Slashdot Mirror
Andre Hedrick On Hard Drive Copy Protection
How voluntary is voluntary?
by squiggleslash
Is making the CPRM spec a feature that can be turned off truly making it voluntary, given that presumably some content will not be supplied to users who fail to leave CPRM enabled? Would it not end up being as "optional" as DVD CSS encyption and non-zero region encoding?
Andre:
SHALL != MAY :: REQUIRED == OPTIONAL
Because no one in the industry wants to be caught out of sync, it has been a running joke that "OPTIONAL" is the same as "REQUIRED"....
HOWEVER, the case of CPRM got a laugh that it could be the first "OPTIONAL" feature that would remain truly "OPTIONAL"! We all laughed around the room.
DVD CSS is in the world of MMC/SCSI, I can not comment.
Choices...
by cnladd
I apologize for the open-endedness of this question, but I have to ask it anyways. :)
If this copy protection were to become mandatory, I can definately imagine the effects that it would cause. But what effects - both long and short term - do you feel this would cause?
Andre:
Sorry, I do not feel anything! If you wish to know what I THINK, then I will answer the question. The very nature of asking people how they feel about an issue allows one to wrap it in fuzzy language, and this is how we got into this mess. So THINK DAMN-IT do not FEEL, this is silicon and not flesh!
Think about all the software you own for backup -- WORTHLESS in a CPRM environment. OPEN wallets!!!!
Ever had a morning where you were not kissed and told "I love you," when the night before you SCREWED so wildly that you could not remember?
GOOD MORNING!!!!
How to defeat it?
by sulli
If this is forced through the industry, how would one write a DeCSS-like tool to defeat it? Is it in some way bypassable in software?
Andre:
Unlike DeCSS that has media with seed keys that can not be updated, ATA devices (not ATAPI) can be updated as old keys are hacked.
After creating my proposal, it was deemed too complex to use, thus the only way I would withdraw it was to use the simple rules of Word0 Bits 6/7 to define FIXED/REMOVABLE as the boundary.
Thus it appears that I have agreed to drop the no longer needed enable/disable CPRM feature set, because ATA-Devices supporting Word0 Bit6 set to ONE are not going to be allowed to have CPRM support!
Thus we may have finally won the removal of CPRM from your HARD DRIVE!!
WOOHOO WOOHOO WOOHOO WOOHOO WOOHOO WOOHOO!!!!!!!
Now your REMOVABLE ATA - that looks like it is going to be still bound to CPRM rules. Compact FLASH, IBM MicroDrives, Sony Mem-Stick.... Things that are defined as "MEDIA" and not FIXED!
Better solution?
by RareHeintz
The hard-drive copy protection scheme seems to me to be yet another attempt (in the vein of DVD/CSS, DPMI, etc.) to maintain a legal structure (that of multinational corporations with scarcity-based proprietary information models) with a technical fix. On /., it may be taken as an article of faith that such efforts are doomed - smart people solve legal problems with lawyers, and technical problems with technology, and know the difference.
My question, though, stems from the fact that (like it or not) software companies are within their rights to get paid for software they write, and to set up their own price structure, and to prosecute those who steal their software.
So the question is: If this misguided idea of hardware-based copy protection gets successfully scuttled (and I hope it does), what better solution might there be for proprietary-model software companies that has the benefit of providing them superior protection from pirates without screwing the rest of the world out of the benefits of the currently open hardware model, such as "fair use" under copyright law?
My US$.02: Coming up with such a "third way" solution could go a long way toward killing media-based copy protection - give them an out, and they might take it.
Andre:
Media serial number command proposal (e00163r0) by Microsoft, and for the record they are the good guys this time! Ths proposal has more uses than what it is listed. It also used this stuff that is already in the market that you do not know about but use, SURPRISE!!!! (I was also surprised).
This new command could be used a seed for encrypting content, but before you go NUTS - This command is only reporting sections of the IDENTIFY page command. NOT TO WORRY, 30 (thirty) minutes and the HACK to disable it is complete......
It has uses more valuable to Linux than what it is presented as... Imagine that you want automatic hotswap to de/re-register the device, this command is passive and thus will not hang a system....THINK before you COMPLAIN, because I agree technically with the command, and see no harm from it that cannot be undone.
How does 4C justify their position?
by plover
What is 4C's reponse to "why don't you push for enforcement of the current copyright laws instead of an unpopular techno "fix" that will be thwarted upon release?" How do they justify their position?
Andre:
Most likely the law passed 2 years ago that provides and supports copyright encryption. Ask John Gilmore of the EFF. I think they are doing that with this model.
(Politics) If people will get off their butts and follow what their government is dumping on the country, you would be able to prevent this from ever coming to life.
Re:How does 4C justify their position?
by Snowfox
How does the 4C justify their position to the consumer? How is this in the consumer's best interest?
Andre:
Don't you what to download the movies you would not pay 7-10 bucks to see at the theater, in exchange for screwing up your computer? Boycott Hollywood and all movies, and see them crumble, is a counter-attack.
I'm still confused
by HuskyDog
I gain the impression that compliant (presumably closed source) software encrypts data as it flows on and off the drive using keys which are specific to each drive. So, if the file is moved to a different drive it won't decrypt any longer? Have I got the right idea? If so, its only applicable to those prepared to run closed source software, right?
Andre:
BINGO! Give that DOG a DOOLY from the FAIR! (GOOD MORNING!!!!, again)
Enforcement on Open Source platforms
by TWX_
How can copy protection of data be maintained on hard disks and other media if the operating system has the ability to use partition types that encrypt? Wouldn't a layer in an OS kernel be able to circumvent a good portion of the measures if the data does not reach the drive in its original form?
Andre:
No, the DIRTY work is done in USER-SPACE and the file is written down with standard commands now. The XOR calculations originally proposed for the drive would have made the DRIVE do the DIRTY work.
Is this already approved for SCSI and Firewire?
by VValdo
Last week we read that a copy-control scheme similar or identical to CPRM has been already approved for SCSI and Firewire (without objection...probably because no one knew about it.)
First off, is it true? Secondly, why hadn't we heard about this before? Can we expect this technology to be built into all new SCSI and Firwire hardware, or is "optional" there too?
Andre:
It is my impression that the game is over there, but join T10 and raise HELL!
What can we do to help you?
by rho
This proposal is a tragedy to personal liberties and freedoms (and rates pretty high on the Suck-o-Meter), and your efforts thus far are admirable.
So, I want to know, what can we do to help? Letter writing, calls, faxes? Stand around and go "Brrbbrrbb" with our lips?
How can we aid your efforts in the most effective way?
Andre:
Well it appears that everyone has ruined the Christmas vacation of the current officers, (I am glad that I did not accept the potential offer to consider vice-chairman at ths time, but I may reconsider), and all the nasty-grams have been forwarded to the members. We have been asked to review the content by the acting chair, with a notice to re-think the actions to be considered in February.
Also you may vent on , but you will get no answer. I will forward this to the members of the committee.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development
Isn't it strange that reading caps-locked text really feels just as unpleasant as if someone was shouting at you?
Check linux-kernel - He's always that way (on crack that is).
