main

Apple disables iTunes hack

malebolgia   on 22 March 2005 - 00:01 · 43 comments & 3560 views

Advertisement (Why?)
Apple Computer has closed a security hole that allowed an underground program to tap into its iTunes Music Store and purchase songs stripped of antipiracy protections.

The PyMusique software, created by a trio of independent programmers online, emerged last week as a copy protection-free back door into the popular iTunes store. One of the creators was Jon Johansen, the Norwegian programmer responsible for releasing DVD-copying software in 1999. Apple released a statement Monday saying the problem had been fixed, and that some iTunes customers would need to upgrade their software.

"The security hole in the iTunes Music Store which was recently exploited has been closed, and as a consequence the iTunes Music Store will now sell music only to customers using iTunes version 4.7," the company said in a statement. Like all other digital music companies, Apple has been dealing continually with hackers intent on finding ways around the antipiracy protections that are added to songs as they are sold online.

News source: C|Net News.com


However, he did note that developers are expecting Microsoft to update the prototype PowerMac-based Xenon kits with more advanced hardware "pretty much any day now" - an important step for the company, since it's still planning to launch the next-generation Xbox before the end of the year, and industry rumours suggest that it may even have recently pulled the launch schedule forward by several weeks.

Sony plans to show the next-generation PlayStation off in public for the first time at its pre-E3 conference in Los Angeles in May, where it will almost certainly debut within a few hours of the public unveilings of Nintendo's Revolution and Microsoft's next-gen Xbox.

However, the system - which is based on a new chip called Cell, which was co-developed by IBM and Sony, and an NVIDIA graphics board - is not expected to start shipping to consumers until the second quarter of 2006 at the earliest.

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 43 additional comments
(3 replies) #1 Starcom826 on 22 Mar 2005 - 00:04
Perhaps we're returning to the age where hackers do good? Well maybe not considering the word hacker applies so badly now and has a negative connotation.
#1.1 Knight' on 22 Mar 2005 - 08:00
Hackers have always done good, but crackers.... not always.
#1.2 spiritualarmy on 22 Mar 2005 - 16:00
Hacking has always been for the better good.
the government and corporations tell you otherwise.
#1.3 Magallanes on 22 Mar 2005 - 19:25
CRACKERS are the good guys not hackers.

It's a stupid myth to think that hacker is the "good size" of the crackers (the baddass). In fact to have a firewall in any pc is necesary cause hackers and script kiddies and not cause crackers. Hackers are good ONLY if they are whitehat.

Hackers is about to enter a system, such to enter in a pc and to delete all info. Crackers is about to break some protection, such : keygen, crack ( ), dvd protection, windows xp crack, and no-cd, not necesary to "enter" inside a system. A Crackers open the door a hackers go inside.


Usually crackers reffers themself like hackers, cause hackers have more glamour and this give more popularity.

(1 reply) #2 Jugalator on 22 Mar 2005 - 00:05
Well, they should thank him for publicizing it

Instead of letting this knowledge stay as "underground" knowledge that's not public, he publicized it, released the source, and Apple could fix it. I'd say it's better for Apple to have some songs purchased DRM-free during a day or three than have god knows how many over a long period of time by hackers. At least Apple chose to bury the suing axe this time.
#2.1 Starcom826 on 22 Mar 2005 - 00:22
It's not so much that they buried it more than the fact that they can't use it. He's in Norway and was already tried by the movie industry and exonerated.
(6 replies) #3 phkhoury on 22 Mar 2005 - 00:34
Apple should just remove DRM altogether. I know they won't do it but it would be a good idea for them. It would give them "an edge" over other online music stores.
#3.1 necrosis on 22 Mar 2005 - 00:46
HAH! They can't! No one can! The RIAA would NEVER let them.
#3.2 iB24 on 22 Mar 2005 - 01:25
The way things are going for the iTunes Music Store it doesn't look like Apple needs an edge over their competitors.
#3.3 Knight' on 22 Mar 2005 - 08:02
That sort of thinking cost them their place as a world leading desktop PC seller. Now they have 5% marketshare. I would have thought Apple would have learnt this?
#3.4 dp123 on 22 Mar 2005 - 18:05
When they were the "world leading desktop PC seller" they sold Apples running MS-BASIC and LOGO, there were 20 other OSes, and they only had from 20 to 30% of the market... Since then Apple has remained healthy and viable and has watched Digital, Compaq, and Gateway (for all intents and purposes, they are eMachine now) and they have consistently ranked around the 4-8th largest PC manufacturer in the world.

