Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Rosyna Can't Take a Movie Screenshot

alexrad.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 159 posts

Re: Why Rosyna Can't Take a Movie Screenshot

#131

Post by zaroth »

jandrese wrote: post #107

The best part is that it is only a matter of time until the IME is cracked and root kits come with bits that you will never be able to clean without getting a whole new computer. Did you know the IME can send and recieve IP without the host processor ever seeing it? It's the ultimate way to own a machine.

I would assume the larger purpose of IME is actually exactly as a platform for persistent undetectable system compromise. Purpose built for TAO? As conspiracy theories go it's hard to explain the existence and full capabilities of IME in this decade without some NSA involvement.

Re: Why Rosyna Can't Take a Movie Screenshot

#132

Post by frik »

What about graphic cards from Nvidia/AMD? What about the ARM CPUs from various vendors like Apple, AppliedMicro, Atmel, Broadcom, Freescale Semiconductor, Nvidia, NXP, Qualcomm, Samsung Electronics, ST Microelectronics and Texas Instruments?

Do they have similar DRM features too?

Re: Why Rosyna Can't Take a Movie Screenshot

#133

Post by MichaelGG »

pgeorgi wrote: post #45
Audiophilip wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@pgeorgi: >All Intel chips since 2010 or so have the management engine. Do you have sources for this? I wanted to verify it, but after a few Google searches I could not find anything that states exactly that. I have a Haswell CPU, but I have no Management Engine settings in my BIOS. How does the vPro feature correlate with the Management Engine? Because not all Intel CPU's come with vPro. Or is that only a firmware d…

My source is that I work on coreboot, where we have to interact with that stuff all the time. It's actually somewhat hidden in our haswell driver because so much is now binary-only on Intel platforms. But look at http://review.coreboot.org/gitweb?p=coreboot.git;a=blob;f=sr... whose comments refer to both "ME" (the management engine) and "PAVP", which is the "Protected A/V Path" referred to in the article. One sure wa…

Can you provide insight on the claim in the article that Netflix encrypts to a secret Intel key? Versus Intel exposing a "protected" API that allows a way to get a (signed?) public key from the ME or something, which Netflix then uses to encrypt the stream?

Re: Why Rosyna Can't Take a Movie Screenshot

#134

Post by [deleted] »

quotemstr wrote: post #122
liadmat wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> except for the analog hole It's a pretty big hole, and it's practically impossible to seal. Which is why I don't think we'll ever see "game over" for piracy, no matter how advanced DRM technology becomes. At this point, I think censoring the internet is the only way for the movies/music industry to win. Sadly this isn't so far fetched.

> it's practically impossible to seal [the analog hole] It's easier than you think. Look at Macrovision. Look at the EURion constellation. All you have to do is make your secure video path emit some kind of signal not immediately apparent to human eyes. In a post-general-purpose-computing world, you can just make consumer-grade devices respect these signals and refuse to record and make professional-grade equipment b…

[deleted]

Re: Why Rosyna Can't Take a Movie Screenshot

#135

Post by liadmat »

quotemstr wrote: post #122
liadmat wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> except for the analog hole It's a pretty big hole, and it's practically impossible to seal. Which is why I don't think we'll ever see "game over" for piracy, no matter how advanced DRM technology becomes. At this point, I think censoring the internet is the only way for the movies/music industry to win. Sadly this isn't so far fetched.

> it's practically impossible to seal [the analog hole] It's easier than you think. Look at Macrovision. Look at the EURion constellation. All you have to do is make your secure video path emit some kind of signal not immediately apparent to human eyes. In a post-general-purpose-computing world, you can just make consumer-grade devices respect these signals and refuse to record and make professional-grade equipment b…

I agree, but my point is this - If you can see it or hear it, then you can record it. Sure, the recording device you'll need in the future might be insanely expensive/rare/illegal, but there's also a lot of money in piracy.

Re: Why Rosyna Can't Take a Movie Screenshot

#136

Post by acdha »

zaroth wrote: post #131
jandrese wrote: post #107

The best part is that it is only a matter of time until the IME is cracked and root kits come with bits that you will never be able to clean without getting a whole new computer. Did you know the IME can send and recieve IP without the host processor ever seeing it? It's the ultimate way to own a machine.

I would assume the larger purpose of IME is actually exactly as a platform for persistent undetectable system compromise. Purpose built for TAO? As conspiracy theories go it's hard to explain the existence and full capabilities of IME in this decade without some NSA involvement.

Please take the conspiracist nattering somewhere else. As explained in the second paragraph of the article, the features of IME were requested by large corporate IT departments and pushed mainstream by marketing pressure, with the addition of DRM bits as requested by the large tech vendors who need them to negotiate licenses with members of the copyright cartel.