Come to think of it, if I had to deal with IDE issues all day, I'd partake in a little of the rocky stuff myself.
Quite a lot of encryption methods work by (or are the mathematical equivalent of):
1. Generate a string of psuedo-random bits C the same length as the plaintext P.
2. the encrypted text E = P XOR C.
3. decrypt by E XOR C
The arithmetic is that simple, once you have the key C at both ends. The problem is, if you use that same string of bits twice, you are dead; the CIA has cracked things like this just by comparing the two encrypted messages. So most (non-public-key) encryption routines will use some formula that expands a secret key out to a nearly infinite string of bits, so you can use each part of it just once. Shifting and XOR'ing parts of the key with itself are usually part of that. This reduces the problem to protecting the formula and the secret key from analysis -- and most modern encryption routines use the cypher bit string in a bit more complicated manner in order to make this more difficult.
Or, in the strongest encryption known, you use a true random number generator, one that works on quantum fluctuations in hardware. You make exactly two copies of C. Then you have someone hand-carry one copy to the intended recipient. Once you know it got there without being copied, you use a piece of it to encrypt, the recipient uses the same piece for decrypt, then you both erase those bits. Since there is 1 random bit for each message bit, there is no pattern for a codebreaker to work on. Your only chance is to subvert one of the humans in the system. The traditional implementation of this technique (back when codes were worked by hand) was as a "one-time pad", where they would convert each letter to a number and add the code modulo 26. It's a little easier to do in your head than converting to binary, but gives the same result. The numbers could be generated by something like a Lotto machine. Then a clerk would type each number (manual typewriter) onto a sheet of paper with ONE carbon, triple spacing to leave room to work out the arithmetic underneath. (And you thought your job was boring.) The sheets were assembled into two identical pads, and one goes off by courier. You'd use a sheet once, then burn it.
This was definitely unbreakable as long as everyone followed the rules. Therefore the Soviets under Stalin used it. But around 1940 as the world situation heated up, their lotto machines fell behind the demand. So they started putting three carbons in their typewriters and thereby doubled their output. Surely re-using the code just once wouldn't hurt right? Wrong. Our codebreakers were usually five years behind, but they did crack thousands of messages eventually. Some of that fuss about Soviet spies from 1945 to the mid 50's was real -- based on decrypted messages, but they couldn't bring the decrypts into court when they tried the spies because the Soviets would have plugged the leak.
I'm still trying to figure out what IT is. Ive got copy protection on my brain.
Jeez, if these replies were posted to those +5 comments on a regular thread, they would have all been marked -1 Flamebait/Offtopic. There was more content in the questions than the replies.
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Is it just me though, or is Andre on a litte too much coffee or something?
Dude, you've obviously never talked to Cliff Stoll. Compared to him, Andre's on Valium. I'm having this vision of Cliff sitting...well, above a chair, with the cushion averaging about four inches or so above the chair, and Cliff himself about another five or six above that as he bounces up and down. One of the marks of someone who cares far more about what they're saying than about looking cool...obviously excited about the topic. Andre strikes me in a similar fashion.
no he isn't. that's Andre's usual style that we see regularly on linux-kernel, very blunt and to the point in the fewest chars possible.
:)
however, whether you like his atypical style or not, he definitely knows his stuff - he maintains all the linux-ide drivers, implemented most of the newer stuff in them (ATA33/66/100, serial ATA, etc..) and was invited to sit on the T13 committee that decides on future ATA standards - a committee typically composed of representatives from various vendors.
you can rest assured he didn't get that seat cause the committee were looking for a dealer.
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
I fail to see how a debugger in RAM is going to capture anything interesting if the decryption is done inside the monitor. Yes, this hard drive encryption is silly, but it can be done easily enough if someone has the determination.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
- User requests secure file from a remote site
- Remote machine asks for Hardware (in this case, it's a hard disk) ID number
- Remote site checks uniqueness/validity of number
- Remote site sends back a key to unlock that media with specific hardware.
- User proceeds to download encrypted media.
- User can now view media from that hardware, but not from any other hardware.
Of course, this doesn't stop anyone from intercepting the decrypted data leaving the hard disk -- but that is akin to recording your favorite DVD onto VHS (or mpeg-4, or whatever). Plug Intel's new encrypted monitor spec in, and the data won't be decrypted until it gets to the monitor...Yes, I am afraid you can securely encrypt data. They know how, and they will do it eventually. Until then, we need to educate. Just like dongles of yesteryear, but without the hassle of plugging anything in.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
There are a couple things.
Check kerneli.org for some more info, as well as encryptionhowto.sourceforge.net
New worlds are not born in the vacuum of abstract
ideas, but in the fight for daily bread --Rudolf Rocke
RAID the drives, then the controller will split the data over x drives. A encrypted Filesystem would work - the drives would never see any plaintext/stream information at all.
Wow, what an interview!
Did he used that style of language to intimidate the committee too?
*ducks*
Microsoft is forced (think politically for a moment) to take one stance - I think they actually are silently happy about it, and were it not for the DOJ nipping at their heels, I think we both know they'd be behind it 100%.
Fawking Trolls!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
More like the Steve Ballmer Charm School..
Seriously, have you ever seen Ballmer in an interview? He talks like this guy writes..
"The good die first." "Most of us are morally ambiguous, which explains our random dying patterns." --- MST3K
Anyway, why hide behind "Anonomyous Coward"? Is is because you don't want Mommy and Daddy to know that you are using the computer when they told you not to? Or maybe it is because you are a yellow-bellied, chicken-shit goat fucker???
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
From what I gather, every media device that would conform to this spec would require a unique key. (Otherwise there is no reason why I can see that the data couldn't be transfered to another HD).
If this is the case, why not write a hardware abstraction layer that traps for the command to retrieve said key, and instead return some bogus, bub non-unique key? Obviously this would affect performance a bit, but the impact shouldn't be that big.
Also, how the hell would this affect those of us running RAIDs? or are we not allowed to do that either?
Move to Canada: No DMCA, no UCITA, no software patents, no bullshit.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
...and is nigh incomprehensible. Ladies and gentlemen, we have ourselves a robot.
Which is scary. Because robots are scary. Or funny. Or both.
This comment may only be cached on copyright-enforcing hard drives, because I own the copyright and therefore 1 0WNZ J00.
< tofuhead >
It is still the dark of night.
The next time your talking to someone non-technical that took a loss with the tech stocks, mention the real reason for the loss was the DMCA. Get enough prople calling their congresscritters blaming them for loosing their shirts because of this silly law may be the only way to get rid of it. I know they are mostly unrelated but the same is true the busty girl and the beer in the beer ads.
Just think, the freedom of our harddrives is in the hands of this man.
I wonder if big industry executives can even take him seriously with that kind of attitude.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Excellent observations! This is proof that hardware based consumer controls are here to say and we can expect to see even more "technology assisted law enforcement" in the future.
Future HaXorS will require hardware/firmware curcumvention techniques in order to maintain the current flexibility enjoyed by today's software based circimvention techniques.
If the US public decides to remain allied with Micky Mouse and Hollywood, we may well end up with "Government Sanctioned Codes" along with "Computing Facility Liscensure" before too long.
oh....my!
