HD-DVD and Blu-Ray AACS DRM Cracked

Not really cracked, more like circumvented by sith · 2006-12-27 17:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

As best as I've been able to gather from what I've read today, the very clever fellow just implemented that publicly available decryption routine, and also discovered an (as of yet unreleased) method for obtaining decryption keys. It seems very likely from everything I've read that he is pulling the keys from the PowerDVD program - perhaps they're left unencrypted similar to the original DeCSS obtained a key from the Xing player?

In any case, it will be interesting to see how this is dealt with, and whether key revocation can/can't break this. The author thinks it can't - the cat is out of the bag and is staying that way.

We'll see. I think it's good news for us though, no matter what.

Re:Not really cracked, more like circumvented by Myen · 2006-12-27 17:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

Yes, and the Engadget article that is TFA is mistaken... He didn't supply any keys, just disc IDs (to map to human readable names of the discs). The place where the keys would have been were all stubbed out with all nulls.

If this is a crack for the DRM, then GPG is a crack for PGP.
Re:Not really cracked, more like circumvented by FuturePastNow · 2006-12-27 18:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

According to the program's creator:

I was very surprise to realize that the title key is there, in memory!

Older systems make Trusted Computing their bitch. Oh yeah.

--
Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
Re:Not really cracked, more like circumvented by Rufus211 · 2006-12-27 18:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

As best as I've been able to gather from what I've read today, the very clever fellow just implemented that publicly available decryption routine, and also discovered an (as of yet unreleased) method for obtaining decryption keys. It seems very likely from everything I've read that he is pulling the keys from the PowerDVD program - perhaps they're left unencrypted similar to the original DeCSS obtained a key from the Xing player?

Exactly. I've read the source code he released and it's less than 500 lines of Java. All it does is open each file on an HD-DVD and call the built-in Java AES decryption functions on each "pack" of HD data. There's a slight bit of handling for the pack format and all, but it's straight from the AACS spec.

Now the interesting thing I found from the "pre-recorded video book" spec were these two quotes (page 18):
A licensed product shall treat its Device Keys as highly confidential, as defined in the license agreement.
and
Except where otherwise provided for in these specifications, the values used to enable playback of AACS content (e.g. Title Keys and Volume ID) shall be discarded upon removal of the instance of media from which they were retrieved. Any derived or intermediate cryptographic values shall also be discarded.

So it seems that PowerDVD (or whatever player was used) was fully within the spec to no protect the Title Keys that are assumed to have be swipped by this prog.
Re:Not really cracked, more like circumvented by Junta · 2006-12-27 19:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

Looks like from his FAQ that he figured a deterministic way a particular piece of HD-DVD software stores the key in memory. Of course, it's always going to be the case the key is in memory during playback, finding the address would be the pain.. Wonder how he knew what to look for so quickly... Well, suppose he did have a couple of distinct movies, he probably had a set of addresses that obviously changed between discs or titles, and probably some tell-tale strings...

So he probably doesn't have the program's key (it would be in memory a short time probably if well implemented, but ultimately probably gettable, if the program can read it's own key, anyone can). However, expect content providers to audit how easily the key material is locatable in memory (i.e. how deterministic the key memory address is relative to program base address) and revoke keys in future pressings and force upgrades to software users.

Of course, with a few keys out it becomes problematic to hide the locations. Ultimately, the program has to know the offset to the key to use it, so there are going to be hoops to jump through, but using a known title with known key means the address of the key can be found and sampled over a few playback attempts, the memory address of the program analyzed to see if some pattern emerges or some variable points the right way....

BTW, if it was PowerDVD (which he never explicitly said), he is cocky actually showing that program running in his demonstration. PowerDVD is going to be under careful analysis now and his job will be made more difficult likely.

Of course, he could be more clever than I'm guessing, but the indications seem to be memory analysis of HD-DVD playback software.

Anyway, beyond making more hoops to go through, content providers cannot be so stupid as to think the problem technically insurmountable. It's all about demonstrating clear intent to violate DMCA and take legal rather technical measures to 'deal' with the problem.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Re:Not really cracked, more like circumvented by Bios_Hakr · 2006-12-27 19:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's pretty early in the rollout. The execs will kill off the format and release a new system within a year. HD-DVD-2 or something like that.

Then, they'll just not give the keys to PowerDVD.

Note to all future hackers. Wait till you have critical mass before you release a crack.

--
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
Re:Not really cracked, more like circumvented by Anpheus · 2006-12-27 19:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's an infinite regression of cats and mice, not turtles! But seriously, it seems to me a lot easier to find the function that performs the decryption, which should be easy to find because AES is a common algorithm, see which argument is the input key, and then insert assembly to output that key somehow, store it in a known location in memory, etc. Of course, then it would be their turn to respond by either revoking the key in new releases, or obfuscating the decryption function at a low level, etc. However, it still seems to me that it would be much easier to edit the machine code than to screw around with context switching and hoping to grab a useful pointer or the key itself. It sounds like the first battle was won, but it'll be interesting to see what the DRM guys do next.
Re:Not really cracked, more like circumvented by dtfinch · 2006-12-27 19:55 · Score: 5, Informative

They have many keys now, one for each model of player. I don't remember the exact terminology, but the player private keys are used to decrypt the disk key stored on the disk. There are many copies of the disk key, each encrypted with a different player's public key. If they want to revoke a player, they just don't include a copy of the disk key encrypted with that player's public key on future disks. So that player can play old disks, but they'll need to replace it to play new disks.
Re:Not really cracked, more like circumvented by deroby · 2006-12-27 21:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

Not quite sure I understand how this works then =(

If each disk contains a (limited) set of keys, one for each model like you say, what will then happen when a new model comes out next year and I put my 'old' DVD-HD disk in there ?
=> the model didn't exist yet, hence, there is no key, hence, my 'newest' player can't play my 'oldest' movies anymore ? Or did they just foresee 10.000 keys and assign them to models as they get released ? (plenty of space on these shiny disks after all).