What has the PC world learned from this lesson?
#3.5 dp123 on 22 Mar 2005 - 18:08
When they were the "world leading desktop PC seller" they sold Apples running MS-BASIC and LOGO, there were 20 other OSes, and they only had from 20 to 30% of the market... Since then Apple has remained healthy and viable and has watched Digital, Compaq, and Gateway (for all intents and purposes, they are eMachine now) fall off the face of the planet, not to mention numerous other names that never registered on people's minds or no one cares to remember, and they have consistently ranked around the 4-8th largest PC manufacturer in the world.

What has the PC world learned from this lesson?

Last edited by 9953 on 22 Mar 2005 - 19:16
#3.6 Ahnteis on 23 Mar 2005 - 03:03
Apple wouldn't drop the DRM even if RIAA let them unless they were forced to do so.
(8 replies) #4 Ned on 22 Mar 2005 - 00:52
It's still possible to use other methods to remove the DRM isn't it? If so then the mandatory update is pointless.
#4.1 necrosis on 22 Mar 2005 - 01:49
Last I checked... short of burning and re ripping no.

The last good program I had seen took the 'private key' from any iPod and used that to remove the DRM from ANY song (didn't matter if you bought it or not).
#4.2 Ned on 22 Mar 2005 - 02:08
Okay, I stand corrected. There were a few methods mentioned in the previous article....
#4.3 SquareSoft0 on 22 Mar 2005 - 03:29
Male-Male audio cable + Output port + Mic port = No DRM.
#4.4 TooPackShaker on 22 Mar 2005 - 03:48
ok I can just download free songs that I dont have to reencode
#4.5 camsoft on 22 Mar 2005 - 08:37
QUOTE
Male-Male audio cable + Output port + Mic port = No DRM.


If I am not mistaken you can just set the windows recording device to wav out and record from any recording software without the use of any cables.
#4.6 AJCrowley Esq on 22 Mar 2005 - 12:17
All of the aforementioned methods of removing DRM are of no use to people who really care about quality. What you're talking about is a reencode of the track, and since the audio compression that we're talking about is a lossy compression, each time you reencode the track you're going to lose quality. The only circumstance under which this would be a good method of DRM removal is if you downloaded the original track in a lossless format such as FLAC. Think of the above methods of DRM removal as somewhat like recording a CD onto an audio cassette, then capturing the audio through your sound card and burning it back to CD - what you're left with is a copy of inferior quality.
#4.7 SquareSoft0 on 22 Mar 2005 - 13:44
No, a direct recording is nothing like that and has such a small loss of quality you would have to be superficial to denounce it as such.
#4.8 AJCrowley Esq on 22 Mar 2005 - 17:08
I'm forced to disagree. What you're doing is taking a file that's encoded with lossy compression, decompressing it to get a digital copy of the compressed version, and then encoding it again with lossy compression, of course there's going to be some loss of quality. What you're doing is the same as converting an MP3 to a wave and back again, let me outline this with an example:

I have an album in MP3 format encoded at 192kbps. I want to decrease the file size, so I take the MP3s and reencode them to 128kbps MP3. Someone else has the CD, and therefore access to the uncompressed tracks, and they rip the CD to 128kbps MP3. I know that 128kbps MP3s aren't known for their incredible sound quality, but do you really believe that there will be no noticeable difference between the two? Before you answer, maybe you should try this experiment and let me know how it works out. For many people, this would be fine, but for me personally, quality is of paramount importance, and a second generation reencode just isn't acceptable. The loss of quality over analog media (ie dubbing video cassettes) was a lot more dramatic, but the principle is very much the same.

If you're happy with second gen reencodes, power to you, though I might suggest that you invest in a better pair of speakers or headphones if you really can't tell the difference. For me, it's quite simply not an acceptable option.
#5 deiong15 on 22 Mar 2005 - 02:35
probably be hacked again in a week
#6 Jstphish on 22 Mar 2005 - 04:14
That didn't last long. Then again, I didn't think it would.
#7 AnError on 22 Mar 2005 - 04:21
jhymn

google it
(5 replies) #8 ANova on 22 Mar 2005 - 04:55
QUOTE
Like all other digital music companies, Apple has been dealing continually with hackers intent on finding ways around the antipiracy protections that are added to songs as they are sold online.