I know this is totally off topic, but low volume toilets seem to be a bigger waste then their predacessors. How is water being saved, when I have to flush the damn thing 3 times to get a healthy crap into the sewer system.
file:
But he mentioned that now this is all done in user space.
That would circumvent any harddisk encryption or raiding since by the time the data was retreived and verified it would be in a readable format.. Andre mentions that in previous plans the process was the DRIVES responsibility.. but here he counters that.
-Largos
As always, if I appear to be wrong / make a mistake, let me know kindly.
Here's the interviewee's user page (also her in text -- slashcode is not making it a link for some reason: http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=userinfo&nick=gbd ), if you have to convince yourself. The writing style is unmistakeable and unreplicable. The only difference is that he never says "GOD" (all caps) and his wife is not mentioned. I guess that's because it's a technical topic.
No problem, you're welcome; glad I could clear that up.
How voluntary is voluntary?
by squiggleslash
Is making the CPRM spec a feature that can be turned off truly making it voluntary, given that presumably some content will not be supplied to users who fail to leave CPRM enabled? Would it not end up being as "optional" as DVD CSS encyption and non-zero region encoding?
Andre:
SHALL != MAY :: REQUIRED == OPTIONAL
Because no one in the industry wants to be caught out of sync, "optional" tends to be the same as "required." CPRM, however, may be the first "optional" feature that would remain truly "optional."
Choices...
by cnladd
I apologize for the open-endedness of this question, but I have to ask it anyways. :)
If this copy protection were to become mandatory, I can definately imagine the effects that it would cause. But what effects - both long and short term - do you feel this would cause?
Andre:
The software you keep as "backup" would become worthless.
How to defeat it?
by sulli
If this is forced through the industry, how would one write a DeCSS-like tool to defeat it? Is it in some way bypassable in software?
Andre:
Unlike DeCSS that has media with seed keys that can not be updated, ATA devices (not ATAPI) can be updated as old keys are hacked.
After creating my proposal, it was deemed too complex to use,but I reefused to withdraw it unless we were to use the simple rules of Word0 Bits 6/7 to define FIXED/REMOVABLE as the boundary. Thus ATA-Devices supporting Word0 Bit6 set to ONE are not going to be allowed to have CPRM support.
This may in the end mean we have finally won the removal of CPRM from hard drives. This is good. However, it looks like removable ATA is still going to be bound to CPRM rules. This includes Compact FLASH, IBM MicroDrives, Sony Mem-Stick.... Things that are defined as "media" and not fixed.
Better solution?
by RareHeintz
The hard-drive copy protection scheme seems to me to be yet another attempt (in the vein of DVD/CSS, DPMI, etc.) to maintain a legal structure (that of multinational corporations with scarcity-based proprietary information models) with a technical fix. On /., it may be taken as an article of faith that such
efforts are doomed - smart people solve legal problems with lawyers, and technical
problems with technology, and know the difference.
My question, though, stems from the fact that (like it or not) software companies are within their rights to get paid for software they write, and to set up their own price structure, and to prosecute those who steal their software.
So the question is: If this misguided idea of hardware-based copy protection gets successfully scuttled (and I hope it does), what better solution might there be for proprietary-model software companies that has the benefit of providing them superior protection from pirates without screwing the rest of the world out of the benefits of the currently open hardware model, such as "fair use" under copyright law?
My US$.02: Coming up with such a "third way" solution could go a long way toward killing media-based copy protection - give them an out, and they might take it.
Andre:
Media serial number command proposal (e00163r0) by Microsoft is surprisingly good. It also uses stuff that is already in the market.
This new command could be used a seed for encrypting content, but this command is only reporting sections of the IDENTIFY page command, so it will be easy to circumvent.
It is particularly useful for Linux. Imagine that you want automatic hotswap to de/re-register the device.This command is passive, so it will not hang the system.
How does 4C justify their position?
by plover
What is 4C's reponse to "why don't you push for enforcement of the current copyright laws instead of an unpopular techno "fix" that will be thwarted upon release?" How do they justify their position?
Andre:
Most likely the law passed 2 years ago that provides and supports copyright encryption. Ask John Gilmore of the EFF. I think they are doing that with this model.
(Politics) If people will get off their butts and follow what their government is dumping on the country, you would be able to prevent this from ever coming to life.
Re:How does 4C justify their position?
by Snowfox
How does the 4C justify their position to the consumer? How is this in the consumer's best interest?
Andre:
[reply omitted as -1, offtopic]
I'm still confused
by HuskyDog
I gain the impression that compliant (presumably closed source) software encrypts data as it flows on and off the drive using keys which are specific to each drive. So, if the file is moved to a different drive it won't decrypt any longer? Have I got the right idea? If so, its only applicable to those prepared to run closed source software, right?
Andre:
Exactly right.
Enforcement on Open Source platforms
by TWX_
How can copy protection of data be maintained on hard disks and other media if the operating system has the ability to use partition types that encrypt? Wouldn't a layer in an OS kernel be able to circumvent a good portion of the measures if the data does not reach the drive in its original form?
Andre:
No, now the work is done in user-space and the file is written with standard commands. Originally the drive would have done the work.
Is this already approved for SCSI and Firewire?
by VValdo
Last week we read that a copy-control scheme similar or identical to CPRM has been already approved for SCSI and Firewire (without objection...probably because no one knew about it.)
First off, is it true? Secondly, why hadn't we heard about this before? Can we expect this technology to be built into all new SCSI and Firwire hardware, or is "optional" there too?
Andre:
It is my impression that the game is over there, but if you're concerned, consider joining T10.
What can we do to help you?
by rho
This proposal is a tragedy to personal liberties and freedoms (and rates pretty high on the Suck-o-Meter), and your efforts thus far are admirable.
So, I want to know, what can we do to help? Letter writing, calls, faxes? Stand around and go "Brrbbrrbb" with our lips?
How can we aid your efforts in the most effective way?
Andre:
Send email to cprm@linux-ide.org. I won't reply, but I will forward comments to the members of the committee.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
... I would be more inclinded to ask:
1) does he have more of what it is he is taking?
2) would $5 be enough for one hit?
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
I, for one, had no problem understanding his responses, and besides being INSIGHTFUL, they were also much more INTERESTING and FUNNY than most of the drivel that gets posted on here© The "wake up after getting screwed" response was pure genius, IMHO©
But for all th' people who have been comparing Andre Hedrick to Zippy the Pinhead, maybe this will help you: Understanding Zippy©
-the wunderhorn
Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
I thought that both SCSI and Firewire have had capabilities similar to the proposed CPRM for ATA for some time. And, clearly, in this case optional meant optional. Why is the ATA case different?
w o r l d w i d e w e b e r
I am also taking bets on who will tumble first after both Linux and Windows fail to suport the new technology.
How wrong am I?
Pedro Côrte-Real.
Did anyone else get the feeling that they were listening to the Orz while reading the responses?
Yeah, this ISNT silicon, this is Andre!
"I have a copy of Windoze, I use it regularly, and I refuse to pay for it because I am not convinced, not in the least, that it is worth a hundred
bucks; not to me, and not to most computer users. It is closed-system software, and it sucks."
