

HDCP Encryption Cracked, Details Unreleased Due To DMCA 362
Lord_Pall writes: "There's a very good article on SecurityFocus about a Dutch cryptographer. He apparently has cracked the HDCP video encryption standard, but won't release the research for fear of reprisals under the DMCA."
Update: 08/15 06:10 PM by J : Meanwhile, see
Keith Irwin's paper
which has been released despite the DMCA.
Update: 08/15 07:00 PM by J :
And someone else points out
this old thing.
Everyone who hasn't written a paper on cracking HDCP raise your hand.
Keep it under wraps, for god's sake... (Score:2, Insightful)
Then they'll be stuck with a cracked encryption until the next generation format comes out. Of course they'll have to make that generation much better (DVD vs VHS, for example or CD vs cassette, or HD-DVD vs DVD) or nobody will convert. It's ten-plus more years of freedom, IMHO.
Long live the cycle!
Long arm of the law (Score:3, Insightful)
Good, I say. Serves 'em right. Once something people want to steal is released with the format, then the details will come out, and people will steal it. By not quashing discussion, they might have been able to fix it while still in R&D, but by taking the I'm-putting-my-head-in-the-sand approach, they're shooting themselves in the foot.
Re:Long arm of the law (Score:2)
Regarding making it more secure, tough. It's not our job to make sure Intel's security is good. We were the ones doing them the favor by showing it's not secure before they throw it out to the world.
The dominos start to fall (again?) (Score:4, Interesting)
Other countries will leap ahead in encryption abilities, while the US rests on i ts DMCA laurels. Brings back memories of the smaller, more efficient, more reli able cars from Japan and Europe in the 60's and 70's that caught Detroit by surp rise. Took them 10 or 15 years to catch up.
Unfortunately, as long as there is money to be had from lobbyists, there will al ways be legislative sand for our politicians to stick their heads in.
"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."
They are so stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Intel spokesperson Daven Oswalt says the company has received several reports from people claiming that they have broken HDCP. But he says none have held up, and the company remains confident in the strength of the system.
...and yet all of these companies still think that the DMCA is good for them.
It's amazing how on how many levels the DMCA is a bad idea. It's squelching freedom of speech, and it's preventing the companies from producing technical systems that can effectively produce total control over their customers. Of course, the free-speech-squelching part is serving the total control purpose, and since it's the executive and legal divisions of the companies that decide what the companies "want," they probably are happier that way. And that is the real tragedy-- that and the fact that they can US legislation.
(To be fair, given the description of the attack, Intel is probably right that it still does prevent "casual copying." On the other hand, it angers me that they're trying to prevent casual (including fair use) copying, but don't mind that somebody willing to invest some money in hardware and a couple of weeks can start producing bootleg devices. Who's their real enemy here? Customers trying to exert fair use rights (and, yeah, maybe occasionally illegally copying content)? Or overseas customers producing and selling wholesale bootleg copies?)
-Rob
Re:They are so stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, these guys aren't after The Ultimate Unbreakable Encryption Mechanism. They're after something that will prevent the average person from gaining "unauthorized access" to their content. And as you note yourself, they aren't after the guys generating bootleg copies. They want to prevent the average person from being able to make useful copies of their content.
Why?
Simple: their goal is pay-per-view/use. They want to be able to rent their content out to people, and prevent said people from ever having a permanent copy. Because a permanent copy obviously defeats their ability to rent that same content to whoever has that permanent copy.
The reason this will work is that most people (obviously) aren't technically inclined and aren't capable or even interested in cracking copy protection schemes, nor are they interested in going through the trouble of "going around" the problem (e.g., by recording to analog media). They just want to view the content.
The Big Corporations know this. They're counting on it. But they need something like the DMCA to pull it off. Why?
Because they know that it's fundamentally impossible to create a crackproof system. So instead of directing their energies towards that goal, they directed it towards creating the DMCA. If people are prevented by law from creating or distributing the means to crack content control systems, then companies can successfully force pay-per-view content down the throats of the people.
The corporations also know that eventually a content control cracking mechanism will become available to the general public anyway. So when it does, they know that it can't do anybody any good if the general public can't easily get its hands on it. Why do you think they're working so hard to shut down P2P distribution mechanisms? By doing so, they successfully remove the means for the average person to get their hands on content-control cracking mechanisms and the content that would result from the use of said mechanisms.
The corporations don't care about the rights of the people. They only care about their money. They will do everything in their power to get it. The only difference I see between them and the mafia is that the corporations use law enforcement itself as their strong arm.
Re:They are so stupid (Score:2)
Re:They are so stupid (Score:2)
Only one person needs to retrieve the master key. The master key could be used to mass-produce HDCP descramblers. After that, casual copying would be possible without buying 4 PCs and 50 displays.
