10.3.9 encrypted specs

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Just installed 10.3.9 and lo and behold the ApplePMU.kext and AppleSMU.kext specs are encrypted (vi the /System/Library/Extensions/AppleSMU.kext/Contents/Info.plist and /System/Library/Extensions/AppleLMU.kext/Contents/Info.plist files).



I guess it is burn me once, screw you, we'll just encrypt the specs.



Oddly, the ApplePMU.kext specs list (first) just PowerBook and then the next key is pmu-0e followed by pmu-0c, etc....



In the 10.3.8 AppleSMU.kext they were listed as Placeholder1,2 and Placeholder1,3 etc... while now they are listed as the actual machine codes (ie; PowerMac8,1 etc).



They are really trying to make this hard, huh?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 19
    xoolxool Posts: 2,460member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Rhumgod

    Just installed 10.3.9 and lo and behold the ApplePMU.kext and AppleSMU.kext specs are encrypted (vi the /System/Library/Extensions/AppleSMU.kext/Contents/Info.plist and /System/Library/Extensions/AppleLMU.kext/Contents/Info.plist files).



    I guess it is burn me once, screw you, we'll just encrypt the specs.



    Oddly, the ApplePMU.kext specs list (first) just PowerBook and then the next key is pmu-0e followed by pmu-0c, etc....



    In the 10.3.8 AppleSMU.kext they were listed as Placeholder1,2 and Placeholder1,3 etc... while now they are listed as the actual machine codes (ie; PowerMac8,1 etc).



    They are really trying to make this hard, huh?




    Sounds like they just added support for the official new hardware and having learned a lesson from the last CHUD tools they're locking up the info this time. Smart.



    Real question is, why not have the hardware just require Tiger? Perhaps 10.3.9 is like the last Jaguar builds that added G5 support.
  • Reply 2 of 19
    imiloaimiloa Posts: 187member
    does make sense from a security standpoint. wonder how long it'll take some bored 13 yr old to figure out which memory block the data decrypts to and write a util to display it. as went itunes, maybe will this.



    in the meantime, sounds like this may be the next wave of think secret leaks, posting the unencypted data from these files.



    so here's a question: why do they bother including the data for future machines in builds before the machines are released? ie: when you buy the new machine, you get a version of the lastest OS X that will have the needed data. so why bother including it in builds that are released to the public earlier than the hardware?



    seems like just a matter of version stamping and inventory control to manage such?
  • Reply 3 of 19
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,242member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by imiloa

    does make sense from a security standpoint. wonder how long it'll take some bored 13 yr old to figure out which memory block the data decrypts to and write a util to display it. as went itunes, maybe will this.



    in the meantime, sounds like this may be the next wave of think secret leaks, posting the unencypted data from these files.



    so here's a question: why do they bother including the data for future machines in builds before the machines are released? ie: when you buy the new machine, you get a version of the lastest OS X that will have the needed data. so why bother including it in builds that are released to the public earlier than the hardware?



    seems like just a matter of version stamping and inventory control to manage such?




    So developers who have these pre-released pieces of hardware can test their applications and make sure there aren't any showstoppers which will delay the release of such new hardware--select developing houses whose applications are important to Apple's marketing success do have some clout.
  • Reply 4 of 19
    Its probably in 10.3.9 because they have been running Panther builds on the development hardware. It would be stupid to run a new major os on totally new hardware, when you dont know what other flaws could be hiding deep in the code.. 10.3.x is pretty stable.
  • Reply 5 of 19
    So what was in that file in previous releases? I know about the AppleMacRISC4PE driver. And anybody have any idea what that non-readable data in there is?? I'm wondering if it's actually encrypted via some simple encryption scheme.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Rhumgod

    Just installed 10.3.9 and lo and behold the ApplePMU.kext and AppleSMU.kext specs are encrypted (vi the /System/Library/Extensions/AppleSMU.kext/Contents/Info.plist and /System/Library/Extensions/AppleLMU.kext/Contents/Info.plist files).



    I guess it is burn me once, screw you, we'll just encrypt the specs.



    Oddly, the ApplePMU.kext specs list (first) just PowerBook and then the next key is pmu-0e followed by pmu-0c, etc....