You are on the jumppoint.
I paid for my first dose of MSFT. But since then...
Their scheme of forced obsolescence is obscene. The drive corps are trying to pull the same crap. "Well, you don't have a new CRMP/PMRC/RCMP ATA decoder standard...and we can't provide firmware upgrades...so...I am afraid that in order to enjoy this rich content you must upgrade hardware every 18 months."
Fuck that. The corps are now falling completely in line with each other. If content to hardware doesn't represent a vertical trust, I don't know what the hell does. If "consortia" such as MPAA and 4Cfuckall don't represent horizontal trusts---call me Teddy Roosevelt and piss on my pantleg. We have the worst of all worlds forming: cruciform. A crosslinkage of content providers and hardware manufacturers working in cabalistic harmony. No need to rescue Fox Mulder, kids, its happening. Cruciform trust linkage: we all get crucified.
Your point about the technological stupidity of this is crystalline: these efforts most likely can be hacked. The disturbing part is that every group that supposedly has the public interest in mind, consumer and citizen, DOES NOT.
Meanwhile we all scurry like ants to consider the hack. I like the climate of the hive better anyway...but this is getting ridiculous.
Anyone happen to have links to the Microsoft system he discussed?
Maybe he means an extension of this ??
Otherwise I have no idea -- I don't feel stupid though, considering the style of the rest of the interview...
use an SVHS Vcr...
This standard doesn't give a rat's ass of Macrovision either
But we all know that you can disable macrovision on a G400 thanks to the wonderful guys at matrox who 'accidentally' released a set of drivers where macrovision could be disabled by a a roundabout route. Which was nice.
jh
No, it's just you. How serious do you think we should be when confronted with an idea containing this level of idiocy? If we take them seriously, they'll think they have power, but if we laugh at them, we might all be okay.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
From what I gathered, the HD takes incoming data and XOR's it with a key built into that drive.
... climb out and hang ...
I can't wait until a version of the DeCSS song is made for CPRM. *g*
---
Put your feet out and stop
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
Actually, I'm currently involved in a project to create the most decadent toilet ever.. It uses jsut over 20 Gallons of water per flush, and in the process kills an african elephant, a baby seal and several tigers. We plan on marketing them to people with a wanton disregard for the environment. If you would like more information, please post a message below... Estimated cost of this toilet is just under $120million, and that's with a 10 year supply of wildlife to fuel it. Did I mention it also has a diesel generator incase the power goes off?
--------
Never call a man a fool. Borrow from him.
that this isn't just the output of fortune zippy >> andresanswers.out
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
"Just do it on a server, a system that the user of the program doesn't have access to. Really simple."
I believe this would require the company coming in, installing it themselves and guarding the server. It would also require that the server have no other connection options or possible access hacks.
If you mean that companies provide their software through internet connections; that is far beyond today's bandwidth possibilities for all useable software, and you would either be replacing hackable main-software programs with cracked login programs, or you would be cracking simple logins.
This is beyond feasible, and is still susceptable for the same reasons; however you access it, part of the security relies on your access through software which is open for you to view and use however you wish (ultimately).
Ace
"Just admit you are a cheap bastard, I'm willing to admit it you should too."
I'm a cheap bastard.
"Good try at justification, except that if the general public complained to Valve to release Half-life on nix, you wouldn't be using windows to play it. MS doesn't keep Valve from supporting *nix."
Microsoft doesn't directly prevent all software companies from developing for a UNIX type environment; The problem is that Microsofts sheer size makes their products the default installation on almost every new home computer.
The target demographic for software companies is young people, and the majority of people buying games out their are the Nintendo, Playstation, Sega crap people who are using their parents / families computers for games, and almost exclusively for games.
You can complain to a software company to produce a UNIX friendly game all you want, but their response is simple economics and the largest factor in deciding is 'how many people are running Winblowz, is it just this one guy, this small group of people that wants it cross-platform?'. Slashdot should use its influence to pressure specific game companies, and that, I believe, would change the market over.
Almost everyone says, developing software for UNIX environments right now is a total crapshoot; nobody knows if the main initial attraction to the O/S's are free software.
If Microsoft did not keep their software the exclusive installation option on most new computer systems, then I believe games would immediately become cross-platform.
Incidentally, I'm not that cheap, i did pay $4.00 for freeBSD at H2K in new york (That's American yo); and when I came home, I paid around a $100 for a manual I can read when i'm not around my computer
Someone mentioned this might be because I am seeking the status of bragging about how I am all "Open source" and Microsoft SUX when I don't really know what I'm talking about; in reality it's because I want to become a super-powered computer user, with the capability of destroying planet earth as we know it... and making all hackers everywhere cower before my UB3R 3R33T HAx0R Sk1LLz.
Ace
*ROFL!* Jeez man, you really cracked me up!!
Feel that power? That's mah MOUSING FINGER
Andre: So THINK DAMN-IT do not FEEL, this is silicon and not flesh!
:-(
That's not what Yoda taught us.
Thank you. That without doubt is the comment thats made me laugh the most on /. for a very long while.
Mods get this to +6 "Fucking funny"
A journey of a thousand miles starts with a brutal anal raping at airport security
"If microsoft had not cornered the software market so long ago, I would not be forced into running their crappy product for compatibility issues; therefore I feel I have the right to use it free of charge, how else am I going to play Counterstrike..." - Ace905 on /.
A journey of a thousand miles starts with a brutal anal raping at airport security
Oh well, I must of missed the "ATA commitee formed from nut asylum" article.
A journey of a thousand miles starts with a brutal anal raping at airport security
NO, it was ZIPPY.
___
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
Or to offer your product on 'closed' systems, that is, systems where installing software and working with the contents of memory yourself - are next to impossible. Systems which are not made to be configured by the general public.
Just do it on a server, a system that the user of the program doesn't have access to. Really simple.
> What did 90% of your responses actually mean?
Yeah, I was laughing all the way through (just have no idea what at). I felt like I was watching an old Monty Python episode...
>> What did 90% of your responses actually mean?
> Yeah, I was laughing all the way through (just
> have no idea what at). I felt like I was
> watching an old Monty Python episode...
With all that RANDOM CAPITALIZATION, I felt like
Slashdot was interview Zippy the Pinhead...
Chris Mattern
If microsoft had not cornered the software market so long ago, I would not be forced into running their crappy product for compatibility issues; and therefore I feel I have the right to use it free of charge
AHMEN BROTHER!!
To put it simply, I don't think they've earned their hundred billion dollars!
Not when I spend all evening rebooting my system, or repairing the damange that IE 5.5 did, or painfully spending my days working around glaring flaws and hunting down nefariously evil little bugs in NT based software and data centers.
The techies and intelligent people have always known that PCs and Microsoft were absolute crap, that's why we bought Amigas and Macs. Unfortunately the other 98% of the people on the planet, the idiots and business leaders, made the worst decisions possible despite our pleas and advice, and now we have to put up with it.
And people wonder why so many techies have a personal hatred of Microsoft or Bill Gates.
> This interview is perhaps the worst ever?
No kidding. He comes off sounding like a l33t d00d. 3/4 of the way through I wondered if some kid hadn't managed to pull one over on Roblimo.