Anonymous is good (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Anonymous is good (Score:2)
Re:Anonymous is good (Score:2)
Will the DMCA hurt encryption badly? (Score:5, Insightful)
There was a time when encryption was done to ensure it couldn't be broken. Now it seems like organziations are using the DMCA as a way to prop up bogus standrads that are dangerous due to their flaws (*cough*ebook*cough*)
Its hard enough trying to explain why Dimitry should be freed. But how can you convince a legislator or govt official that the DMCA is bad for encryption without risking prosecution? Its a scary catch 22.
Even though the Dimitry case is getting some press (Time Mag had a 2 page article - well written), I still only see proposals to slightly change the law. Not enough to allow full reverse engineering for research and the ability to expose flaws in products. Seriously - an encryption standard used to say encrypt some copyrighted work gets hacked, the victims sue showing why its such a bad encryption std and the lawyers for teh company using the bad encryption get it disqualified because its illegal to bypass encryption or copyright schemes.
Far fetched, maybe, but I really fear we will continue to see substandard encryption schemes passed off as workable because folks are less likely to publicize flaws in them if they are tied to teh DMCA.
Sure this may help open encryption standards, but we all know where the commerical money goes, so goes the world. Bad encryption standards used for IP materials and protected by the DMCA would soon be sold to businesses for privacy and such - exposing those businesses to serious exposure since the encryption std is probably less secure due to less folks trying to find flaws for fear of prosecution.
Maybe we need a contest - free tshirt to the person who manages to come up with the Chicken Little 'the sky is falling' explanation for why the DMCA is bad that'll get Joe six-pack up in arms :)
Re:Will the DMCA hurt encryption badly? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Will the DMCA hurt encryption badly? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know about you, but I'm hardly losing sleep knowing that anyone who breaks into my house at night can subvert the encryption on my DVDs and watch "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" even if they aren't in region 1.
This whole DMCA nonesense affects copyright protection schemes, not all encryption. The people who lose are the content producers, not the everyday users. These same content producers are the ones who (arguably) benefit from the encryption cracks from being widespread -- remember that these encryption systems are all about trying to maximize profitability, rather than trying to maintain 100% protection at all costs.
Re:Will the DMCA hurt encryption badly? (Score:2)
The problem is that encryption simply cannot work as copy protection for mass market media. It dosn't matter how good the actual encryption is the system requires you to hand over decryption tools to everyone.
There was a time when encryption was done to ensure it couldn't be broken.
There is no such thing as unbreakable encryption. All it does is make it difficult to extract information. For protecting commercial or military secrets it works quite well. e.g. if you are going to attack a target in 2 days time and it would take the enemy 3 weeks to break whatever encryption you use then attempting to break the encryption is pointless.
When it comes to protecting copyrighted works the information is valuable for nearly a century.
Re:Will the DMCA hurt encryption badly? (Score:4, Informative)
Newsweek has also has a very anti-DMCA article on their now hosted MSNBC website.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/612847.asp [msnbc.com]
Read the article and give it a "10" at the bottom so that it might show up under the MSNBC Viewer's Top 10 list and people will find out about this.
Re:Will the DMCA hurt encryption badly? (Score:2, Informative)
jeb.
DMCA makes encryption a dubious concept (Score:2, Insightful)
Imagine the people who design & use encryption standards as the occupants of a castle, and the hackers are trying to use a battering ram to enter the facility. Thanks to DMCA, the walls are padded, so the people inside don't hear the pounding of a battering ram on their door. The king overruled the castle engineers who wanted a thicker door. "No need for that", says the king. "My DMCA padded walls will take care of the noise, therefore I proclaim that the hacker problem is solved!" Of course, when the door gives way, it will be quite a suprise to the occupants!
Re:DMCA makes encryption a dubious concept (Score:2)
Thanks to DMCA and rabid lawyers, we're creating an "underground internet" that generally ignores the law.
This may not be completely true now, but I can see it coming. Look how easily the loose network of home based BBS systems sprouted up in the 80's. At its hieght I think there were 30,000 BBS operating in the US alone. Today of course a network of single line, modem based BBS's sounds silly, but what about the wireless networks people are setting up in some of the larger cities and giving free access to anyone passing by. Is it possible using 802.* to relay from network to network ? If it is possible I can see an underground internet developing, free from government control and commercial exploitation.
Re:DMCA makes encryption a dubious concept (Score:2)
Not only that they also expect the "walls" to protect long after battering rams have been superceded as front line weapons. The kind of "castle" they need is one of the Chyeanne mountain complex, but instead they have one built out of balsa wood.
Peer review to strengthen encryption (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Will the DMCA hurt encryption badly? (Score:2)
Ostriches anyone? (Score:2, Funny)
Oswalt went on to say, "If anyone DOES substantiate their claims, we'll sue the pants off 'em."
In other news, Intel will be holding a decryption contest. The winner will be presented with a fine of up to $150,000!
Essay by Ferguson (Score:5, Informative)
This is a very good essay. It does an excellent job of explaining the problem with the DMCA succinctly, and in a manner than anyone can understand. I'm going to keep this link and use it whenever I want to explain the problem with the DMCA to someone non-technical.