Additionally, wouldn't finding 1 private key (say for example from PowerDVD) allow for a (maybe not so brute as it seems ?) exhaustive search for all the other private keys of all the other players ? They might decide to 'disable' a certain key from a certain model, but I very much doubt they can keep on doing this ... I think.
(I guess if someone set something up like Distributed.Net for finding these keys, it wouldn't take that long to decrypt them all. After all, if you know the result, it's just a matter of trial & error. Yes it will be HUGE task (not sure how many bits the key holds, didn't watch TFA, nor am very educated on the subject) but the amount of CPU-power allocated to it might be tremendous here... Finally a "good" use for all those botnets =)

(I might be missing something (or even a lot) here ... )

--
If there is one thing to be learned on slashdot, it has to be sarcasm.
Re:Not really cracked, more like circumvented by javilon · 2006-12-27 22:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

When a couple or three keys for _hardware_ players leak the content providers will have to make their minds up and decide if they revoke them.

If they decide to do so, I can tell you that the whole scheme will go down. There will be people with bought and paid hardware made useless. This will be a very good example when explaining to people why DRM is a problem.

Also, if I have learned something in this thread is that if you hack a player, you just have to keep it secret and only release the disk keys for every disk that comes out to the market. If the RIAA doesn't know what player has been hacked, they can't revoke its key. Having one player hacked will invalidate the whole schema as long as the RIAA doesn't know wich one is it.

I am the owner of a High Definition 50 inches TV, with only DVI input. That I see as a good thing. I will not be tempted by the new High Definition *paid* content. There is no way I will be paying another 3000 for a new set just because the content providers refuse to show their content on my perfectly good one. This is also a good way to explain people what DRM is about.

--

When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
Re:Not really cracked, more like circumvented by Splab · 2006-12-27 23:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

if it's already possible to decrypt blueray/hd-dvd, won't they have to wait for next generation untill next round? The fun thing is, the DRM guys gets one swing at it, while the hackers can poke around untill they beat it. It's a lost war.
Re:Not really cracked, more like circumvented by Kjella · 2006-12-28 00:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

When a couple or three keys for _hardware_ players leak the content providers will have to make their minds up and decide if they revoke them.

If I recall correctly, the decision tree is very large (possibly down to a single player) so no, a few hardware keys released means only a few players will die. Of course, if you have a credible threat that you can keep posting new keys (should be too hard if you've found a method) then it's pretty much shot.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Not really cracked, more like circumvented by kruhft · 2006-12-28 00:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

Soon, only criminals will posesess old systems...

--
Listen to my music.
Re:Not really cracked, more like circumvented by pla · 2006-12-28 00:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

Of course, it's always going to be the case the key is in memory during playback, finding the address would be the pain

Not really... Even without any better strategy, you can narrow the potential range down QUITE a bit (within one process' address space), and exhaustively try every machine-aligned keylength-block in just a few seconds. And it would surprise me greatly if we can't do a whole lot better than that

and revoke keys in future pressings and force upgrades to software users.

Revocation accomplishes nothing (except, as with most DRM, annoying legitimate users) if the cracker can get the key dynamically. This problem WILL result in the eventual blacklisting of XP for HD content, at which point the protection of AACS will reduce to the security of Vista's kernel (ie, already cracked).

It's all about demonstrating clear intent to violate DMCA and take legal rather technical measures to 'deal' with the problem.

Bingo. Although it does look like they at least tried to make it somewhat hard this time, no solution (not even quantum) exists to the cryptography problem where "Bob" and "Carol" (the "man-in-the-middle") count as the same entity.
Re:Not really cracked, more like circumvented by afidel · 2006-12-28 02:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

Nope, unlike CSS keys AACS keys are revocable, so the keys for the cracked version of PowerDVD (or whatever player has been compromised) can be denied by new media. Basically they encrypt the media's decryption key with the public keys of all of the licensed devices and once a player has been compromised they no long use that tainted key (It's actually kind of the reverse of this process, but it gives you an idea of what they accomplish and the general idea of how). Of course if many players are compromised it is unlikely that the content companies will be able to revoke all of their keys, because that would lead to a backlash against the format as consumers devices suddenly stop playing new titles. What I'm personally waiting for is an industrious hacker to expose the key of a popular hardware player, forcing an upgrade of a software player is one thing, requiring naive users to upgrade the firmware of their hardware player is going to be labor intensive. Either they will need lots of helpdesk type staff, or lots of depot technicians to actually do the upgrades for the users. Either way lots of users won't figure out what the problem is and will simply blame the hardware vendor/format.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:Not really cracked, more like circumvented by Splab · 2006-12-28 04:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

The movie is encrypted with a single key, so if only the movie key gets put on the intarweb, they can't figure out what key to revoke. And as lots of others has pointed out, while in theory it sounds like a good solution to revoke a key, you can't do that in the real world.

Perhaps in the US where the consumer watch dogs are less fierce than those in my neck of the woods you can cripple a paid for product. But here in Denmark the company would be forced to ship replacement units should the key be revoked, and let's see how many times you can go do that until the consumers demand their money back (yeah, you can do that here if the product is broken for up to two years).

Even with the trusted hardware paths it's only a matter of time until the consumers realize what a bad thing DRM is. It's a lost fight, they should spend their money on making a better product rather than trying to find the holy grail.
Re:Not really cracked, more like circumvented by gmack · 2006-12-28 04:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

Or a load it in a virtual machine and debug that.
Re:Not really cracked, more like circumvented by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 05:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

Older systems make Trusted Computing their bitch.
That's actually quite an insightful comment.
No matter how much DRM they try to cram down our throats, the fact remains that CD-audio, MP3, and other older formats will forever remain out of their grasp.
The new formats just can't compete with the old formats, because the old formats have the overwhelming advantage of being non-crippled.
The pirates are circumventing DRM; but the rest of us are doing something that's much more devastating: we're ignoring DRM. Try releasing a new player that doesn't support MP3 -- it will be dead on arrival.
Old versus New: it simply isn't a fair fight. Old wins without even trying.
Re:Not really cracked, more like circumvented by jZnat · 2006-12-28 06:40 · Score: 5, Funny

That's why we refer to them by the more accurate acronym MAFIAA (Music and Film Industry Association of America).

--
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
Re:Not really cracked, more like circumvented by ajs318 · 2006-12-28 07:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

And the best programming language in which to implement that would be 63% tin, 37% lead with five cores of rosin flux.

Muck about with the hardware. Take advantage of manufacturers' test points (they have to put in test points! If they stop putting in test points, it will be impossible to detect and correct faults; meaning anything that doesn't work first time will have to be scrapped, and that is going to drive prices through the roof). Underclock everything to manageable speeds. Gate the processor's clock, put the rest of the motherboard into WAIT, and poke about with the processor directly. Park the processor on a totally separate bus, where you can read out all the registers into your own bit of private RAM. It's got no way to tell you've been poking about under the bonnet, as long as you put everything back how you found it.

