| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
revgen
Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Posts: 3
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tom.W
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 6637
|
 Link Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:43 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Strange for a first post.... 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Link Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
This was posted on "that other AV site" yesterday - the discussion rapidly diverged from uses of the master key into the legality of copying content and the irrationality of the music/movie industry. You know, sh*t that's been discussed elsewhere ad nauseum.
Early on I asked the question if this could be used to remove HDCP from the signal chain to prevent a new HDMI handshake every time the resolution or frame rate changes. I have a BDP-80 feeding a Lumagen XE in source direct mode, and sometimes there are 7 or 8 different handshakes during the process leading up to watching a movie, which gets down right annoying.
I know the HD Fury does this sort of thing, but I don't want an analog signal, I just want to bypass the HDCP.
_________________
| ecrabb wrote: | | Curt Palme wrote: | | Interesting, Mac isn't returning my emails. Go figure. |
He's mad at us for making Hog a moderator. He took his ball and went home.
SC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
revgen
Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Posts: 3
|
| Link Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tom.W wrote: | | Strange for a first post.... |
Thank you for answering my question.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom.W
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 6637
|
| Link Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Because I don't know the answer. Send him a PM...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
perisoft
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 2920
Location: Ithaca, NY
|
| Link Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HogPilot wrote: | | sometimes there are 7 or 8 different handshakes during the process leading up to watching a movie, which gets down right annoying.. |
  
  
  
I'll bet.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
perisoft
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 2920
Location: Ithaca, NY
|
| Link Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Any bets on how long before the industry tries to stuff the cat back into the bag by suing anyone who publishes, links to, links to links to, or thinks about discussing linking to the key? I'm gonna go with 9 days - just enough to ensure that there's no possible way they can stop it. 
| Quote: | | "For someone to use this information to unlock anything, they would have to implement it in silicon -- make a computer chip," Waldrop told Fox News, and that chip would have to live on a dedicated piece of hardware -- something Intel doesn't think is likely to happen in any substantial way. |
ICE anyone? Anybody know what kind of number crunching is required to use this thing, and why a suitably beefy FPGA or even a normal computer with the right I/O couldn't do it with emulation? Are there timing requirements that somehow prevent this being possible?
Either way, I wouldn't be getting too haughty about the key being impractical now that it's been broken, given that they were haughty about it being unbreakable not too long ago.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Link Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | "For someone to use this information to unlock anything, they would have to implement it in silicon -- make a computer chip," Waldrop told Fox News, and that chip would have to live on a dedicated piece of hardware -- something Intel doesn't think is likely to happen in any substantial way. |
What else WOULD they say?!!?
All the grief the content owners gave the CE industry to make them lock everything down so they'd give up their precious content in HD, and now the two main methods for locking down said content are both cracked.
As somebody already pointed out, the only thing that scares me is what they'll want to try to come up with try to replace HDCP.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
perisoft
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 2920
Location: Ithaca, NY
|
| Link Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: |
As somebody already pointed out, the only thing that scares me is what they'll want to try to come up with try to replace HDCP. |
Yep. My guess is that since blacklisting (in this case, preventing you from playing/copying certain things) has failed, they're going to move to whitelisting (only allowing you to play certain things). It's incredibly draconian, but like you said, they're up against the wall.
This seems somewhat more likely given that Intel is looking at implementing whitelisting at the chip hardware level - no unsigned code on your PC, period. If the binary hasn't been signed by (whoever), no runny - so, no independent software developer like Slysoft could get their code signed, and with the binaries locked out at the hardware level, it will be tough to break. Essentially it'd turn PCs into a walled garden like most phones are.
Absurd, overreaching, destructive? Sure. But we're in a world where people are trying to force electronic devices to have FM radios in them, and where I have to pay the RIAA to put my own music on a CDR. There's already plenty of absurdity out there; we're just gradually getting used to it...
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkruger
Joined: 24 Oct 2007
Posts: 2435
Location: Carlsbad, CA
|
| Link Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| perisoft wrote: | | ecrabb wrote: |
As somebody already pointed out, the only thing that scares me is what they'll want to try to come up with try to replace HDCP. |
Yep. My guess is that since blacklisting (in this case, preventing you from playing/copying certain things) has failed, they're going to move to whitelisting (only allowing you to play certain things). It's incredibly draconian, but like you said, they're up against the wall.
This seems somewhat more likely given that Intel is looking at implementing whitelisting at the chip hardware level - no unsigned code on your PC, period. If the binary hasn't been signed by (whoever), no runny - so, no independent software developer like Slysoft could get their code signed, and with the binaries locked out at the hardware level, it will be tough to break. Essentially it'd turn PCs into a walled garden like most phones are.
Absurd, overreaching, destructive? Sure. But we're in a world where people are trying to force electronic devices to have FM radios in them, and where I have to pay the RIAA to put my own music on a CDR. There's already plenty of absurdity out there; we're just gradually getting used to it... |
Seems to me they would slip this into the hardware without telling anyone and turn it on once they had saturated the market with the chips.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nashou66
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 16171
Location: West Seneca NY
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom.W
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 6637
|
| Link Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2010 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
SC[/quote]
Any bets on how long before the industry tries to stuff the cat back into the bag by suing anyone who publishes, links to, links to links to, or thinks about discussing linking to the key? I'm gonna go with 9 days - just enough to ensure that there's no possible way they can stop it.
| Quote: | | "For someone to use this information to unlock anything, they would have to implement it in silicon -- make a computer chip," Waldrop told Fox News, and that chip would have to live on a dedicated piece of hardware -- something Intel doesn't think is likely to happen in any substantial way. |
ICE anyone? Anybody know what kind of number crunching is required to use this thing, and why a suitably beefy FPGA or even a normal computer with the right I/O couldn't do it with emulation? Are there timing requirements that somehow prevent this being possible?
Either way, I wouldn't be getting too haughty about the key being impractical now that it's been broken, given that they were haughty about it being unbreakable not too long ago.[/quote]
Exactly why I was a little suspicious after reading the first post.............. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Link Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2010 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From the article:
"There are many things you can do with the master key. If you are a manufacturer who doesn't want to pay the HDCP licensing fees (see below), you can generate your own device keys at will. Attempts to blacklist your devices will fail since essentially now all HDCP devices are compromised. Since the device keys go into making up the session key for the audio and video encryption, you can build unauthorized eavesdropping devices that will allow you to view or hear or—ominously for the MPAA and RIAA—record supposedly protected content. And you can make your device appear to another connected HDCP device as if it were a different model made by a different company by imitating its HDCP behavior right down to its private device keys."
Now we just need to find someone with the technical expertise for building an "eavesdropping device" - anyone want to take a shot at it? 
_________________
| ecrabb wrote: | | Curt Palme wrote: | | Interesting, Mac isn't returning my emails. Go figure. |
He's mad at us for making Hog a moderator. He took his ball and went home.
SC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Photo Albums
Register
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