Re:Essay by Ferguson - how to 'publish' (Score:3, Interesting)
However, fearing retribution/elimination from Big Oil/Energy Corporations and Governments With Vested Interests, he did not attempt to publish or patent his discovery, although it would be for the common good of humanity.
Instead, he incorporated obfuscated and watered-down versions of the technology into consumer products where they would result in some respectable but unobtrusive energy savings.
He then worked to ensure that, over the years, these products became commodity items throughout the world, knowing that, with time, they would be reverse-engineered by various people, and eventually improved on until the original mechanism emerged into common knowledge and the public domain, throughout the developed and developing countries.
Do researchers need to resort to such tactics of stealth and obfuscation in order to indirectly "publish" their results - hide bits and pieces of the solution in various unconnected publications, until someone is able to piece the fragments together ?!
Short story (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know about that particular story, but a good one along the same lines was written by Robert Heinlein: "Let There Be Light", published along with others in "The Man Who Sold the Moon".
In "Let There Be Light", a scientist discovers a method for building nearly 100% efficient solar panels. At first keeps it secret, and manufactures them himself. However, the oil companies file frivolous lawsuits against him, hire thugs to burn down his factory, torch his demonstration solar car, and threaten violence against his person. So finally he patents it, goes to the big papers, and gives them a big juicy story, on the condition that they also publish all of the technical details. Oh, and openly licenses it for pennies a square yard.
It is a shame that we may have to take the same route, but getting technical details published in a big publication like the New York Times, the Washingon Post, or the Chicago Tribune would be a good way to go. Especially the New York Times. What judge would censor the "Grey Lady"? She's nearly as sacrosant as the Statue of Liberty. Joe Sixpack might not care if some IEEE or ACM publication is censored, but the New York Times is one of the most respected papers in the nation, if not worldwide.
There's no need to hide your publication, but just make it painfully obvious that censoring the publication of these ideas is a direct affront to First Amendment rights.
Re:Sue all the world (Score:2)
As far as I know, Arafat and Saddam aren't being sued under Belgian law; however, the prime minister of Israel is being sued for an atrocity committed by Lebanese Christians. No one is charging any Lebanese, though.
The Belgians have already locked up a couple of Rwandans, because some people walking down the street identified them as being involved in the Rwandan genocide. Imagine, no forensic evidence, the crime occurs in another jurisdiction, and there are people in jail for life. Since Rwanda can't bomb the shit out of Belgium, there's no worries about doing this. But you better believe that if anyone tried to do this to a Russian (Chechnya) or Chinese (Tibet) official, Belgium would be a smoking crater.
I wish I could pass laws to lock up random people, too.
-jon
The point is the Felten case (Score:2, Insightful)
If Ferguson says that he has broken a protocol you can be sure he has done so. The expected outcome of the DMCA case is for the censorship provisions of the act to be struck down. So Ferguson has to expect to be able to publish soon.
The DMCA does have some interesting side effects however. Nobody can ever be sure the DRM technology they buy works, the lack of peer review and discussion means that there is a level playing field between the many peddlers of snake oil and the legit players.
Another effect is that anybody can mount a reputation attack against any scheme.
In related news (Score:5, Funny)
I have decrypted the secret code in the Bible, correlated it with the secret codes of the Baghavad Ghita, Talmud and Qur'an and now now the inner thoughts of all gods. I have unified field theory and quantum theory and will soon have a device that will bend all matter to my will.
I know the secrets of teleportation, telekinesis, telepathy, and how to get women to want me. I know the secrets of every three-letter agency in government, the Psychic Friends network, and the US Postal Service.
Unfortunately, due to the nature of the DMCA, I am unable to share my findings with others. I suppose I'll have to get on my FTL spaceship and find a more genial planet. Ta-ta!
Re:In related news (Score:2)
It's not very high on my list of priorities. First is unbuttoning the top blouse button on the well-endowed cutie sitting across from me with telekinesis. Second, is the next button. Third would be the button below that. But fourth, well that's all dependendent on whether it's a front-snap or back-snap bra. Fifth? Haven't got that far yet. Depending on how successful the first four are, it might have something to do with manual - uh, I mean mental - stimulation of my umm, privates, under my desk, with my hands in plain sight.
Might be hard to explain the stain, though. I'll put Hoffa down as a tentative sixth.
It's spooky to read a document while someone ... (Score:2)
-russ
DMCA: Best FUD tool ever created! (Score:2, Funny)
Now we can FUD any copy restriction technology top death by claiming that we broke it, and refusing to give any details due to the threat of prosecution under DMCA!
The question is, would this be effective enough to get the media companies to stop using it?
Chilling effect on research and free speech! (Score:2)
Hehe. Two can play this game! (Score:2)
Another thing: Once some other expert claims that he also has cracked HDCP, but of course can't divulge the details, Ferguson or the other guy can leak the information to the net, and "they" will have no way of knowing which of the guys who leaked it.