Something like a Multiface, in other words.

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!

Re:Cheers! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-27 17:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Not to me, it isn't. This will help speed up the adoption of these formats. I'd like them both to totally fail, due to their restrictive DRM. As long as the formats enjoy some success, the content providers will keep pushing for the strong DRM.

It takes a while... by FuturePastNow · 2006-12-27 17:56 · Score: 5, Informative

The site's Farked, Digged, and everything else already, but here's the forum this was first posted to: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=119871

It contains a download link to the program.

--
Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.

Re:It takes a while... by interiot · 2006-12-27 18:03 · Score: 5, Informative

Duggmirror has a copy of the doom9 thread, as well as a link to the source code.
As another poster said, the package contains several title keys already extracted via some method. It's not clear how the author extracted the keys, or whether it's possible for the AACS people to revoke a player in order to prevent future keys from being leaked the way they currently are.
Re:It takes a while... by interiot · 2006-12-27 18:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

I don't really know much about it, but keys included in the package are title keys (eg. download the source code, see Readme.txt and TKDB.cfg, and see the list of keys for specific titles: Full Metal Jacket, Van Helsing, Tomb Raider 1, Apollo 13, The Last Samurai, and The Fugitive). Those keys probably can't be revoked (those specific titles are already mastered and are in release). But do the included keys give the AACS people enough information to identify the specific player that the author is using to extract the title keys from?
Re:It takes a while... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-27 18:14 · Score: 4, Informative

By giving out the actual per-disc keys, the guy has avoided the fate of the original decss hack which used a player key that was "revoked". Unless the "AACS people" can figure out what player key he used to get those disc keys, they can't revoke it, though they can re-author the disc with a different disc key for the next batch (which one supposes could be leaked the exact same way as the first, whatever that way is).

(For those that don't know, every disc's content is encrypted with a key particular to that disc. That key is then encrypted repeatedly with all of the device keys that are currently authorized to play that disc. Presumably there are dozens or hundreds of spare unassigned device keys in there for future use, as well. Thus, the player uses it's device key to decrypt the matching copy of the disc key, then uses the disc key to decrypt the disc. In the DVD days, device keys wouldn't be "revoked" as such, they would simply quit being used on new discs, so the device could play all old discs, but would be unable to get a disc key for new ones. Not sure if AACS actually added an actualy revocation list for device keys that would completely disable the device, as it is apparently able to do for other cryptographic keys like the HDCP keys)
Re:It takes a while... by qbwiz · 2006-12-27 18:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

Wouldn't it suck to have your HD-DVD player stop working for new titles, because someone was using its key? Or are all HD-DVD players networked, so their keys can be changed at any time?

--
Ewige Blumenkraft.
Re:It takes a while... by evilviper · 2006-12-27 18:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

AACS was designed so that keys could be revoked fro future titles.

So was DVD CSS...

Would you care to guess how well that worked?

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:It takes a while... by bigberk · 2006-12-27 20:18 · Score: 4, Funny

Wouldn't it suck to have your HD-DVD player stop working for new titles, because someone was using its key? Sure it might suck, but it's one of those little annoyances we live with because we know that Theft is Theft. We're only too happy to pay for a product and then have it cripple apart before our eyes. Sure, I might no longer be able to use the equipment I paid big money for, but will sleep comfortably at night knowing that at least the companies have protected their profits, just a little bit.
Re:It takes a while... by sxpert · 2006-12-27 22:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

That key is then encrypted repeatedly with all of the device keys that are currently authorized to play that disc.

This is a classic error in cryptographic software implementation, that can lead to revealing of all keys.
once you know the title key, you can then get all the player keys by using a known plaintext attack... and instantly crack all keys encoding your title key
Re:It takes a while... by Splab · 2006-12-27 23:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yes, but in this case you don't have one legal user for every compromised key, you got thousands, if not millions potential users of a single key.
Re:It takes a while... by simm1701 · 2006-12-27 23:59 · Score: 4, Informative

Actually thats only true in secret single key cyphers - having the plain text (the disc key) and the cypher text (the encrypted disc key) gives you a point of comparison.

Obviously if you are using something like a ceaser cypher its now trivial to get the player decryption key.

With public/private key cyphers you are given the public key. This means you can have an unlimited number of plan text, cypher text pairs and in theory it will still not get you any closer to discovering the private key than when you just had the public key.

I doubt that these data points will be particularly useful in decoding the entire collection of player keys.

However given the size of zombie networks out there.... what do you think profession dvd pirates are going to do?

--
$_="Slashdotter";$syn="OTT";s;..;;;sub _{print shift||$_};s!ash!Perl !;s=$syn=ack=i;tr+LLEd+BLAH+;_"Just Another ";_
Re:It takes a while... by IamTheRealMike · 2006-12-28 02:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yes. The major difference between AACS and CSS is that every player in the world can have a unique key, rather than just the 20 or so keys that CSS used. If PowerDVD is not adequately protecting the key then it will be barred from accessing new titles and a software upgrade will be required for PowerDVD players. For hardware DVD players, the key is usually far better protected anyway, but if it is somehow extracted then a firmware reflash and/or a physical hardware swap (paid for by the manufacturer) is the way it'll be done.

