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

Dav2d

code.videolan.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 199 posts

Re: Dav2d

#181

Post by dcsommer »

fguerraz wrote: post #28
dcsommer wrote: post #18

We must not continue to develop media codecs in memory unsafe languages. Small, auditable sections can opt-out perhaps, but choosing default-unsafe for this type of software is close to professional negligence.

Cryptography and video codecs are notable exceptions, they put a lot of effort to making the code provably memory safe: no recursion, limited use of stack variables, no dynamic allocations, etc. As a result, memory safe languages bring nothing but trouble by making it non deterministic, that’s especially true for crypto where compiler “optimisations” guarantee you side channels attacks.

How is this POV compatible with the exploitable vulnerabilities, caused by memory safety, found in openh264, x264, dav1d, and practically every video decoder out there?

Re: Dav2d

#182

Post by PokestarFan »

thayne wrote: post #169
eks391 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've gotten several comprehensive responses so far and I want to add a niche corner that people might assume might not have the bot problem but still does. I run a website that hosts tools for my family: games and a TV interface for the kids, remote access to our family cloud and cameras, etc. Sensitive things require log in and have additional parameters required for access of course. I specifically blocked bots f…

> I assume then, that the only way a bot could even find my site is to do what the indexers do: brute force try every single possible ipv4 address hoping to hear something back, as my domain should not be known If your site uses https, they could also get your domain from the certificate transparency logs for the certificate you use.

You can get around this by grabbing a wildcard certificate and then using a hard-to-guess subdomain.

Re: Dav2d

#183

Post by extraduder_ire »

brookst wrote: post #87
mort96 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need a more efficient way to eliminate bullshit patents or bullshit patent infringement claims than "violate them then spend millions on lawyers to fight them in court".

Sure, and at the same time we need a more efficient way to ensure big companies can’t just take what they want and bury anyone who complains. It’s not an easy problem.

Does that happen in places like Europe, where software patents aren't a thing?

Re: Dav2d

#184

Post by imtringued »

ronsor wrote: post #49
delfinom wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

looks at if AV2 is dead in the water https://www.sisvel.com/insights/av2-is-coming-sisvel-is-prep... yep

This is a thinly veiled extortion racket and any competent system would fine them into bankruptcy.

The disgusting part is that they are proud of how complicated and exploitable this patent situation is, acting as if they were the key experts in developing codecs when they are just experts in gating access to them. Like, their entire business model is based on negating the value of the inventions.

Re: Dav2d

#185

Post by izacus »

dcsommer wrote: post #181
fguerraz wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cryptography and video codecs are notable exceptions, they put a lot of effort to making the code provably memory safe: no recursion, limited use of stack variables, no dynamic allocations, etc. As a result, memory safe languages bring nothing but trouble by making it non deterministic, that’s especially true for crypto where compiler “optimisations” guarantee you side channels attacks.

How is this POV compatible with the exploitable vulnerabilities, caused by memory safety, found in openh264, x264, dav1d, and practically every video decoder out there?

Easily. It's a tradeoff.

Re: Dav2d

#186

Post by CodesInChaos »

jorvi wrote: post #68
walrus01 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see zero public evidence that they've filed any lawsuits against the members of AOM in any jurisdiction. I'm sure there's been a lot of threatening letters sent...

Yup. The Dolby/Disney vs Snapchat lawsuit is going to be the first one. So far it's only been filed. The big question is if AOMedia is going to make good on their Mutually Assured Destruction promise of using their patent and financial war chest to to countersue into oblivion anyone trying to go after AV1 adaptors.

How would they counter-sue a company that does no business except by licensing its patents?

Re: Dav2d

#187

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

CodesInChaos wrote: post #186
jorvi wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. The Dolby/Disney vs Snapchat lawsuit is going to be the first one. So far it's only been filed. The big question is if AOMedia is going to make good on their Mutually Assured Destruction promise of using their patent and financial war chest to to countersue into oblivion anyone trying to go after AV1 adaptors.

How would they counter-sue a company that does no business except by licensing its patents?

At the very least, you go through all of their patents and try to get them invalidated by the hundreds.

Re: Dav2d

#188

Post by eks391 »

thayne wrote: post #169
eks391 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've gotten several comprehensive responses so far and I want to add a niche corner that people might assume might not have the bot problem but still does. I run a website that hosts tools for my family: games and a TV interface for the kids, remote access to our family cloud and cameras, etc. Sensitive things require log in and have additional parameters required for access of course. I specifically blocked bots f…

> I assume then, that the only way a bot could even find my site is to do what the indexers do: brute force try every single possible ipv4 address hoping to hear something back, as my domain should not be known If your site uses https, they could also get your domain from the certificate transparency logs for the certificate you use.

I didn't think of that, but that makes complete sense, as it is https. I think my info was sold by my registrar as well because solicitors call or email me on occassion because they "accidentally came across my site" and want to provide the design/js/etc help.

Re: Dav2d

#189

Post by Dylan16807 »

dylan604 wrote: post #174
simlevesque wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then how can there be a decoder if it's not final ?

You seem to be unfamiliar with the concepts of alpha and beta or other pre-release software. Seems a strange thing to be unfamiliar though in 2026

No, they're pointing out how the logic they're replying to is flawed.

If there can be a decoder, there can be an encoder.

Re: Dav2d

#190

Post by Dylan16807 »

hulitu wrote: post #132
jzebedee wrote: post #2

Project description: dav2d is the fastest AV2 decoder on all platforms :) Targeted to be small, portable and very fast. If you're out of the loop like me: AV2 is the next-generation video coding specification from the Alliance for Open Media (AOMedia). Building on the foundation of AV1, AV2 is engineered to provide superior compression efficiency, enabling high-quality video delivery at significantly lower bitrates.…

> AV2 is the next-generation video coding specification from the Alliance for Open Media Oh no. Not another one. I presume this one makes lossy better, or faster or both.

Why do you not want another one? We're approaching a decade since AV1 released. There's plenty of improvement to put into a new format.
Post reply on HN