Old news (Score:3, Informative)
A description of a fatal weakness [cryptome.org] in HDCP's was published by Scott A. Crosby a few days after the specs was published, and was independently discovered by many others. Crosby's attack appears to have the capabilities claimed by Ferguson and has negligible computational cost (inversion of a 40x40 matrix). It requires the built-in keys of any 40 HDCP devices, but this is presumably easy to achieve in the presence of software-based HDCP implementations).
Thus the new feature of Ferguson's attack is probably a way to extract the keys without actually hacking any device, but rather by talking to intact devices via the normal protocol. While this is interesting, HDCP should already be considered broken in light of known attacks.
It's not just vanity (Score:4, Informative)
Imho his goal is not getting his paper published, but getting people to think about the consequences of these laws. Unfortunately, this the only way we foreigners can protect our rights abroad.
Linked to this, in Europe a 'law' is being prepared (due Sept 3rd I believe) which forces a country to assist another country to eavesdrop (snif Internet traffic) on a user if he (she) did an illegal act in that OTHER country. To link this with a previous link (thanks for the thought), if China were to be part of such agreement, every couple with 2 or more kids could forget its privacy...
Joost
Me Too ... Me Too ... (Score:2, Troll)
Me too, and here's where you can get it: (Score:3, Funny)
http://russnelson.com/pads/pad-md5-10bd774315b8
It's encrypted. It's also copyrighted. If you decrypt it, you bring down the wrath of the DMCA on yourself. So don't decrypt it.
-russ
Good! (Score:5, Funny)
That means the HDCP consortium can continue on their merry way to rolling out their video solution...and then after we have all this great content available...THEN we can have someone release the information (I see Lawrence Lessig waving his hand there in the back).
Think about it. If the Crack SDMI has come back with nothing but failure...then maybe we would all have GB of juicy full-quality (minus watermarks, ahem) songs sitting on our harddrive awaiting a simple watermark snipper.
Thank you DMCA! Chilling research only delays the inevitable! It doesn't stop it!
- JoeShmoe
Poetic justice. (Score:3, Insightful)
Now the industry is starting to get this treatment because of its own heavy-handedness. If some FUDster claims he can crack $ANTIPIRACYTECHNOLOGY but won't prove it, no one will will be able to call his bluff effectively.
Meanwhile, full-quality bootlegs continue to pour out of Taiwan. Society has nothing but reduced rights and privileges to show for all this.
Re:Good! (Score:2)
Question - how much noise and pain until we feel the shift away from this awful law? Each time I read articles like the above I just feel worse about our country (USA). Sure I give my money to the EFF, but it takes SO DAMN long to fix something that was wrong to begin with!
Grumpy and mad
Umm...what's all the hubbub? (Score:2)
Stronger encryption, not stronger laws. (Score:2)
As it is, companies are being taught that 'pretty strong encryption' and 'pretty strong laws' combine for a secure solution based on a mix of technical difficulty and fear of persecution. Maybe they should take a look at the AES [nist.gov] and realize there are better, more community-oriented ways of creating secure solutions instead of creating half-assed systems and persecuting those who prove just how half-assed they are.
Also, isn't it interesting that when it's their encryption it's 'anti-piracy' and when it's your encryption it's 'privacy'?
WHEW!!! (Score:2)
Of course, this won't stop people from pirating the movies. This will go on as normal, as people who are outright willing to break the law will do so anyways, and if he was able to break the encryption, so will others. But the good news is, it will be ILLEGAL according to the DMCA, so these pirates are officially BAD PEOPLE and therefore will have no effect on the Movie Industry, because they don't count. Only people who can compete count, because they actually have the opportunity of creating products legally without paying licensing fees. The world is a better place with the DMCA indeed.
-Restil
(This is sarcasm. moderate appropriately)
The Complete Document (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.macfergus.com/niels/dmca/index.html
Very good stuff. Too bad they didn't link it in the story.
Re:The Complete Document (Score:2)
Yes, this is informative. But this [macfergus.com] is helpful.
Very good stuff. Too bad you didn't link it in your post.
DMCA is International? (Score:2)
Re:DMCA is International? (Score:2)
Re:DMCA is International? (Score:2)
Hint: Its called "reading the article before posting".
The guy travels to the USA "regularly for both personal and professional reasons".
Ferguson's Mistake (Score:4, Insightful)
"You can be sure that somehow, somewhere, someone will duplicate my results especially because I am telling them that I have results," says Ferguson. "Someone who is braver, who has less money, and who doesn't travel to the U.S."
This, right here, is his mistake. If, in the near future, those master keys are published, I bet a nickel that Ferguson gets hauled up for a lawsuit (or perhaps even criminal prosecution), for exactly the reasons that he states here himself. It's extremely stupid, but on the other hand, I can easiliy see an overpaid bunch of useless humanity (i.e. corporate lawyers) effectively convincing judges and law enforcement officials that Ferguson should be liable. They would be right that he probably helped along other efforts to crack the encryption doing nothing more letting people know that it was possible. Ferguson's mistake is in thinking that the dunderheads who thought that arresting Sklyarov was a good idea will let him slide after he's said this.