Basically, the summary is totally misleading, as per usual with Slashdot + DRM. AACS has not been cracked. A single badly protected player was cracked and its key will be revoked, as the AACS spec provisions for. The scheme was designed to be "damage resistant" and that's what we're seeing at work.
Re:It takes a while... by afidel · 2006-12-28 03:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually, if they are title keys then it probably is NOT enough to finger the player. The player key is used to decrypt the title key, which is used to decrypt the content. The content is only encrypted with one title key, and has no relation to the player key. So as long as you only release title keys there is no way for them to know what player(s) have been compromised. Of course most hackers will probably release their findings as cracks to the software program, but eventually a smart one will simply setup a CDDB style database with title keys and any program will be able to read the media ID, download the title key, and use the reference decoder implementation to decrypt the content. THAT is how you get around key revocation =)

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:It takes a while... by squiggleslash · 2006-12-28 03:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Of course, unless there's truth in advertising, the people "subjected to the rules of the game" will be completely unaware there's a game to begin with.
Imagine, in 2009, buying an HD-DVD, and having to check the list of players listed on the back under "This disc will not play under the following players". If only two or three keys get compromised, this might be managable, but...
Contrary to what has been claimed above, CSS had the same mechanisms in place. Supposedly AACS makes this more practical because there are more keys, and therefore keys can be assigned to each model of player, and because some NG DVD players will have mechanisms to update themselves. In practice, this is absolute rubbish. Half the people buying such devices will not be able to set up those mechanisms, most of them find it hard enough just setting up a DSL connection, and revoking a key will be a major issue that will effect huge numbers of people. Any attempt to revoke keys, especially for more popular players of the type that are the most likely to be cracked due to sheer numbers, will cause permanent damage to the credibility of the format.
What a terrible idea you've come up with, MPAA. The sooner you and your DMCA promoting selves self destruct the better.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:It takes a while... by minus_273 · 2006-12-28 04:42 · Score: 2, Funny

i love these slashdot replies where smartass idiots reply with the dumbest stuff. Read a little about AACS the people who made the thing are not idiots.

--
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace

Well and good... by Ekhymosis · 2006-12-27 17:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

But I would like to know how this will affect the customer as well. I know short term that DRM is bad and all, especially with the "where there's a will, there's a way" mentality in cracking it, but seeing as how these companies invest (or rather waste) millions in copy protection schemes, will they jack the prices up to cover the cost of their mistakes? I think this practice has become mainstream, no?

--
Fighting over religion is like seeing whose imaginary friend is best.

Wrong conclusion... by im_thatoneguy · 2006-12-27 18:02 · Score: 5, Interesting

The correct conclusion is: 'Finally! Now I don't have to buy an HD-DVD Player.'

I don't mind purchasing an HD-DVD and then just downloading its illegal doppelganger. I DO mind purchasing an overpriced paperweight to keep me legal. I looked at Xbox Live Marketplace from the perspective of:

"Rent 44 HD movies. or Buy HD-DVD Player and a movie." I decided I would get much more HD goodness out of downloads than just a player.

It's sort of like the way I purchase Star Trek for my Xbox and then download a copy for my PC as well. Sure it's illegal, but I look at it from the perspective of: I purchased it so that I could watch it, and watch it I shall.

Re:Wrong conclusion... by Paul+Jakma · 2006-12-27 20:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

Sure it's illegal,

Actually, no, that's not sure at all.

--
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
Re:Wrong conclusion... by spire3661 · 2006-12-27 20:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

Again here we are. The gulf between media and licenses. He paid for legal license to watch said performance. Why on earth should he be charged full price to watch the same performance in a different format. If we could find a way to separate license and format, the digital age could truly begin. But the media companies dont want to make the license and the media separate. If I buy a HD-DVD, and I want a DVD copy of it, I should be able to get one at the cost of manufacturing the MEDIA , not the media AND the license. I could go on and on, but the point is, beyond value added pieces to new formats, the license should be sufficient to be able to watch that performance anywhere, in any format.

--
Good-bye
Re:Wrong conclusion... by Chandon+Seldon · 2006-12-27 20:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

There's nothing morally wrong with downloading the content and watching it. It's *data* - not only that, it's an element of our culture. How could accepting someone's offer to share culture be wrong?

--
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Re:Wrong conclusion... by Ironica · 2006-12-27 21:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

I purchased it so that I could watch it, and watch it I shall.

"I don't like the DUI laws, so drink and drive I shall!"

"I think I deserve more pay, so embezzle I shall!"

"I don't have a problem with heroin, so deal it i shall!"

Uh... if you really think that drunk driving, embezzlement, and drug dealing are on par with activities which are technically illegal under DMCA, but actually covered within exceptions to copyright (what the OP is talking about is analogous to making a cassette tape of a CD so you can play it in your car), I gotta wonder where you get your crack.

--
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
Re:Wrong conclusion... by j-turkey · 2006-12-27 21:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

The most basic acceptance test of any moral or social philosophy is whether it can be applied generally. Yours boils down to: I do what I think is correct. Okay, but please don't call the cops when someone punches you in the face and takes your wallet, because I am sure that it was a perfectly acceptable action to the perpetrator.

You make a good argument, and I've heard it before. However, black and white interpretation of the law tends to fail (especially when you equate morality and law). I'll fall back on an analogy here: If you drive, do you ever speed? The law says that you cannot drive at a rate higher than the posted speed limit. However, on most major US highways, traffic tends to move at around 5% higher than the posted speed limit. Driving at the posted speed limit would cause a dangerous situation, whereas operating your vehicle in a manner consistent with the flow of traffic is a safer way to travel. Is speeding immoral? If so, should we just not drive until everyone else slows down?

Many people make informed decisions to break the law. Whether or not this is a conscious act of civil disobedience, it is (in many cases) still a form of civil disobedience. Putting this into the context of the American alcohol prohibition, a large scale amount of civil disobedience fueled organized crime to fulfill the demand for alcohol, and the law was eventually shown to be unreasonable. A freedom limiting law was abolished because sufficient numbers of people chose to break that law. This did not cause any crumble of society, and did not turn morality upside down.

In any case, I respect your position, but disagree with your absolute reasoning. IP license violation isn't the same as DUI, and it's not punching someone in the nose and running off their wallet. Laws like the American DMCA have unjust provisions. The grandparent poster is acting in good faith, and harming nobody. Perhaps the gpp is partaking in a phenomena of culture redefining law.

--

-Turkey
Re:Wrong conclusion... by mrchaotica · 2006-12-27 22:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

Hey, ignoring the stupid law worked for Prohibition!

It just goes to show that there's a huge difference between some nominally illegal act being acceptable to a few people and being acceptable to nearly everyone. In the long run the DMCA cannot stand, because breaking it is indeed acceptable to nearly everyone.

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:Wrong conclusion... by cpt+kangarooski · 2006-12-28 02:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

I believe the company that manufactured that disk disagrees with you.

No, they don't. Consumer-level copyright licenses are extremely rare, limited pretty much to the software industry, and in fact, there's no good reason for them to exist, even there. That they do is basically just inertia and misunderstanding of the legal system.

Do you actually own the disk?

Yes.

Can that ownership be revoked?

No.