Gee I wonder why. I can't understand why anyone would want to be able to play the music they purchased using something other then itunes and one computer.
#8.1 Lexcyn on 22 Mar 2005 - 05:09
This is exactly why I no longer use pay2download programs like Napster. DRM is a pain if you are transfering to an MP3 player that doesn't support it.
#8.2 camsoft on 22 Mar 2005 - 08:41
I dont like Apples DRM. I have a lot of purchased tracks. I have them on my main pc, my iPod and my work computer. I have re-installed my main pc a few times in the last year or so and now iTunes says that I have used up all my authorisations.

This makes my angry as I have paid for them. You would not except a cd to be only playable on three machines!
#8.3 AJCrowley Esq on 22 Mar 2005 - 12:27
My personal preference is to buy from an online music store that has reasonable prices, no annoying DRM, and lets me choose the format and bitrate that I actually want the file in. I won't bother dropping any names, you already know the answer to this one
#8.4 roadwarrior on 22 Mar 2005 - 13:01
QUOTE
I have re-installed my main pc a few times in the last year or so and now iTunes says that I have used up all my authorisations.


Two things: 1. you should have de-authorized the computer before you re-installed it. There is a menu option in iTunes to do this. 2. You can contact iTunes customer service, explain the situation to them, and they will reset your authorizations for you.
#8.5 dp123 on 22 Mar 2005 - 17:27
camsoft, as roadwarrior said, you aren't supposed to keep authorizing the same computer over and over. De-authorize. Authorize. Maybe you should be complaining about the OS you've had to reinstall several times. Also, the # of computers you can authorize is 5, not 3!
#9 soldier1st on 22 Mar 2005 - 06:11
drm is all about making consumers pay more money for the same thing over and over without any value.
(1 reply) #10 cswadner on 22 Mar 2005 - 06:27
didnt take too long! and i dont see why ppl keep gettin all butt hurt over DRM. It cuts down on piracy to an extent and of all the DRM methods out there, Apple's seems the least restrictive. Yes it only supports iPods, but 5 computers and unlimited burning (after creating a new playlist) seems more reasonable than Napster's must keep paying for the music to work situation
#10.1 AJCrowley Esq on 22 Mar 2005 - 12:28
QUOTE
It cuts down on piracy to an extent


Well that's ok then. Obviously the people actually paying for the music are the ones that they should be worried about.
#11 Xenomorph on 22 Mar 2005 - 07:01
as of last week, all the DRM cleaners still work as far as i know. my entire iTunes library is DRM-free.

the DRM cleaners get updated a LOT faster than iTunes does.
(2 replies) #12 Galley on 22 Mar 2005 - 07:40
This is BS! I'm forced to use iTunes 4.6 because 4.7 won't let me import CDs at any bitrate other than 128Kbps. Aaargh!
#12.1 necrosis on 22 Mar 2005 - 12:28
Umm... ok, thats odd.
#12.2 dp123 on 22 Mar 2005 - 17:49
Edit >> Preferences >> Importing Tab... AAC, MP3 (custom up to 320 kbps), Apple Lossless (auto), AIFF (auto), WAV (up to 48 KHz sample rate)... Exactly the same in 4.6 and 4.7.1...

Please try again.
#13 robpears on 22 Mar 2005 - 09:24
damnit that sucks
#14 C_Guy on 22 Mar 2005 - 16:37
I'm probably about as Anti-piracy as you can get.

But DRM is just plain wrong. If you pay to download a song you should be able to use or copy it for your own personal use any way you see fit.

PCs used to be about giving us control and the ability to do many incredible things... We controlled our own files. But the trend seems to be our computers taking control away from us. Instead of empowering us, our computers are now limiting us. If we pay money to a music company for the right to a licensed copy of a song then that is our own file and we should be able to burn, copy, or play it however we want as often as we want on whatever porogram we want with no restrictions (as long as its for personal use).

DRM strips consumers of our own rights. And being that hackers/crackers can find their way around this kind of crap, it really doens't do much for piracy anyway.

I'm all for measures to decrease piracy but DRM is not one of them.


...C_Guy
#15 markyp23 on 22 Mar 2005 - 17:50
It had to happen but I completely agree with C_Guy that
QUOTE
If you pay to download a song you should be able to use or copy it for your own personal use any way you see fit.
Shame though I think iTunes should change their policy.<-Yeh like that's ever going to happen.
(1 reply) #16 Korben_Dallas on 23 Mar 2005 - 00:12
'DVD Jon' reopens iTunes back door

Source: News.com
#16.1 Sub on 23 Mar 2005 - 16:27
Go Jon!

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)