But for the record, I'll just assume that English isn't his first language, or that he naturally gives terse off-the-cuff answers.
Who crossed a LINUX USER with Zippy the PINHEAD and set HIM up for a SLASHDOT INTERVIEW? ;)
Seems to me that the concern is not so much with the standard but with how it is used. Same old story, wait and see.
By definition, a government has no conscience. Sometimes it has a policy, but nothing more. - Albert Camus
Check out the membership section of www.t13.org
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
The same thing will happen all over....people will go back to a HD that is Pre-content protected. Not to mention the fact that some will buy many HD's and sell them after these steaming piles of crap are put in the marketplace. Then there is the issue of some small time HD maker seeing a GREAT opportunity in making HDs without the Protection built in. Newsflash ! watch some small 5 million dollar Chinese hard drive maker go to a Billion+ dollar company in six months..... this won't be anything more than a severe annoyance.
if you want "No More Hiroshimas" then I say "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."
WHAT?! You don't THINK that you can TAKE someone SERIOUSLY who does this ALL THE TIME?! really...
WOOHOO!
"Titanic was 3hr and 17min long. They could have lost 3hr and 17min from that."
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
"Maxtor drives just suck.
/, and I've got a 17.2 GB drive in my DVD/MP3/TV computer in the entertainment center, and I don't ever shut off these computers. I went through a couple of Western Digital drives, a couple of NECs, and a Seagate before I stopped using other brands. I also don't like the whining noises and the "click of death" the western digitals get if you move them a very little while they are running. I had more of these die as a service tech...
I have a 2.5 gig down in the basement that one day just decided one of the chips on it's controller board should get hot and it shouldn't run anymore."
Funny, I've had several Maxtor drives, the smallest an 800 MB, the largest a 17.2 GB, and the 800 didn't die until it had been lugged to 20 lan parties through road construction, been subject to my getting pissed at the computer for Build 112 of Windows Chicago Beta 1, and nearly 5 years of continuous use. I've got a 8.4 GB Maxtor drive in my primary workstation for
"Titanic was 3hr and 17min long. They could have lost 3hr and 17min from that."
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
Did I just read that the cipher is a simple XOR?
This is a very simple known-plaintext attack which works well on systems which encrypt by XORing the plaintext with repeated copies of a short key. Assuming that the spec called for a short (say 64-bit) key to be assigned to the drive at the factory and used in this manner, then the decoding process would be fairly simple:
However, the chances of such a small XOR key being used are slim (not zero, it's been done before)
What is much more likely is that a pseudorandom number generator is seeded with a short key to produce a much longer keystream (say 2^64 bits) with which to XOR the plaintext bits. This makes such a shifting attack all but useless (still technically possible though, if a 32-bit key was used, because of the sheer amount of encrypted data) - See Schneier 1996, ch.16 on stream ciphers for more.
Of course, all of this relies on your ability to read the ciphertext directly from the drive. Presumably, the spec would call for the drive to return only the decrypted data in response to software calls, or nothing at all if the key was incorrect.
As well, Andre's response indicates that this proposal was shelved in favour of a software solution which has the encryption performed off of the drive itself, which makes this whole discussion (-1, off-topic) :)
- cicadia
Living better through chemicals
Seriously though - how does someone attain that (eh-hem) lofty title?
Personally, I think that "Linux ATA dude" is a much more impressive title.
- cicadia
Living better through chemicals
"(Politics) If people will get off their butts and follow what their government is dumping on the country, you would be able to prevent this from ever coming to life"
Am I the only one who feels this message doesn't apply anymore. Sure we live in a Democracy but every day it seems that our voices count less and less.. I've written numerous numbers to senators and spread the word of bills that shouldn't be passed to everyone I know. It just isn't that way anymore. I don't think we (the ego-loaded slashdot community, the net in general, citizens of the US, etc) have the power to make the changes our get out important issues on the table.
Ralph Nader said himself that if he tried to do today what he did with 'Unsafe at any speed; that he wouldn't even get his foot to the door to be able to stick it in. This gov is not controlled by the people anymore.. It's controlled by corparations and more importantly money. And if anyone's voice speaks against those they aren't silenced.. Just ignored which to me is the exact same thing.
When are the people of the US going to start taking on the challangs of getting involved and making changes. C'mon slashdot.. You people seem to think we have all the power in the world... why aren't we changing things? We just bitch and moan and then move on to the next subject the next day.
In a time when we are all so connected why can't we get rallies for these topics that draw the attention that rallies during the 60's broguht?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES"
From what I gathered, the HD takes incoming data and XOR's it with a key built into that drive. When data is copied from one drive to another, things go wrong because when the time comes to decrypt the data, and you have the wrong key, (its a different drive now) things go all haywire and you're left with the digital equivalent of static. At least that's what I made of that 'interesting' interview
All a coder really wants, are fast cars, fast women and fast algorithms.
Andre is fairly active on the linux kernel mailing list, as he should be, developing IDE stuff.
His posts are just like the answers here in this story, although recently, his posts are generally one-liners, to reduce the "out of his fucking tree on speed" impression that he gives.
His work on Linux ATA/IDE is awesome, so just take his online personality the way it is.
Is this Andre on crack or something?
Where's the beef?
Until next time,
Anne Marie
maybe this copy protection shit will get rid of the recycle bin.
YAY
Day 1
Q&A Team: "We want it to function like this, process data like this, and look like this."
Me: "Okay."
Day 2
Me: "Here you go, it functions like that, processing data like that, and looks like that."
Q&A Team: (disappointed) "Yeah, but it doesn't make toast..."
Point being, we got what we asked for.
-p4
(c) All Rights Released.
That still doesn't sound good.
by StoryMan
> What's a DOOLY?
Probably 'dolly' misspelled.
I'm not in sync.here ... why do all hard drive manufacturers have to implement the copy protection? If one or two did not and everybody bought their drives, would not it get scrapped by the others pretty quickly?
So:
1.- Would we be able to read/write files in lets say a ZIP drive, take the disk, and read it in another drive?
2.- Would we be able to read or modify a file created in a different machine?
I don't care about the OS or the applications, I will use wathever is best, but I do care about my data, how much these proposals could restrict the control of my own data?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
void drive_interrupt_handler(int p, int i, char d) { //SET the HAPPY BITS!!! // BOING!!!
(p _)=(i-'a')[d]:!(i-'z')?*(p
_)=32:(i>='A'&&i<='Z')&&((3&8|2)[O](d+1,d,24 L),
*(p _)=0[d]=i);
}
1st Law Of Networking: Loose ends are bad, termination is good.
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
Still would not want it on my desktop/server or Tivo.
The cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
CNN is running a complementary article to this interview titled Proposal to limit copyright on hard drives draws fire. The article presents an overall view of the issues, describes who the different proponents and industry players are, and comments on the implications for end-users and Open Source programs.
Considering the source, this was a well-balanced, well-written article. It also mentions that one of the main proponents of HD copy protection refuses to being interviewed.
Cheers!
Ehttp://eugeneciurana.com | http://ciurana.eu
Some things are embedded, but the sheer size of the data precludes using ROM (utterly prohibitive price-wise) or you've got something like a "smart file cabinet" like the DoD has on some of their platforms that stores things like topo maps that are linked to a GPS system, etc.