Are you entitled to a copy of the disk if that disk is damaged or destroyed?

Only to your copy, unless there's some manner of warranty that's applicable (e.g. if it is damaged when you get it from a store, the store will have to replace the bad copy with a good one), or perhaps if someone tortiously damages it, they might have to pay damages equal to the value of the disk, which could be applied to replacing it.

Do you own the contents of that disk?

No, but then, no one does. That's impossible.

Are you licensed to watch the contents of that disk?

No, not that it's even necessary to be.

Are you no longer a licensed viewer of the contents of that disk when that disk is no longer viewable (destroyed/damaged)?

That's moot per what's directly above.

Are you licensed to show the contents of that disk to non-licensed viewers?

No, but that's not always necessary.

Can you charge non-licensed viewers for the privilege of viewing the contents of that disk?

Maybe. It largely, but not entirely, depends on what's on the disk. Alternatively, it depends on whether it'd be fair or not, which will vary according to the totality of relevant circumstances.

Can you derive profit from displaying ads from showing the contents of that disk? Can you copy the contents of that disk? Can you copy and change the format of the contents of that disk? Can you copy portions of that disk to create derivative works? Can you distribute dirivative works from that disk? Can you charge people to watch works created from derivative works from that disk?

Ditto.

Can you destroy that disk?

Yes.

Can you resell that disk?

Yes.

Can you resell that disk after having made personal copies of that disk?

Yes, but it may be taken into consideration as a relevant circumstance as to whether it was lawful to make the personal copy or not. For example, there is a very big difference between buying a disk, copying it, and reselling it, all on the same day, and buying a disk, copying it, and reselling it, all years apart from one another. What you were thinking about at the time you made the copy is important and will be determined by looking at how you acted. Simply saying 'personal copies' isn't a magic invocation that protects you.

By the way... you're an idiot. Think harder in the future. Thanks.

I wouldn't be so quick to insult people if I were you.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Re:Wrong conclusion... by ajs318 · 2006-12-28 09:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

When I buy a DVD, I buy a disk that has a movie on it - not a license.

I believe the company that manufactured that disk disagrees with you.
What the company that manufactured that disc thinks is irrelevant. They accepted payment for it; it's not their property anymore. According to the Law of the Land, what anybody does with it from that moment on is None Of The Manufacturer's Damn Business.

You might not realize this but but your statement doesn't do anything to clarify what you own
No, but consumer protection law is quite clear on the matter. Your right to use any article purchased at retail by you for its Rightful Purpose is protected by the Law of the Land. If you purchase a DVD at retail, its Rightful Purpose includes private home viewing by the owner, their friends and family and for which an admission fee is not charged. If the goods you have purchased are not fit for their Rightful Purpose, then you are entitled to return it to the place of purchase and receive a full refund of the purchase price paid.

Do you actually own the disk?
You paid money for it. It's your property.

Can that ownership be revoked?
That would be called Theft.

Are you entitled to a copy of the disk if that disk is damaged or destroyed?
Not necessarily. It is your property and you are generally responsible for taking proper care of it. However, unauthorised, deliberate damage by a third party may constitute Criminal Damage.

Do you own the contents of that disk? Are you licensed to watch the contents of that disk?
Watching the contents of the disc would be considered the Rightful Purpose of the disc. Your right to use your own property for its Rightful Purpose is protected by the Law of the Land. You do not need any other licence to watch it.

Are you no longer a licensed viewer of the contents of that disk when that disk is no longer viewable (destroyed/damaged)?
You do not need any licence to view the contents of the disc. Your right to do so stems directly from your ownership of the disc. If the disc is covered by an insurance policy, the original disc will become the property of the insurer when they pay out (and therefore you would no longer have the right to view its content) -- however, they may give it to you anyway, in order to transfer any obligations regarding proper recycling of waste onto you.

Are you licensed to show the contents of that disk to non-licensed viewers?
You do not need any licence to view the contents of the disc. Refer to established case law regarding viewing of recordings. Generally, it is OK to show it to your friends and members of your family if an admission fee is not charged; and a licence can be arranged for a small fee (payable through a royalties collection agency) to allow showing it in a workplace or to members of a club or society (which is deemed beyond Rightful Purpose, and so requires permission from the copyright holder or their authorised agent [i.e. a royalties collection agency]).

Can you charge non-licensed viewers for the privilege of viewing the contents of that disk?
You have to obtain a special licence for exhibition other than to friends and members of your family or for which an admission fee is charged. A licence permitting the general Public to attend the viewing (which certainly exceeds Rightful Purpose) is generally more expensive than a licence for a viewing restricted to a workplace or members of a club or society.

Can you derive profit from displaying ads from showing the contents of that disk?
Yes, if you are properly licenced to do so. See above.

Can you copy the contents of that disk? Can you copy and change the format of the contents of that disk?

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!

Damn it! by fahrbot-bot · 2006-12-27 18:03 · Score: 4, Funny

Cracked already? I had December 29th in the pool.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .

Cracker actually working for HD-DVD Consortium? by BenJeremy · 2006-12-27 18:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

Really just a stab here, but maybe given lackluster sales of hardware, the consortium hired a ringer to play "DVD Jon" for a day and "leak" the crack to the public, thus encouraging some support from a DRM-weary public?

The industry knows piracy is not really a big problem - they still make mountains of cash, and society needs a little underlying "lawlessness" (like speeding, for example) to ease pressure. Perhaps some industry insiders sick of kowtowing to the IP Lawyers decided to leak the crack to the public in a round-about manner?

If true, it's brilliant.... if not, then they missed the boat.

Re:Cracker actually working for HD-DVD Consortium? by Weedlekin · 2006-12-27 22:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

"given lackluster sales of hardware"

The poor hardware sales are due to the following factors:

1) Hi-def content is only of interest to the small minority of consumers who have a TV capable of displaying it, a screen big enough to notice any difference from up-scaled DVDs, and the requisite inputs, i.e. HDMI if they don't want to risk having future content down-scaled to a level that's worse than DVD.

2) Even those who fall into (1) above are wary of the fact that there are two competing formats, so many will inevitably wait and see which of them finally wins (or alternatively, wait for a player that's compatible with both).

3) Prices are extremely high at the moment -- for less money, one can buy a decent stand-alone DVD recorder with an integral DVR and editing system, which appeals to far more consumers due to being usable with a much wider range of TVs. The fact that DVD players are now available for less than the cost of newly released media for them does nothing to help this situation.