The world is a cold, demon-haunted place nowadays. It sickens me to be a citizen of this country that so hypocritically prides itself on being free.
-Rob
Re:Ferguson's Mistake (Score:2)
We here in the US have a stupid law that says if I flip the bits in my content then it is "encrypted" and it is illegal for you to distribute a decryption device (a bit flipper).
However, if I find a "decrypted" copy of my content floating around the internet, all you have to do is say "look, it's just bit flipping, anyone with a basic knowledge of math could have decrypted it" and then at that point it is up to me to find something that conclusively pins it to you...like a copy of "BiTFLiPPER 1.2 by rkn0p" floating around.
- JoeShmoe
Re:Ferguson's Mistake (Score:2)
I don't think so. The matter at hand is "reasonable doubt" and I think it would be easy to produce reasonable doubt that Ferguson was the source of the master keys, especially if the protection is trivial.
IANAL, of course, but I believe that what you say here might only get him off in a criminal case. My understanding of civil law is such that all those great constitutional protections we enjoy under criminal law don't apply. E.g., "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't seem to apply, and I don't think that proof beyond a reasonable doubt applies either. Nor do I think that double jeapordy applies.
After all, OJ was found liable for Nicole's death under a civil lawsuit, even though the criminal courts decided that they couldn't convict him beyond a reasonable doubt. Think what you will about OJ and what the criminal courts did there, I was a little... surprised to find out that civil law meant that double jeapordy and reasonable doubt were out the window in that case. And you'd better believe that the MPAA has substantially more resources (i.e. killer-lawyer hiring ability) than Ron Goldman.
-Rob
Re:Ferguson's Mistake (Score:2)
that's right. the proof requirement is lower in a civil case.
normally, the prosecution in a criminal case needs to show that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. also normally, the plaintiff in a civil case needs to show that the defendant is liable on the balance of probabilities.
there are exceptions to both. and this only applies to anglo-american common-law countries.
there are other things too. generally, to show criminal liability, the prosecution needs to show a criminal intent. that is, the state of mind of the accused is relevant. usually that's not the case with civil trials.
the criminal intent requirement is probably Dmitry's biggest hope. the prosecution has to show that the accused either know or should have known that the conduct in question was illegal and wrong. his argument against would be, as a Russian citizen, he had no way to keep track of the intellectual property laws of every country in the world. he was just coding for his boss.
unfortunately, his arrest and the publicity surrounding it makes this argument weaker for any programmers in the future, like Ferguson.
Fake Sircam Infection (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's modify the Sircam virus, and send it to him! (Score:2)
I send you this file in order to "steal" your HDCP crack.
See you later. Thanks
Use Code Red to install Freenet (Score:2)
Could something like SirCam or another virus/worm be used as a distribuition method for information like this?
You could have a SirCam clone or a Code Red variant download and install the Freenet client and then request the hdcp crack.
Crypto-Gram (Score:4, Informative)
Fifty displays? (Score:2)
"An experienced IT person could recover the master key in two weeks
given four standard PCs and fifty HDCP displays,"
I'm sure there are a couple of experienced IT people around here, and most of them probably have four PCs sitting around their homes... now we just need to scratch up FIFTY FREAKING HDCP DISPLAYS. That's a lot of hardware!
Re:Fifty displays? (Score:2)
Try and verify these assumptions and start a distributed project...
Alias and Freenet (Score:2)
Addition to paper (Score:2, Interesting)
I added an addendum to the fourth attack and fixed some minor typos today. The addendum essentially demonstrates the fourth attack as practical in the real world and much quicker than previously though through the use of a birthday-paradox style attack.
Since I'm writing a reply, I'll also take a moment to mention Scott Crosby's short critique of HDCP. Roughly it's the same thing as the second part of my fourth attack. Essentially, it is correct, although he skips over the difficult issues such as the modulo 2^56 math without mentioning them. Myself and other did later show that one can do so with impunity, but it was a desire to hammer out these difficulties which was why my paper comes to the public after his rather than before. He has told me that he's now working on a more in depth paper with some other researchers. I suspect that it contains things not found in my own, although he hasn't explicitly told me as much.
I will also say that I view Ferguson's claims of being able to recover the whole of the master key (which I don't refer to by that name in my paper, but certainly agree that it exists in the form of some 1600 56-bit values) with some skepticism. In my attack, I describe how to get all but the left-most approximately 8 bits of each. To extract the whole thing as best I can tell requires solving sets of linear equations with no division by 2 at any point. Although there are certain sets of KSVs for which that could be done, I don't know how one would expect to reliably find such. My suspicion is that he has broken the fundamental cipher (which I do not do) but overlooked the same modulo 2^56 math gotcha that Crosby initially did. I am, of course, just speculating about that, however.
Keith
Duplication (Score:4, Insightful)
A good hint? DeCSS redux (Score:2, Insightful)
Under the DMCA, it is against the law to circumvent content protection schemes? Or is it against the law to disseminate such information?
