Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection

David Gerard writes "Security researcher Peter Gutmann has released A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection, a detailed explanation of just what the protected-content paths in Windows Vista mean to you the consumer: increased hardware cost and even less OS robustness. 'This document analyses the cost involved in Vista's content protection, and the collateral damage that this incurs throughout the computer industry ... The Vista Content Protection specification could very well constitute the longest suicide note in history.'"

Comments

Re:Higher Requirements for New Media

[caldaan]

I think the point was more on the lines of, if you want to play blu-ray discs all you need to do is buy a blu-ray player.

But in reality that $2000 LCD monitor you have isn't going to help because it can't tell the video card that its a protected device, well you need to go buy a new monitor.

Wait that $500 video card can't detect trusted monitors, better go buy a new card that can.

Oh yeah, and that all digital surround sound system, well it isn't going to work at all so you need to go buy an analog one.

Re:Migrate to not Vista

[Utopia]

Thats incorrect. Degradation is recommended by the HD standards only if the content provider has opted-in for content protection but the hardware used doesn't provide a complete protection path to the display.

So non-opted content will display with full fidelity regardless of whether a non-secured or secured mechanism is used to display the content.

Peter Gutmann

[starfishsystems]

In case anyone doesn't already know him by reputation, Peter Gutmann isn't just some random blogger with a grudge against Microsoft.

Yes, he tends to be a bit outspoken at times. He's also a veteran contributor to the security field and tends to know exactly what he's talking about. So before dismissing what he has to say, you owe it to yourself to check his reasoning.