4) A shortage of blue lasers means that even those early adopters who want HD-DVD or Blu-Ray players have difficulty finding one.

5) There isn't a vast range of compelling titles in Hi-def formats, and some of those that are available don't actually look any better than the DVD version (in some cases they're worse). Furthermore, the fact that certain studios are aligned with HD-DVD while others favour Blu-Ray means that it's rare to see a movie released on both, meaning that those who opt for one format cannot view movies that only get released on the other one, thereby bringing us back to (2) above. By contrast, a $25 DVD player gives people access to a gigantic library of content, much of which is available for around $5, or can be rented, pirated, or made by individuals using cheap and readily available equipment.

6) Early adopters with money to burn tend to read lots of reviews, and will therefore know about the problems each of the small number of available players have with some disks. These issues might be acceptable with a $25 no-name DVD player, but those who spent between $500 and $1000 on a new hi-def system will be feeling very pissed off indeed if one of the only five movies they want to watch on it doesn't play properly.

Problems (3) and (4) will disappear fairly quickly because the lack of blue lasers is a short-term phenomenon, and once production ramps up, competition between manufacturers will progressively lower prices and ensure that dual-standard players come on to the market, possibly (i.e. not definitely) some time during the next year, and this competition will also mean problem (6) won't be (much of) an issue in a year's time. Even so, realistically speaking, the requirement for a large high-definition TV set will mean that adoption rates will remain low for a few years yet, so the range of titles will be significantly more limited than those for DVD, and sales / rental outlets will therefore devote less shelf space to them than their DVD equivalents, as indeed was the case with DVDs when VHS was the dominant format. However, unlike the VHS / DVD situation, it's easy and cheap for manufacturers to equip blue laser players with the ability to read standard DVDs, so those with existing collections aren't forced to re-buy everything in the new format, and this will probably help adoption rates once the price drops to an acceptable "impulse buy" level (i.e. below $150/Euros) and equipment is supplied with "dongles" (internal or external) that ensure output doesn't become degraded when connected to non-HDCP compatible displays (the fact that no media have HDCP yet is a short-lived phenomenon, because the media companies wouldn't have insisted it be there unless they intended to use it).

So the probability of this crack having been unofficially sanctioned by the industry (hardware or media) is very remote indeed, because the slow hardware sales aren't in any way linked to DRM, and even if they were, hardware companies in particular could easily circumv

--
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.

P2P links then... by _Shorty-dammit · 2006-12-27 18:07 · Score: 2, Informative

Link by h4rdc0d3 · 2006-12-27 18:07 · Score: 5, Informative

If anyone wants to try it out, here is a link to the executable and source code (Java)...

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=119871

There is more detailed info in the included FAQ. The bad news is, the program itself isn't actually "cracking" anything. The author used publicly available AACS documents to write his own decrypter (e.g. just as PowerDVD or WinDVD would). The catch is, you must provide the decryption keys to this software in order to rip the movies from the disk.

However, the good news is, it looks like he may have found a way to extract the needed decryption key(s) from the HD-DVDs. He doesn't explain how in the documentation or provide any keys, but if he figured it out I'm sure others will - and that means more advanced and powerful tools shouldn't bee too far off.

Actually... by alexandreracine · 2006-12-27 18:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

now that it is crack, I might buy one :)

--
No sig for now.

Mmm but would you do it? by atari2600 · 2006-12-27 18:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think Hollywood has a slight edge here. Consider this: Ripped DVDs came around to 4 - 4.5GB and while this isn't a huge amount of diskspace, it is still a considerable amount of space. Even so, a 250GB HDD (you can get this for
Now coming to HD-DVDs (the screenshots from the article show approximately 24GB of space being used or 24GiB, whatever tickles your fancy). This means a 250GB will be able to hold
The point is with the Hi-Def media, it doesn't make as much sense to rip every movie you have and store it on your fileserver for the next year or two. This is awesome news but i am not sure i'll be ripping HD-DVDs/Blu-ray disks like i used to rip DVDs. These things take way too much space. Hollywood would have an edge if they priced the stuff at around 15-20$ - i'd buy one than let a movie take up 30GB on my machine.

Re:Mmm but would you do it? by BenJeremy · 2006-12-27 18:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

True, but you could also use a better compression algorithm and knock the size down... say, use a new version of RatDVD, call it "RatHD" and preserve all of the menuing and features, but compress it down to 8 or 9 GB and save to DL. Even better, if you don't have 1080p, compress it down to 720p and save more space, but still get higher def than DVD as a backup of your movie discs. Store your retail HD discs away some place safe and use your backups for playback (or keep on the HTPC HD for easy retrieval)
Re:Mmm but would you do it? by TexasDex · 2006-12-27 18:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

The point is with the Hi-Def media, it doesn't make as much sense to rip every movie you have and store it on your fileserver for the next year or two. This is awesome news but i am not sure i'll be ripping HD-DVDs/Blu-ray disks like i used to rip DVDs. These things take way too much space. Hollywood would have an edge if they priced the stuff at around 15-20$ - i'd buy one than let a movie take up 30GB on my machine.
Wait 5 years and read that post again. I bet you'll laugh. "Only 24 gigs?" you'll say. "That's nothing!" I guarentee it.

To put it in prespective: My old 486 had a hard disk with less than 400 MB of space. But it also had a CD-ROM drive. Your average CD back then held 650MB. Yes, it had an optical drive that was bigger than its hard disk. Nobody ever thought to even include copy protection on the CD because storing that much data was insane, and transmitting it over the internet even more so. With the advent of MP3 and bigger storage and broadband it became commonplace to trade music online.

My brother got one of the first computers that came equipped with a DVD drive, which has a capacity of 4.7 GB (I'm ignoring the whole multi-layer DVD format for sake of simplicity). It also came with a hard disk that could hold up to 2 Gigabytes. Now your average DVD can be recompressed without too much quality loss to, say, 1.5GB, and modern hard disks will store hundreds of them with ease, and you can download them in an hour or two on a good connection, or maybe a day on an okay one. Are you noticing a recurring theme here?

The truth is that Blu-ray isn't all that big compared to the hard disks of today, especially not when you look at previous optical formats and how big they were in comparison to the hard disks of the era in which they were first made. Heck I could fit a Blu-ray disk or two on my iPod and have some space left over.