In either case, the HDCP crack isn't being released, but 'a pretty good hint' has been given. Now, how 'good' must a 'hint' be before it violates the DMCA?
Say the 64 bit backdoor key to some encryption scheme is found to be 83A2FA8F.. Is it a 'good hint' to tell the word that the key is probably somewhere between 83A2FA80 and 83A2FA90? How about 83A20000 and 83A2FFFF?
We've seen DeCSS implemented in so many ways, not only machine executable but transcribable, artistic, and as a frigging Haiku even...
What makes the publication of a crack into a 'hint'? Could I just rattle off the source code, prefixed with a 'something like' and followed by a 'maybe', and be safe from persecution? Could I draw a few easily understood diagrams? Invent my own words for 'array', 'pointer', etc..
What if, as a 'hint', I tell only part of the implementation to one person, and part to another, and part to another?
Remember high-school? Did your teachers ever give 'hints'? Isn't that cheating? What if an employee of a company issued and unofficial 'hint', when they depart the payroll?
Re:A good hint? DeCSS redux (Score:2)
(Even if it only takes 4pcs, 50 devices and 2 weeks for a genius to hack; it is meer opinion that a professional could do it.
It isn't opinion whether the key is between "How about 83A20000 and 83A2FFFF?". Assuming you knew the key it would be fact, not speculation.
And definitly not opinion.
Re:A good hint? DeCSS redux (Score:2)
Very well. The key is somewhere between 00000000 and FFFFFFFF.
Now what do we do?
Next DMCA test - prosecution for doing research (Score:4, Insightful)
--CTH
prosecution for claiming vulnerability (Score:2)
Just think, if the laws were strong enough, you could just go back to ROT-13, because if anyone said 'Hey! That's ROT-13! That's easy to break!" then you could send them to jail.
Vs lbh'er ernqvat guvf, ynj rasbeprzrag jvyy neevir fubegyl. Erznva pnyz naq chg lbhe jrncba (vr, zbhfr) qbja.
Re:Next DMCA test - prosecution for doing research (Score:5, Funny)
Of course not. What, do you think some company is going to file charges and get the FBI to arrest someone from Russia just because they give a talk about their work in Vegas? Or that an industry trade group would threaten a lawsuit if a college professor tried to present a research paper? My god, people are paranoid around here! Next thing you know they'll be saying that the Big Corporations are trying to outlaw reverse engineering!
Re:Next DMCA test - prosecution for doing research (Score:2)
The courts, especially the criminal courts, understand that no matter HOW well something is locked up, it's still breaking and entering. Never in the history of US law has their been a case where the judge ruled for the defendant because the lock was too weak. Would you people *PLEASE!* stop making that argument!!! It's utterly useless.
What you should be arguing are the points that can be used effectively. These points include academic research and ability to share knowledge. (Knowledge and research without proof isn't knowledge so proof of concept code is virtually required in all cases.) Others could include reverse engineering; a topic related to academic research. How about "Public Safety" or "Public Interest" as an important point? Imagine "copyrighting food only to find later that they included some very tastey toxins? We're not allowed to know what we are eating? Yes, I know, but we aren't allowed to know what we are installing into our own PCs (regardless of whether we own the code or license or whatever.)? For me, that's a scary issue. I want to be able to "trust" the software industry but truthfully, we cannot trust ANY industry and we have butt-loads of other watchdog agencies "protecting the public" but we don't have one for software (yet). Ever wonder when that will happen?
So please, people, stop arguing the one point that continues to turn people AWAY from the validity of the arguments against the DMCA. It's a lock, effective or not, it's a lock. If it can be broken "accidentally" it's not a lock, but so far, I haven't seen one that can be broken accidentally.
Re:Next DMCA test - prosecution for doing research (Score:3, Informative)
It's the act of breaking the lock, not information, tools or ability that allow one to bypass the lock, that should be, and already was illegal.
Re:Duplication (Score:2)
Now I may be hopelessly naive or idealistic, but wouldn't the goal of selling HDCP compatible devices permit the disclosure of the system? Or can "they" really, legally, absolutely, limit the entry of independent 3rd-party hardware manufacturers to the game?
What if Diamond wanted to start selling HDCP displays, but didn't want to pay the $$$$ that they're probably requiring for membership in the "club"? This research could allow them to create fully functional, compliant, standards based displays.
As long as they don't deliberately leave backdoors in their display to give end-users access to the raw digital stream (which would make the display itself a circumvention device), they should be in compliance with DMCA, right?
And, since they developed the system after someone outside of DMCA jurisdiction (if there is such a place, truly) reverse-engineered it, there's no trade-secret violation, they've signed no NDAs, etc., so they're free to publish their spec, right?
Or is this just a pipe dream?
How do we get a decent-sized player like Rio to start selling DeCSS-based DVD players, publishing their spec as they go "so that other manufacturers can do the same"? :)
Re:Duplication (Score:2)
Thus you can interpret this as violating the 14th ammendment as well as the 1st...