    In the 10.3.8 AppleSMU.kext they were listed as Placeholder1,2 and Placeholder1,3 etc... while now they are listed as the actual machine codes (ie; PowerMac8,1 etc).



    They are really trying to make this hard, huh?




  • Reply 6 of 19
    rhumgodrhumgod Posts: 1,289member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by unixguru

    So what was in that file in previous releases? I know about the AppleMacRISC4PE driver. And anybody have any idea what that non-readable data in there is?? I'm wondering if it's actually encrypted via some simple encryption scheme.



    Same encryption in both files. There were machines codes listed previously (ie: PowerBook8,1 and PowerBook8,2 in 10.3.4 if memory serves).



    I have no clue what the encryption method is, but they have certainly seen these boards and know that the information was out there.



    Gotta stay on their toes and they have.



    With no hardware announcements at NAB I guess they are feeding Think Secret a load of crap from the discovered sources too.
  • Reply 7 of 19
    xoolxool Posts: 2,460member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch

    Its probably in 10.3.9 because they have been running Panther builds on the development hardware. It would be stupid to run a new major os on totally new hardware, when you dont know what other flaws could be hiding deep in the code.. 10.3.x is pretty stable.



    There are also a few other reasons...



    Keep the OS and Hardware teams somewhat separate, to minimize leaks. Alternatively, you keep Panther as a viable option in case Tiger wasn't gonna be ready until July.
  • Reply 8 of 19
    webmailwebmail Posts: 639member
    I wouldn't be suprised if Apple decided to pipe down about the hardware updates or skip them all together... I haven't seen anyone say good things about a 200mhz update. I think maybe some numbskull there realized that the updated sucked?





    Quote:

    Originally posted by Rhumgod

    Same encryption in both files. There were machines codes listed previously (ie: PowerBook8,1 and PowerBook8,2 in 10.3.4 if memory serves).



    I have no clue what the encryption method is, but they have certainly seen these boards and know that the information was out there.



    Gotta stay on their toes and they have.



    With no hardware announcements at NAB I guess they are feeding Think Secret a load of crap from the discovered sources too.




  • Reply 9 of 19
    webmailwebmail Posts: 639member
    Somebody care to print back the contents of the file to the forum? I'll take a crack at it.





    Quote:

    Originally posted by imiloa

    does make sense from a security standpoint. wonder how long it'll take some bored 13 yr old to figure out which memory block the data decrypts to and write a util to display it. as went itunes, maybe will this.



    in the meantime, sounds like this may be the next wave of think secret leaks, posting the unencypted data from these files.



    so here's a question: why do they bother including the data for future machines in builds before the machines are released? ie: when you buy the new machine, you get a version of the lastest OS X that will have the needed data. so why bother including it in builds that are released to the public earlier than the hardware?



    seems like just a matter of version stamping and inventory control to manage such?




  • Reply 10 of 19
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Y'know, looking in the Resources folder of those same .kexts reveals encode-data.pl, encode-plist-data (shell script), and a .mot file that looks a lot like a hexdump of an EPROM snippet.
  • Reply 11 of 19
    Well we do have



    <key>PowerMac7,2</key>

    <string>PowerMac7_2_PlatformPlugin</string>

    <key>PowerMac7,3</key>

    <string>PowerMac7_2_PlatformPlugin</string>

    <key>PowerMac8,1</key>

    <string>SMU_Neo2_PlatformPlugin</string>

    <key>PowerMac9,1</key>

    <string>SMU_Neo2_PlatformPlugin</string>


    <key>RackMac3,1</key>

    <string>RackMac3_1_PlatformPlugin</string>



    which is from the "/system/library/Extensions/AppleMacRISC4PE.kext/contents" file



    I'm not sure what the PowerMac9,1 is and I didn't find anything in Mac Tracker that mentioned it the Mac Mini is 10,1 and the listing seems to be G5 only machines.
  • Reply 12 of 19
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jherrling

    Well we do have



    <key>PowerMac7,2</key>

    <string>PowerMac7_2_PlatformPlugin</string>

    <key>PowerMac7,3</key>

    <string>PowerMac7_2_PlatformPlugin</string>

    <key>PowerMac8,1</key>

    <string>SMU_Neo2_PlatformPlugin</string>

    <key>PowerMac9,1</key>

    <string>SMU_Neo2_PlatformPlugin</string>


    <key>RackMac3,1</key>

    <string>RackMac3_1_PlatformPlugin</string>



    which is from the "/system/library/Extensions/AppleMacRISC4PE.kext/contents" file



    I'm not sure what the PowerMac9,1 is and I didn't find anything in Mac Tracker that mentioned it the Mac Mini is 10,1 and the listing seems to be G5 only machines.