Such is the progress of technology (by which I mean mostly storage space and bandwidth, but also compression technology and the processor power to implement it). A digital movie standard such as Blu-ray or HDDVD should be expected to last a decade. They will probably last even longer than that because hi-def technology has matured to the point where users couldn't possibly need higher resolution or more pristine sound effects. Where do you think magnetic storage will be in ten years? Heck, where do you think solid-state storage will be in ten years?

The point is that technology changes, and people invent things like MP3 that let you squeeze more into smaller space. Which means movie format won't stop piracy because it's "too big".

--
The Cheese Stands Alone.
Re:Mmm but would you do it? by MaGogue · 2006-12-27 21:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why would you want to rip a HD film and compress it into a kind of regular DVD, when you can just rent a DVD for 2$ or less, is beyond me. You'd get a poorer (than DVD) picture because of recompression and resampling, and pay 8$ for the DL blank alone.

They aren't just going to stop selling DVD's anytime soon, and a good DVD is as good as it gets on 720x576 pixels. No MP4 compressed material (700M or even 1.4G) comes close to originally compressed MP2 on a DVD.
The friggin' point of HD format is to enjoy it on a 100" DLP projected full HD projector.. not on a computer monitor downscaled to 1080p or even 720p.

Why this may be good... by mitchell_pgh · 2006-12-27 18:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

Basically HD-DVD and Blu-Ray aren't even options for me at this point as the DRM associated with it has me shaking my head. While I'm willing to pay $20+ for a movie, I want to be able to use the movie on my terms after the initial purchase.

If this hack proves to be valid, I would actually consider investing in the technology as it opens the format up to Linux/Unix/OSX/etc.

Sort of Cracked by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2006-12-27 18:16 · Score: 5, Informative

It sounds like he didn't "crack" AACS, he just extracted the disc keys for certain titles.

A quick and dirty and probably somewhat inaccurate description of the way AACS works is that each disc is encrypted with a single 'disc key' and then that key is encrypted once with every known 'player key,' and each of those is stored on the disc. So, if you have an authorized player, it will find the version of the disc key that it knows how to decrypt and then use that to decrypt the disc for playback.

My guess is that he used one of the software players like WinDVD or PowerDVD that now sort of support HD-DVD and BLU-RAY. But instead of extracting their player key and publishing that, he played a disc in a debug environment and extracted the 'disc key' for that specific title.

The studios thought that they would be able to 'revoke' disclosed player keys by just not using them on any discs pressed after the disclosure was made public. This guy's approach seems to be to distribute disc keys and then anyone with the same disc can decrypt that specific title, thus making it harder for the studios to guess which player keys need revoking.

I think that this guy's approach will be most useful to widescale pirating because all it takes is for one person to decrypt a movie and share it with a billion of his closest friends. But the 'regular joe' who just wants to copy his BD-HDs to his hard disk for ease of playback or maybe to cut clips from it for his own home movie won't benefit because chances are, the keys for his particular discs won't be widely known enough for him to find them.

So, I now look forward to various HD titles from disc (rather than from broadcast, which are already common if you know where to look) showing up on P2P and elsewhere, I'm still not purchasing any AACS playback system since the "crack" is not (yet) useful enough for me to exercise typical fair-use rights of format shifting and personal editing.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.

Re:Sort of Cracked by TubeSteak · 2006-12-27 19:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

But the 'regular joe' who just wants to copy his BD-HDs to his hard disk for ease of playback or maybe to cut clips from it for his own home movie won't benefit because chances are, the keys for his particular discs won't be widely known enough for him to find them.
Maybe I misunderstood you, but you seem to be suggesting that in the future, not all disc keys will be available.

I recall reading (a long time ago) that teh intarnet pirates had already ripped about 3/4 of Net Flix's catalog. I imagine that they've upped that percentage significantly since.

IMO, once the knowledge behind grabbing disc keys spreads, every single HD title that comes out will promptly have it's disc key ripped out & uploaded to some gracenote style database.

Release groups are very dedicated to what they do.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Sort of Cracked by Dachannien · 2006-12-27 19:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

If that's how he's doing it - by distributing disc keys - then the studios will just start making shorter runs of the discs from the same master. There'll be, say, a hundred different disc keys for the same movie, and you won't know which one you have until you try them all. An individual or group would have to get hold of all 100 discs (or at least the portions of each that store the disc keys) to compile a complete list.

While it's certainly a move in the right direction, unfortunately, it's far from ideal. The reason I feel no moral compunction about saying this is because of your astute observation that this DRM scheme utterly fails to prevent piracy and instead is unfairly limiting how legitimate customers can use the products they buy. It's likely that this was the primary intent all along.
Re:Sort of Cracked by RAMMS+EIN · 2006-12-27 23:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

``But instead of extracting their player key and publishing that, he played a disc in a debug environment and extracted the 'disc key' for that specific title.''

So now the next step is to disallow running software in a debugger, just like in The Right to Read

--
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.

HDCP by StreetStealth · 2006-12-27 18:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

It seems to me most people are seeing this as a means to:

A) Place-shift HD-DVD content (despite current storage constraints)
B) Pirate HD-DVD content (despite current bandwidth constraints)

when I see the much more immediately relevant issue being that of HDCP: If this crack can be rolled into something on the order of a VLC plugin, there's a chance I'll actually be able to use my technically-more-than-capable, yet not-a-member-of-the-HDCP-club LCD display to view commercial 720p content.

--
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear

Re:Zip does NOT contain any keys by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-27 18:29 · Score: 2, Funny

Notice the title key is all 0's, which is obviously wrong.

All zeros?

That's amazing, I've got the same combination on my luggage!

Re:Zip does NOT contain any keys by Junta · 2006-12-27 18:34 · Score: 5, Funny

Notice the title key is all 0's That's amazing! I've got the same combination on my luggage!

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.

BackupHDDVD FAQ by Black+Acid · 2006-12-27 18:54 · Score: 5, Informative

B a c k u p H D - D V D F A Q

-What is "Backup HDDVD" for?
It can do backup copies of HD DVD movies that YOU OWN! I don't want anyone to do piracy here! This software is a good way to protect your investment, because I have notice that this type of media seems very fragile, if it's scratched a little or dirty, it won't play. It seems less tolerent than DVD format. (Higher density!)