What about The Press? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why don't people anonimously submit this sort of thing (cracks, weaknesses, bug reports) to news sources?
Would the papers be liable for printing someone elses 'approach', without necessarily verifying it's correctness first? After all, Deep Throat wasn't named to be right, he only gave 'hints' about Watergate...
I could see The Register, the Motley Fool, the Washington Post, or maybe just some online news source (ahem, slashdot, ahem) printing 'suggestions' from anonimous sources... And as 'reputable' guardians of Liberty (*sigh*) they would be able to claim the need to protect the identities of the submitters in order to maintain their 'professionalism', or some such...
How about it slashdot? Set up a PO Box where people could send neat stuff without a return address..
Meritocracy vs Freedom (Score:2)
Information may want to be Free, but will only be freed if the one letting it loose gets to take credit for doing so? That's hardly the idealism we've come to expect from the Linux crowd - though I do agree to a degree about the peer review.
Peer review can still be had however, if the originator can argue for the implementation without disclosing that they are in fact the source of the information.
Whatever happenned to scientific idealism? Doing the work for the benefit of mankind?
A TRUE hero is one who makes the sacrifice without even thinking of the recognition - in fact, one who realizes that he might be branded a traitor, or never acknowledged for his deeds, is a bigger hearo than anyone who is welcomed home to a ticker-tape parade.
Hmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Fermat's Last Theorem, revised. (Score:2, Funny)
Copyright, then ROT-13 the paper (Score:3, Funny)
ROT-13? (Score:2, Funny)
ROT-13???
Hell, publish it as an Adobe E-book
Unclean hands doctrine (Score:2)
Step 1) Violate the DMCA in some way to hurt the DMCA abusers
Step 2) Publish the violation in a manner such that retrieval of the information would require violation of the DMCA
AFAIK (IANAL), this appears to be a case of "in pari delicto" (see http://www.fifthdistrictcourt.com/dictionary/dict- p.htm) which basically says if both parties are committing a crime (i.e. we're both violating the DMCA), the judge may decide not to grant a remedy to either of us.
The catch is that this sort of behaviour runs squarely up against the "Unclean Hands Doctrine". In a nutshell, Unclean Hands protects the courst from assisting you in the commission of a crime. In other words, you cannot turn to the court and say "Well, I'm violating the DMCA, but if you'll agree that they're violating it to discover my violation then we can throw out their results".
BUT this then puts the onus on you to prove that Intel actually violated the DMCA, whereas there is a whole raft of ways that they can prove that you did. Intel can claim a third party provided them the document which means that they did not break the DMCA and thus you are screwed royally. As a civil suit, the evidence is admissible, even though the methods used to obtain the evidence may be in a legal grey area. Of course, you could go after the third party but at this point, you're over a barrel big time.
Of course, this takes lawyers (of which I am not one) and thus if you're even going to get into a situation where you attempt to raise this defense, you'd better have some deep pockets to hire lawyers go up against Intel. Even if you win, you're broke (a phyrric victory if I ever heard one).
Any real lawyers have a comment on this?
I found a hint on the KEY! (Score:4, Funny)
1
2 or 14
4
50
Therefore the key is:
12450 or
114450 or
12450 * 114450 = 1424902500 or
sqrt(12450^114450).
q.e.d.
Re:He is Dutch, DMCA doesn't apply (Score:4, Insightful)
However, even by claiming to have broken the encryption, he's placing himself at risk of being investigated, and possibly detained and questioned should he ever visit the US. (If I were to publicly announce that I had commited a crime, I would expect the authorities to take interest in me.)
Cheers,
Tim
Re:He is Dutch, DMCA doesn't apply (Score:2)
Kjella
Read your post again... (Score:2)
Go back and re-read that..
Then if you STILL don't see a problem, go read the US constitution (don't worry, you don't have to read the whole thing, just the first part.)
He was arrested for telling people what he had discovered.. now, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the First Amendment allow freedom of speech?
Re:He is Dutch, DMCA doesn't apply (Score:4, Informative)
You are probably right, as the DMCA is clearly intended to be used as a club to squelch information and discussion under the (woefully thin) guise of protecting copyright holders.
However
(If I were to publicly announce that I had commited a crime, I would expect the authorities to take interest in me.)
... even the DMCA hasn't made it illegal to figure out how to decrypt encrypted copyright material, but rather has made the trafficking in devices using that knowledge illegal. By announcing he's done it, but not sharing the methodology, he cannot in any way be said to have "trafficked" in a circumvention device. To do so he would have to publish, and this he has not done. Not that that will stop Intel or someone else affiliated with the Copyright Cartels from swearing out a false afidavit and falsely imprisoning this individual (and, interestingly, while the Sklyrov case goes forward I do not see anyone from Adobe being arrested for Perjury, which swearing out a false affidavit is
Of course, it is only a matter of time until someone does publish, probably anonymously, and DHCP dies the death it so richly deserves.
