you looked at the fine print of ads it'll be there somewhere. #4 is met - Apple rarely does endorsements anyway. #5 is met (unless Apple decides to name their next iPod model the "iPod-OpenSSL") #6 is met since you see the text. All six conditions of usage as listed there are met. No-where does the license force the company to provide source code (I have no idea where the original poster's idea came from - probably jumped too fast to the gun without bother reading).

Joined: 18 Oct 2007

That clears it up better. It just seemed that he was trying to get back at me, saying that I'm stupid and whatnot. That probably angered me too much. I can go into further detail with what upsets me with Yorgle, but I'll stick to the discussion.

I read your post prior to this one, and running F@H is better than running D@i, but it would be just fine to run both at the same time. Correct me here.....Actually, just answer me here: how long would the decryption process take and (on your computer (include specs if you could) how much would it slow down your computer? As zacaj and others state there it runs as a background process (or at least can be run in the background, something about it being in the background).

So, by saying that Apple fulfills the conditions and doesn't need to release their (edited) source code? That changes it. I thought it was a possibility that Apple had asked for permission to use it, but it was one of the smaller thoughts in (what seems now to be) my quite small brain.