    Yeah, that is the "Platform Enabler" for the G5 series. MacRISC4PE == G5.



    Since PowerMac8,1 is the iMac G5, I think it's safe to assume that PowerMac9,1 is the next major revision to the PowerMac G5.



    I think the Powerbook series that appeared in there was Powerbook7,1. Why that all of a sudden disappeared is beyond me.
  • Reply 13 of 19
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    Y'know, looking in the Resources folder of those same .kexts reveals encode-data.pl, encode-plist-data (shell script), and a .mot file that looks a lot like a hexdump of an EPROM snippet.



    Well if it's a perl script, why don't you just look at it and see what it does? I would, but I loaned my Mac to my girlfriend for a couple of days.
  • Reply 14 of 19
    Quote:

    Originally posted by webmail

    Somebody care to print back the contents of the file to the forum? I'll take a crack at it.



    It is a field called "data" in the plist file, which is XML (I think..) It's raw data of some sort. Looks really interesting when you use hexdump on it.
  • Reply 15 of 19
    xoolxool Posts: 2,460member
    Are the same specs encrypted in Tiger as well? It may provide a bit of insight regarding HW timelines.
  • Reply 16 of 19
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by unixguru

    Well if it's a perl script, why don't you just look at it and see what it does? I would, but I loaned my Mac to my girlfriend for a couple of days.



    #\tContainstScript to encode binary data as Mime(Base-64) for inclusion

    #\t\t\t\tin the Info.plist of the flash kexts.



    Solves that.
  • Reply 17 of 19
    The PowerMac9,1 is for the single processor Power Mac.
  • Reply 18 of 19
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Invader Zim

    The PowerMac9,1 is for the single processor Power Mac.



    Are you sure about that? That would be quite odd, as they are in a major,minor format. Coming out with a machine with just one processor instead of two is a minor revision.
  • Reply 19 of 19
    woosterwooster Posts: 27member
    Single 1,8 GHz G5 is PowerMac 7,3



    Like to know what 9,1 is...



    Mac OS 10.3.9



    \t\t\t\t<key>PowerMac7,2</key>

    \t\t\t\t<string>PowerMac7_2_PlatformPlugin</string>

    \t\t\t\t<key>PowerMac7,3</key>

    \t\t\t\t<string>PowerMac7_2_PlatformPlugin</string>

    \t\t\t\t<key>PowerMac8,1</key>

    \t\t\t\t<string>SMU_Neo2_PlatformPlugin</string>

    \t\t\t\t<key>PowerMac9,1</key>

    \t\t\t\t<string>SMU_Neo2_PlatformPlugin</string>

    \t\t\t\t<key>RackMac3,1</key>

    \t\t\t\t<string>RackMac3_1_PlatformPlugin</string>



    Mac OS 10.4



    \t\t\t\t<key>PowerMac7,2</key>

    \t\t\t\t<string>PowerMac7_2_PlatformPlugin</string>

    \t\t\t\t<key>PowerMac7,3</key>

    \t\t\t\t<string>PowerMac7_2_PlatformPlugin</string>

    \t\t\t\t<key>PowerMac8,1</key>

    \t\t\t\t<string>SMU_Neo2_PlatformPlugin</string>

    \t\t\t\t<key>PowerMac8,2</key>

    \t\t\t\t<string>SMU_Neo2_PlatformPlugin</string>

    \t\t\t\t<key>PowerMac9,1</key>

    \t\t\t\t<string>SMU_Neo2_PlatformPlugin</string>

    \t\t\t\t<key>RackMac3,1</key>

    \t\t\t\t<string>RackMac3_1_PlatformPlugin</string>



    8,2 is the new iMac revision i suppose.
Sign In or Register to comment.