The software world, which relies on restricted copy priveleges (copyright) far more heavilly than even the Media Moguls of Hollywood and New York, learned over a decade ago just how futil copy protection schemes were. Instead, they chose to go another route, making serial-numbered copies traceable rather than uncopiable (something which has been shown mathematically to be myth in any event). Interestingly enough, having people's names attached to serialized copies of software had a chilling effect on copyright violation that no amount of copy-protection schemes and hardware dongles was able to achieve. It didn't eliminate it, but it sure cut down on the number of people willing to share their copies of software with anyone other than, at most, their closest friends.
The Copyright Cartels and Media Conglomerates refused to learn this obvious lesson, prefering instead to believe they have purchased protection through the DMCA sufficient to allow even the most flawed "copy protection" to stand through artificial threat with a government gun in contradiction to both information theory and basic physics in the physical world.
Of course, when "casual copying" has been mostly eliminated and fair use is dead, the industrial copyright violators will still be producing illegale wares in quantity, until they in turn are shut down using methods and laws which have been around for decades. Which underscores the real motivation and target behind MPAA and RIAA purchased legislation such as the DMCA: the individual consumer, not the commercial copyright violator.
Re:He is Dutch, DMCA doesn't apply (Score:2)
HDCP won't last one year if nobody buys it. Remember Digital Video Express (DIVX)? That's the death they richly deserve. The more money they lose on stupid ideas that nobody will buy, the less likely they'll try it again.
Re:He is Dutch, DMCA doesn't apply (Score:2, Interesting)
I refer you to US Code Title 17 section 1201, AKA the Digital Millennium Copyright Act:
Note the word manufacture. If he cracked the encryption, as opposed to just figuring out that it was possible, it's a crime under the DMCA even if he didn't distribute anything.Re:He is Dutch, DMCA doesn't apply (Score:2)
Re:He is Dutch, DMCA doesn't apply (Score:4, Informative)
Re:He is Dutch, DMCA doesn't apply (Score:3, Informative)
I know this guy, though I haven't talked with him for about six months. He does come to the USA periodically. His girlfriend is American and while they're both living in the Netherlands now, they do come over here once in a while. After the Sklyarov thing I'm not terribly surprised about his reluctance to come forth.
Last I knew, he was working with Bruce Schneier and Counterpane. It's possible that his connection to a US corporation also enters into the decision.
Re:He is Dutch, DMCA doesn't apply (Score:2)
DMCA-like legislation coming ot a country near you (Score:5, Informative)
--CTH
Re: He is Dutch, DMCA doesn't apply (Score:2)
Re:He didn't break it :) (Score:3, Informative)
That's the great about assymetric key encryption.
Re:He didn't break it :) (Score:2)
if he does that, he's still liable for prosecution. he's broken the encryption. he's proven that he's done it. he's manufactured a device for breaking the encryption. this device could be used to circumvent copy protection.
game over.
odds are, that a criminal prosecution against him would still fail. however, it could be launched, and he might find himself unable to leave the United States on his next visit, at least until the trial.
Re:He didn't break it :) (Score:2)
That would be a sneaky way to make an end-run areound the DMCA. This interesting piece of law actually allows for all sorts of stupid claims all across the board. It does not grant the copyright holders the protectioo that they think they might have. To actually win a case therefore has nothing to with the legality of the situation, but how much money you have.
Re:He didn't break it :) (Score:2)
And the really great thing about the DMCA is that he can't do anything to refute my trolling because it would expose him to civil or criminal liability (remember the DMCA even outlaws acts of circumvention, and given past experience I'd guess that that provision can be streched to apply outside US border as well).
This is exactly the position of Intel if you read the article...
Re:You can't legislate physics. (Score:2)
Re:You can't legislate physics. (Score:2)
It was Indiana, and the value was 3.0 (even). IIRC the govorner refused to sign the bill into law however.
Re:That's about as useful to me as (Score:2)
-russ
Re:send the results to me (Score:3, Interesting)
You forgot about the all the sex you can take [spr.org] part...
Seriously, those that are sitting around claiming that U.S. prisons are pieces of cake have obviously never been in one. My father, a minister, visits prisons all the times and it's not a nice place to be. Maybe if you're rich and in a fed prison for defrauding someone of 100 million bucks you're OK, but if you commit the more serious crime of holding up a 7-eleven for 20 bucks using the ole finger in the coat pocket trick, you get to do some hard time in a state pen...
p.s. slashdot can really suck at times. I try to be a nice @home customer and use their proxy servers to keep their inter-connect traffic down but whenever I try to post it says I can't cause my IP address has posted too many moded down posts recently. Well D'OH, that IP has a few million people behind it. Learn about how a proxy works guys. It just forces me to uncheck my proxy connection but then I can't post because I get an invalid key msg (probably cause my IP address changes). So I open up a new browser section, hit reply, copy/paste my reply over, and the bitch tells me I have to wait 20 seconds after hitting reply before I submit. Arrrgh...