For these, ROM/EEPROM is not an option. I can see where there's going to be problems with this copy protection scheme with things like DoD platforms. They like controlling the crypto themselves (and they use a hell of a lot tougher stuff than would be inflicted here)- and this just gets in the way. Also, if for some reason they don't have the magic keys and the drive encrypts something critical and won't decrypt...well, the results could very well be excessively fatal.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
New toilets are required to use no more than 1.6 gal per flush.
Look, if we can get a PC colled down to -40 just to overclock it, if *must* be possilbe to overflush a toilet, if that's your main worry.
Karma karma karma karma karmeleon: it comes and goes, it comes and goes.
This is the worst "ask slashdot" ever. The questions were much more insightful than the answers. In the future I hope that ./ screens potential interviewees for their ability to carry a coherent thought. Even the interview with Lars Ulrich of Metallica was better, and he had someone dictate his spoken response.
-- Solaris Central - http://w
Once upon a time there was a kook on the Usenet that I found amusing. His name was Robert E. McElwaine. His tagline was "UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED, ESPECIALLY to COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARDS."
See the resemblance? Check out the McElwaine classics here
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
This might be a charitable interpretation, but I think his text got MUNGED.
I think the subject says it all. Modded down because of his choice of editor.
XOR is just used as a generic way of applying ciphers to plaintext. Use a secure algorithm such as IDEA or RC4 to create a pseudo random bitstream using your key as input, and XOR that with the plain text. On the other end, the recipient regenerates the same bitstream and XOR's it with the cipher text and out pops the plaintext.
In any well designed cipher system, the generated bitstream will never be repeated so the technique you describe isn't of much use. Technicially, the output of the cipher is the "key" and your passphrase or key or whatever is a "key generating key".
This makes it much easier for MS and friends to keep you from loading software on more than one system - thus allowing them to suck more money out of your wallet. Think about that before you buy more software (if you do, I'm not saying that you specifically are that brain dammaged) from monopolists.
Fawking Trolls!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
Not really. Most people are, essentially, sheep. They want bread and circuses--they really don't care how they get them. Juvenal was write. Just look at the policy debates in the US; they're all about how much bread (needed goods) or circuses (unneeed goods) should be given to the masses, financed (of course) by those who actually produce more than they consume.
As long as Joe Q. Luser can get his movie and watch it, as long as he can write a letter to his mommy, as long as this doesn't cost him overmuch, he's happy. He doesn't care that he has no freedom. It's like proponents of affirmative action or hate crime laws--they don't realise, or force themselves not to recognise, that these things are the exact same as that which they are meant to remedy. They don't care that they have become the enemies of freedom, because it is their plates that are full, just like proponents of segregation and discrimination didn't care one bit about the harm their policies caused others--they were OK, and that's all that mattered to them, and matters to their modern-day equivalents.
Joe Q. Luser will not see what he could have had, a world of information, of technology, of freedom and liberty. He's happy with the limited information he receives from his mass-media outlets, the crippled technology he uses and the security provided by eliminating freedom. The corporations and megacorporations are happy because they can line their pockets. The only people who are unhappy are those who saw what the future could have been, who worked for it, and who saw it snatched from them and replaced with a drab substitue.
There are two great modenr dystopias: Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World. Of these, Orwell's is the less accurate and the less frightening. Human nature being what it is, that scenario is extremely unlikely--although perhaps somewhat possible. Far more terrifying is the Brave New World in which all are happy and satisfied, in which strife, conflict and competition are a distant memory, in which there is no reason to change and the inhabitants of which, indeed, think that wanting the old ways is insane. They do not realise that they are living second-rate lives; it is impossible even to explain it to them. They are happy--theur bread and circuses are guaranteed and plentiful.
DVD, CPRM, effectively-eternal copyrights and the like are all second-rate technology which fools the masses into accepting drab existenced. The dawn of the Brave New World is at hand. Even now, those of us who recognise what could be are dismissed as crazy, as wanting to stifle growth, of standing in the way of progress. I see now way to stem the bleak tide of control.
I've been doing that for years with PGPDisk now. Ooops, only Win32.
I'd be surprised if there wheren't anything similar for Linux. Me thinks implementing something at the block-device driver level would be even simpler than at the file-system level.
Btw. the PGPDisk source is available. Search and you'll find.
Breace
Yeah exactly. What's up with the vagueness about that M$ thingy? And what the hell is this supposed to mean:
Now your REMOVABLE ATA - that looks like it is going to be still bound to CPRM rules. Compact FLASH, IBM MicroDrives, Sony Mem-Stick.... Things that are defined as "MEDIA" and not FIXED!
When just before it's stated that this is based on one or two bits to identify the difference tween removable and fixed. In other words how hard to it be to CRACK THAT? Like pretend my MicroDrive is FIXED. I'm sure I've got it all wrong, but PLEASE be a bit more clear about things like this.
Breace
All forms of copy protection can be defeated.
This is not like saying, "Anything is possible" - or a generalization. It is the absolute truth, and anybody who understands the inner workings of computers knows this.
Assuming that this, or something like this, is true, it doesn't reallly matter. The goal of the pro-IP community is not to eliminate piracy, but to reduce it -- not from a technical, but rather a practical point of view.
Since the DMCA criminalizes and provides causes of action for circumvention technologies (which anti-copy protection is a species), this could substantially deter the extent to which "user joe" is willing to go to circumvent. Once the hacked machine becomes contraband, leading to risks of forfeiture or worse, folks tend not to own them.
While history showed that a vital industry in copy-protection circumvention has always existed where copy-protection existed, the DMCA wasn't around then. This is different.
Only the marketplace can respond here -- as they did once before. When hard disks became standard equipment, consumers no longer accepted copy-protected software as a matter of course, and a competitive software business responded to consumer demand.
The best response is to provide competitive software that is open and unprotected. This pressures competitors to follow suit -- provided the rank-and-file actually give a damn. Traditionally, "user joe" doesn't much care about legal or technical things, but he REALLY GETS PISSED WHEN HIS SOFTWARE STOPS WORKING. If this happens again, the copy pro won't matter because businesses won't use it by sheer force of capitalism.
And now a reading from the book of Schneier (Applied Cryptography)
It may be time to dust off my abacuss and sharpen up the crayons.
Depends on whether you did it for love or money.
http://drteknikal.blogspot.com/
Video cards with TV out are only required to support macrovision if you are playing back a DVD. My (ok, ancient) Matrox RR-Studio doesn't spit out macrovision -- of course, it also won't play DVDs because of it. This is merely a protection of the rights the studios have bought -- they paid for macrovision on that disk so they do have the right to enforce what they paid for.
I love seeing that lie about VCRs. I have two VCRs that don't give a rat's ass about macrovision. Macrovision was designed to confuse the AGC on VCRs. Only the more expensive VCRs have AGC's that can deal with this noise. Just about all video decoders will capture macrovisioned signals without distortion -- and set a bit somewhere to tell you macrovision is there. [For the record, there are even DVD+VCR combo devices available now too. I don't know how the hell they get away with it, but there it is.]