You look at this and see a secure rootkit. A corporate IT worker looks at this and thinks that they can image a workstation remotely no matter what's currently installed. A security person looks at this and sees secure base platform starting from TPM on down which can be setup to keep malware from irrecoverably compromising the system (remember the recent Thunderstrike discussion noting that TPM would protect against that firmware exploit?).

All of these have tradeoffs which can be debated but it's just silly to pretend that the NSA is centrally directing the entire industry.

Re: Why Rosyna Can't Take a Movie Screenshot

#137

Post by xorcist »

rayiner wrote: post #118
ris wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Intel's just using Hollywood's fear of piracy" DRM has very little to do with piracy. Hollywood know perfectly well that DRM will not stop a determined pirate and a movie only has to be ripped once to be pirated indefinitely. It's about control. It's about the studios always having a seat at the bargaining table when new products/devices are being floated. They fear becoming a commodity supplier.

> It's about control. It's about the studios always having a seat at the bargaining table when new products/devices are being floated. They fear becoming a commodity supplier. The only way the studios would become a commodity supplier is if there were numerous other sources of content people would pay money to watch. That's what it means for your product to be a commodity. E.g. consumer PCs are a commodity because if…

The studios are also distributors, and it is on distributors the pull of DRM is the strongest.

You are indeed a commodity if the consumers can get their Harry Potter fix from anyone.

(And that is basically what "pirates" have been saying for ages, that distributors are ice block sellers in the refrigerator age, and that distribution is destined to move up the value chain in the digital age.)

Re: Why Rosyna Can't Take a Movie Screenshot

#138

Post by jrochkind1 »

tedunangst wrote: post #116
jrochkind1 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent technological protections in many instances where the result would still be fair use, if it weren't for the technological protections and the DMCA making circumventing them illegal. It's not just that the content providers 'make it hard' -- it's that their attempts to 'make it hard' are protected by law, not just by difficulty. Even if they DRM doesn't actually make it very har…

If you read the section on exemptions, you'll see that there's one for exactly this case: decrypting a dvd for the purpose of criticism.

Yes, that is a temporary exemption made by the Librarian of Congress, as the law provides for such temporary exemptions (which can also be renewed by the Librarian -- or not).

Nonetheless, the existence of the DMCA as a legal framework, I think, belies the picture the original comment I was responding to paints, of "Just because there is fair use doesn't mean the content providers need to make it easy to copy their works." The DMCA specifically gives the content providers technological "challenges" the force of law, and makes it illegal to circumvent them, without any general exception for fair uses. There are some few specific exemptions (not a general one for anything that constitutes 'fair use' under copyright law), which are not actually part of the law explicitly, but temporary and at the discretion of the Librarian of Congress.

Re: Why Rosyna Can't Take a Movie Screenshot

#140

Post by rhino369 »

ris wrote: post #61
jrockway wrote: post #27

This is all ultimately pointless because it's not like the video decoder checks the integrity of its own code or the CPU running it or the compiler that compiled it or that the OS it was tested against is actually running. (Reflections on trusting trust.) Nothing actually cares about secure boot or end-to-end code validation; Apple doesn't even include equipment on their mainboards to do this anymore. Meanwhile, if y…

"Intel's just using Hollywood's fear of piracy" DRM has very little to do with piracy. Hollywood know perfectly well that DRM will not stop a determined pirate and a movie only has to be ripped once to be pirated indefinitely. It's about control. It's about the studios always having a seat at the bargaining table when new products/devices are being floated. They fear becoming a commodity supplier.

Consumer DRM is about making piracy more difficult. It's not an all or nothing proposition.

Video and Audio DRM will never stop scene pirating. It's easy to just copy the output. But it stops me from just copying movies I rented on Amazon Instant to my brothers PC.

If 10% of the population is pirating you shit, you aren't losing very many sales. Sure it hurts your profit margin a little. But most dedicated pirates are junkies for content.

But if my mom can't figure out how to pirate your content, you are fucked. That's why Napster and the P2P ruined the commercial music industry. It not only took a huge chunk of the revenue, but it changed the perception of the value of music itself. Instead of 12 bucks per album, people wanted 20,000 songs on their IPOD for free.

The fight against piracy isn't a fight to exterminate it, but to keep piracy out of reach of the critical mass.

Some DRM really works. PC multiplayer DRM works great and is the only reason the PC industry is surviving. Movie theatres are the best DRM there is. Not being able to sideload stuff on a nonjailbroken iphone is huge.

Post reply on HN