Re: Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- From: Joseph2k <joseph2k@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 04:46:41 GMT
Joerg wrote:
> Hello John,
>
>
>>>That would last a week or so. By then some kid would have found out how
>>>to hack it anyway.
>>
>> That's an unfortunate assumption. I hear it a lot, and I'd like to hear
>> it a lot less, because it isn't even valid.
>>
>
> That's what Bill Gates' engineers always thought as well.
>
>
>> Nobody has managed to crack VideoCipher encryption on C-band satellite
>> TV, despite the fact that it's been around since, when, the 1980s?
>>
You must have forgot about the "captain midnight" episode. The perpetrator
even overrode the uplink. Boxes were available in the 1990's but have
disappeared since.
>
> Ahem. A friend of ours was inquiring about the cost of sat TV south of
> the border. He was told that he'd just have to buy these things here and
> from then it's free. Sometimes it may quit. Then he should just come
> back and it'll be fixed for free, they said. That was a shop that's been
> around a while, not from the back of a truck.
>
>
>> Nobody managed to crack the triple-DES protection on Divx DVDs.
>>
No silicon is available that will do triple-DES at video rates. Therefore
triple-DES is used for key management. That key and the encryption
algorithm MUST be cheap enough for inclusion in consumer equipment (no more
than $1 in volume). Please checkout Linux Xvid algorithms which are
purportedly compatible.
>> No private entity has managed to crack PCS or GSM encryption... or if
>> they have, they've kept it damned quiet.
There is no encryption there to crack.
>>
>> When they start to get serious about HDMI content protection, I wouldn't
>> be surprised if nobody ever cracks that, either, except by using gray-
>> market chipsets whose keys will probably be revoked at the first sign of
>> popularity.
>>
You misunderstand the always fatal flaw in mass marketed encryption. It
must always be cheap enough to sell, therefore it will never be strong
enough to actually protect.
>
> In the end it's all a question of market size for bootleg stuff. If
> large enough, someone may eventually hack.
>
>
>> It is not a good idea to rely on the generosity of hackers to fight
>> unfair and unconstitutional laws for you. Only stupidly-weak or broken
>> encryption (e.g., CSS on DVDs or or WEP on WiFi) can be cracked by, or
>> on behalf of, consumers. The industry is rapidly evolving resistance to
>> that kind of stupidity. We won't see another CSS-quality implementation
>> on HD-DVD or BluRay... you can bet on that. If they want to control how
>> you use it, they will.
>>
Actually we already have.
>
> I don't use any bootleg stuff. For moral reasons and also because
> today's entertainment is mostly rather disgusting in nature. We do not
> even own a DVD player. But I resent it when stuff prevents me from
> normal and legal use of equipment. Or when some gvt slaps an automatic
> guilt assumption penalty on regular gear, like the copyright tax that
> Germany wants to leverage on all new PCs. That's wrong. I hope the
> voters there will be smart next time.
>
Mostly agreed, it is one of the reasons i use Linux.
> Regards, Joerg
>
> http://www.analogconsultants.com
reply interstitial
--
JosephKK
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- From: Keith Williams
- Re: Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- From: Frithiof Andreas Jensen
- Re: Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- From: Michael A. Terrell
- Re: Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- References:
- Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- From: Winfield Hill
- Re: Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- From: John Larkin
- Re: Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- From: cs_posting
- Re: Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- From: John Larkin
- Re: Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- From: John Miles
- Re: Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- From: John Larkin
- Re: Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- From: John Miles
- Re: Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- From: Joerg
- Re: Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- From: John Miles
- Re: Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- From: Joerg
- Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- Prev by Date: Re: Annual Power Consumption Summary
- Next by Date: Re: small signal NPN transitor for muting microphone
- Previous by thread: Re: Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- Next by thread: Re: Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|