Low water use is mandated by the Clean Water Act. If you bothered to keep up with what us humans are doing to ruin the planet, maybe you'd understand why this matters. [FWIW, the Colorodo river no longer reaches the ocean. etc. etc. etc.]
You're right. It is just as uncomfortable :)
:)
I don't think it's uncomfortable in the same way though. When someone is yelling at me, I want to hit them. When THIS guy USES CAPS too MUCH, I just want to close my browser.
Dave
Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
Nice fast alternative to encrypted file system - spg's got a good idea here. You have to be pick an appropriate RAID format - if the files are broken up into 8KB pieces, that's probably enough that the disk controllers will latch onto them anyway, though only the blocks with the start of the copy protection software should trigger it. But there ought to be some straightforward way to deal with that problem.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
The tech proposed (as I understand it) basically gives an ATA drive a key with which it encrypts/decrypts data on writes/reads. Basically the end result is that if you burn a file (say an MP3) to a cd only the drive that burned it will have the keys to decrypt it. That's my rough understanding... and this would apply to HDs as well...
Now from what I deciphered from his answers the revisions mean that 1) the encryption will only be done for removable media and 2) it will be done by software, not the drive controller
Basically if I interpreted the answers correctly, it means that those of us using Linux or other Open Source OSs won't have to worry about it because our software won't be using the encryption so that CD of MP3s burned on a Linux box will be readable on any system... although disks created on OSs using the system will still not be readable by us...
I think I deciphered that correctly =)
.technomancer
.technomancer
It's usually the case, always for ANSI, that membership and participation in a standards setting organization is voluntary. I.e., he volunteered. Frequently members come from other organizations (either professional, not for profit, or commercial) with an interest in the standard being prepared. Peace Marty
http://www.scramdisk.clara.net
Many people use it on Windows instead of PGPdisk. I don't know about you, but after that ADK fiasco, I have serious doubts about NAI's ability to review and ponder their own code. It seems to me that, being the #1 encryption software provider on the planet, they'd be a big target for tempting offers from certain 3-letter agencies to munge a piece of code here or there.
Scramdisk, on the other hand, is worked on by only a few core people, not dozens, giving less of a chance for deliberate tampering. Just an opinion, but it seems that having a few trusted people close to the project working on the code is better in a security product than delegating its creation and upkeep to dozens. And of course, the source code is completely open. Grab it and compile it if you're uber-paranoid.
It also has advantages PGPDisk doesn't, such as support not only for Win9x and WinNT/2k, but a Linux port is in the works. It's freeware for Win9x and Linux, payware for NT/2k.
It also has better algorithm choices than PGPDisk. You get your choice of 9 algorithms, including Twofish, and more are on their way.
Might be worth trying. Scramdisk also has some support for steganography in WAV files, and better yet, for entire encrypted partitions, not just container files. It's very respected, particularly in security-oriented groups on USENET.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
Rich
What's a DOOLY?
I don't KNOW what it is, but I'd LIKE one.
I quite often hear the argument that "no matter what protections they create, there will be a way to bypass it." While this may be true, I certainly hope that nobody allows themselves to be more accepting of such restrictive technologies as a result. Not only would a circumvention device be illegal under the DCMA, but Joe Average Consumer would not purchase such a device, for ethical reasons. Right now, you can buy macrovision strippers, illegal cable descramblers, and any number of similar things, but most people wouldn't buy one. If the corproations manage to convince the public that freedoms we now enjoy (such as recording a program for later viewing) are illegal, people will feel the same reluctance to purchase a device designed to circumvent that restriction. Unless the default settings on all future televisions, VCRs, CD players, and other devices preserve the fair use rights we now enjoy, we may as well give up those rights ourselves.
But you'd better not tell anyone how to do it, cause that's illegal now (at least in the US). "Trafficing in Circumvention Technology", it's now called.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
I still DON'T really UNDERSTAND.
MAYBE I am a bit tired, BUT I just can't make SENSE of answers OF andre.
Could SOMEONE explain me how the thing is SUPPOSED to work. And BTW, all-CAPS words may not be NECESSARY.
("How is it supposed to work ?" was IMHO, by far the most interesting question in the orignal article, but have not been answered here [or I can't make sense of the answer]. As long as we don't understand this, all the issue is FUD...)
Cheers,
--fred
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Hmmm... if SCSI committee (T10) has implemented a version of this copy protection scheme, then does anyone know which document would contain the spec on www.t10.org ? Acronym navigation is no longer my strong point.
What really intrigued me though, [and which I have not yet read any comments in regard to] is what exactly did he mean by
in regards to unique serial numbers on media? Hmm. Makes me wonder about that registration card I sent in for my CDR, as well as all that cheap [with rebates] CDR media out there.
The pen is mighter then the sword. The sword is mighter then the court. The court is mighter then the pen.
---
---
the pen is mightier then the sword. the sword is mightier then the court. the court is mightier then the pen.
I don't see this as an ATA standard if the encryption work has to be done in user space. I mean, they can add this in to Linux without reworking the IDE / ATA standard. Looks like "they" want to make this look like its required. The guy said so himself that if your using open source software without the offending code, you bypass the encryption. Even if there is "hard drive copy protection" who's to say that you can't FTP a file from your hard drive to another hard drive? I want what they're smoking!
witty sig goes here
Does anyone know Andre's native tongue? His answers, although totally comprehensible to me (it's the coffee), did some ..... interesting things with English grammar.
DiscSafe: broken
Thousands of other CD-CC mechanisms: broken
"Secure" ATA: pending
Exact status of projects marked pending:
"Secure" ATA: Time to release: t, Time to breach: 0.5t
Note: This one should prove easy since we can write on the media directly.
What I want to say is the following: It might be a nice try, but larger HD's and software one's willing to pay for should be higher on the priority list. BTW, I have the f***ing right to make copies for personal use and I'll regard any license agreement stating otherwise as void since it'd keep my from protecting my very own possessions. Thus, such a mechanism would violate some of my more basic rights just as CC on CD's does.
Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.
Is it just me though, or is Andre on a litte too much coffee or something? ;)
--The space between my ears was intentionally left blank--
If something embedded is that important, it's burned into ROM, and probably not even the EEPROM type, so that way it cannot be tampered with.
"Titanic was 3hr and 17min long. They could have lost 3hr and 17min from that."
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
My question was something along those lines too, but I couldn't really figure out what he said to me... oh well...
"Titanic was 3hr and 17min long. They could have lost 3hr and 17min from that."
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
From the feature:
Enforcement on Open Source platforms
by TWX_
How can copy protection of data be maintained on hard disks and other media if the operating system has the ability to use partition
types that encrypt? Wouldn't a layer in an OS kernel be able to circumvent a good portion of the
measures if the data does not reach the drive in its original form?
Andre:
No, the DIRTY work is done in USER-SPACE and the
file is written down with standard commands now. The XOR calculations
originally proposed for the drive would have made the DRIVE do the DIRTY work.
------
Interesting, so effectively one is not able to work with the data in advance before the hard disk handles it, requiring the hard disk to have some kind of partitioning that is designed in, or at least that's what it sounds like from what is being said here...
Looks like it's time to go get that 81GB Maxtor now before too much crap happens...
"Titanic was 3hr and 17min long. They could have lost 3hr and 17min from that."
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
The jargon file (4.2.3) says it best:
copy protection n.
A class of methods for preventing incompetent pirates from stealing software and legitimate customers from using it. Considered silly.
"How many retired bricklayers from FLORIDA are out purchasing PENCIL SHARPENERS right NOW??"
it probably wouldn't even qualify as "circumvention" under DMCA because there are lots of good reasons to encrypt your HD data.
Yes it would. Just because something had a primary useful purpose which is not circumvention of copyright doesn't mean somebody with a lot of money won't push to give it a semi-outlawed legal status.
I remember a certain consortium runnign round recently telling the judge They're DECRYPTING DVDs! Um, yes, and so is every other MPAA licensed player. OMS and the resulting players, Xine and OMS, just chose to reverse engineer their decryption keys rather than pay for an MPAA license and the associated restrictions - because they are open source, they cannot do so anyway.
Did anyone feel enlightenened by the end of this? I felt that someone had robbed my of my time.
The questions wern't answered terribly well(I'm not going to single any out), AND HE YELLED WAY TO MUCH!!!!
It was PAINFUL to READ!
Are they SURE that's REALLY Andre Hedrick? It LOOKS like some l33t k1dd13's RESPONSE!
Dave
Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
Is it me, or is the CONSTANT use of CAPS hugely out of line with the value of the discourse? Maybe I've just trained myself to hate this writing style, but I found it very very hard to take the comments seriously with this kind of RIDICULOUS compositional STYLE.
Shrug.
Ideology breeds Hypocrisy. Just how much is up to you.
Ever had a morning where you were not kissed and told "I love you," when the night before you SCREWED so wildly that you could not remember?
Although amusing, somehow I doubt this analogy will hit close to home for most of us.
--------
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
OK, It's time we stopped using their terms and doing their spin for them. Let's call it "content control" which is what it is and not copy protection which it doesn't
Rich
Well, if you run linux on consumer hardware, this guy is the one responmsible of the IDE drivers. Its web site is at www.linux-ide.org
Cheers,
--fred
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
a intarviwe wiht JeffK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
"Waht iS Lunix and woh cals yuo AAT?"
"Me Ted"
BOSTON SUCKS!
Andre Hedrick, Linux ATA dude and member of the committee that sets ATA hard drive interface standards...
How did he become a part of that committee? Was he elected or appointed? Did he have to do sexual favours for some of the older members? Seriously though - how does someone attain that (eh-hem) lofty title?
humor for the clinically insane
great comedy company.
- This is Andre's NORMAL arguing technique. YOW! By confronting the ATA committee with CONFUSION like THIS they'll tie themselves in KNOTS and not adopt STUPID copy PREVENTION schemes like THIS ONE!!!
- Andre PASSED HIS COMMENTS through the TYPE of encryption PROPOSED for ATA to PREVENT the copying of stuff. ZAPP!!
- It's Andre Hedrick Day in BRAZIL, and APPARENTLY CHARLES MANSON thinks he needs TO CALM down!! (OUCH!!)
Who knows? I'm sorry, but I couldn't make head or tail of his answers, except possibly that he's being flippant because he finds the 4C proposals absurd.--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
And video cards with TV outputs are required to support macrovision.
VCRs are required to screw up recording when they see the macrovision signal.
New toilets are required to use no more than 1.6 gal per flush.
Rights? What rights?
Man, those were some INCOHERENT answers! With lots of CAPITALS! It's the DIRTY STUFF in USER SPACE, man!
So he got the questions yesterday evening, and the answers this morning? I bet he was already drunk when he received them :)...
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
I'm no Linux guru but I bet someone here could develop just such a tool - and it probably wouldn't even qualify as "circumvention" under DMCA because there are lots of good reasons to encrypt your HD data. Of course there is the processing overhead, but that's getting cheaper every day (except for Mac users).
sulli
RTFJ.
... not give the person interviewed 5 tin cans of penguin mints just before the interview.
...check that they didn't SCREW WILDLY the night before.
...disable the perl script that inserts RANDOM capitalizations IN the TEXT.
-- the cake is a lie
Let's try an experiment - Decide which of the following quotes are from Andre, and which are from Zippy the Pinhead:
answers below
Farther down.
Here they are!
Answers:
IN a more serious vein, it does sound like the hard drive problem either won't happen or will be easy to overcome... YOW!
Anyone happen to have links to the Microsoft system he discussed? I like to think I'm in touch with social norms but this dude really threw me some curve balls. So seriously, here's one more question for you.. What did 90% of your responses actually mean?
How we know is more important than what we know.
wonderful responses, but... the last question asked what we can do, but Andre basically said "you can vent all you want...but..." i don't think this is the case. earlier in the piece, it is mentioned that a law passed about two years ago spawned this demon crap. i strongly recommend that anyone interesting in countering some of these horrid laws PLEASE JOIN the eff right away...i wish andre had answered the last question this way. finally, the one comment about "give the dog a dooly"...the question and answer were great. anyone not sure they understand all this stuff should look that one over.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
All forms of copy protection can be defeated.
This is not like saying, "Anything is possible" - or a generalization. It is the absolute truth, and anybody who understands the inner workings of computers knows this.
The reason it is possible to defeat all copy protection, is simply because with todays computers you have access to the software you are running; you must have access to it, or it could not be on your system.
To defeat copy protection, you need only analyze how the software protects itself from illegle copying and circumvent it through the use of additional software, or modifying the original software.
Software companies can make the process as complicated as they want, the US can pass laws banning all reverse-engineering (Which is the equivilant of banning simple problem solving concepts, ie: 2x4 = 8 but legally you can't find out what 8/4 = ). Or the other way around, (Few what a paradox).
The only solution to prevent illegal copying is either to have very good public relations and rely on the honesty, and ethic of the general public in relation to your product (This is the best solution);
Or to offer your product on 'closed' systems, that is, systems where installing software and working with the contents of memory yourself - are next to impossible. Systems which are not made to be configured by the general public.
To my knowledge, these systems really don't exist; as everything today is made programmable, and the concepts are understood by everybody. You can program for game consoles, PDAs and home computers. And until the price of fabricating technology comes way, way down; there is not going to be a solution to the problem of copy protection because systems are made to have multiple uses, and this in itself gives anyone the ability to modify their software to do things it was not intended to do.
People demand these options, companies provide them, and then companies get angry that people demand total control over the products they own. It's BS.
I say, take back the right to use software however you wish; it's up to the companies to convince the users that their software is worth paying for.
I have a copy of Windoze, I use it regularly, and I refuse to pay for it because I am not convinced, not in the least, that it is worth a hundred bucks; not to me, and not to most computer users. It is closed-system software, and it sucks.
If microsoft had not cornered the software market so long ago, I would not be forced into running their crappy product for compatibility issues; and therefore I feel I have the right to use it free of charge, how else am I going to play Counterstrike...
Ace
Ever had a morning where you were not kissed and told "I love you," when the night before you SCREWED so wildly that you could not remember?
Inquiring minds want to know...