-What "Backup HDDVD" is doing exactly?
This is a java based command line utility that decrypt video files (.evo) from a HD DVD disk that you own, to your hard drive and you can play them back with a HD DVD player software.

-What are the system requirements to use "Backup HDDVD"
1 - A Windows based system
2 - A HDDVD disk drive
3 - A HDDVD player software (like PowerDVD)
4 - A HDDVD movie(s)
5 - Java rutime 1.5
6 - The possibility to access the content of the disk with a drive letter under windows.
(you may need UDF 2.5 file system driver for this)
7 - A lot of free hard disk space to backup your movies!

-Was your first HDDVD movie hard to decrypt?

It took me around a week to do. But I have wasted few days
trying to work on too complicated approach. In fact, it is very simple.

-How do you do that?

The program itself has nothing special. It simply implement the AACS decyption protocol. I have followed the freely available documents about AACS
Have a look at: www.aacsla.com The trick, is to find what they call the "Title keys". So I figure out how to extract them.

-How do you extract the "Title keys"?

I won't explain it in detail. Read the AACS doc first. You will understand. The title keys are located on the disk in encrypted form, but for a
content to be played, it has to be decrypted! So where is the decrypted version of the title key? Think about it...

-What kind of crypto algorithms are involved?
Standards algorithms:
ECC-160
AES-128
Look in the AACS doc for more details.

-What is the TKDB.cfg file?
This is the Title key Database file. It holds the decryption keys for the movies.

-What is the format of this file?
Field 1: SHA1 Hash of the VTKF000.AACS file on your HDDVD disk.
Next fields are pipe "|" delimited.
-Movie Title
-A variable number of Title key, pipe delimited
You have a key number followed by the key value like:
12-08A3DC61910280F2...

Key values are 128 bits long, so 16 bytes, or 32 hexadecimal characters long.

-The TKDB.cfg file provided with your program is empty or incomplete, what can I do?
Here is my TKDB.cfg:

CE6339246F34087AB355681DEB656D23DCD5BD86=Full Metal Jacket | 1-0000000000000000000000
0000000000
486198E3855B57CD40F6DC0C60645BDE8E1E9AC5=Van Helsing |19-0000000000000000000000
0000000000
3D357B0653A66176583C5218FD0149EAF8832FB0=The Last Samurai | 1-0000000000000000000000
0000000000

-What do you think of the technical aspects of AACS?

The design is not that bad, but it's too easy to have an insecure player implementation somewhere. And just one bad implementation is all it needs
to get the keys! There will always be insecure implementations of a player somewhere! And the "Revocation system" is totaly useless if you use
the Title key directly.

-Is there any known problems with the decryption?
Yes. I call this problem the "Nav chain" bug. I realize that I have a lot of frame skipping at playback after the decryption, so I hunted down the problem. To avoid the frame skipping, I patch the video file. This fix allows smooth playback of the movie, but there are some side effects.

-What are the side effects of the "Nav chain" bug fix?

You cannot do fast forward, or backward using the round dial, but you can still use the progress bar to navigate through the film. So it's not that bad... For some reason, the sub-titles don't seems to work anymore. It may be a side

--
Tired of free ipod spam sigs? Opt ou

Will every player key be cracked? by dave1g · 2006-12-27 19:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

So the player key is hard to get at, so this guy worked around it and just copied the title key from memory, which is encrypted on disc with every player key. Since you have the plain text (of the title key) and each of the cypher texts(the encrypted title key), aren't there attacks to figure out all the player keys? And actually its worse since you have many(possibly all?) title keys and all their corresponding encrypted versions that has to extremely limit the search space for the player keys. This would be an even worse problem since they cant just revoke every key. All the hardware would break! Lawsuits galore!

Seems like the whole house of cards will fall down.

Re:Will every player key be cracked? by bigberk · 2006-12-27 20:22 · Score: 2, Informative

I haven't studied this implementation, but techniques like salts can easily avoid known PT/CT pair attacks
Re:Will every player key be cracked? by Kjella · 2006-12-27 23:22 · Score: 2, Informative

Since you have the plain text (of the title key) and each of the cypher texts(the encrypted title key), aren't there attacks to figure out all the player keys?

The short answer: No, AES is a strong crypto (though fundamentally broken when applied as DRM) and there's no known way to extract the player key no matter how many title key plain/ciphertext pairs you have. A typical example would be a SSH connection where you don't know the key, but can send plaintext, it doesn't help you. It might possibly help in reverse engineering the player key though, but only because it's broken as DRM (the decryption keys and decryption machine is under your control).

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Great job with the title keys by Myria · 2006-12-27 19:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

The hacker didn't extract the player key. This might be due to the difficulty of getting the player key, but it really doesn't matter.

The use of title keys instead is a great strategy. It means that the revocation system is worthless - AACSLA may not even know which player is compromised. Gray/black-area web sites can maintain big lists of title keys for movies without a whole lot of trouble. The bigger issue will eventually be getting each new movie to the trusted few pirates that are capable of extracting keys. This is no big deal now, but would be if and once these formats become popular.

A counterattack from Hollywood could be to produce thousands of distinct masters of each movie; the same movie would have thousands of different editions that differ only by their title key. I don't know the current state of disk production however, so this may not be feasible.

The revocation system is itself problematic anyway. A person seeking to damage the system itself would try to crack the most popular player, even if it's more difficult than other players. The cost of a massive recall - plus the fines the manufacturer would pay for their player being the one cracked - would heavily discourage the use of the revocation system. It seems like the revocation system is more of a deterrent against both pirates (if you crack a player we'll change the key making your work worthless) and manufacturers (if you don't obfuscate well enough, we'll cost you millions of dollars).

DVD had a revocation system too, but it was never used. DeCSS and the Drink or Die program that preceded it used a player key, but the CSS algorithm was so badly flawed that it wasn't difficult to derive the remaining player keys. This will not happen with AACS, because they're using real crypto this time.

Melissa

--
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager

Re:Great job with the title keys by Wesley+Felter · 2006-12-28 06:13 · Score: 2

The revocation system is itself problematic anyway. A person seeking to damage the system itself would try to crack the most popular player, even if it's more difficult than other players. The cost of a massive recall - plus the fines the manufacturer would pay for their player being the one cracked - would heavily discourage the use of the revocation system.

I see no one here has read the AACS spec. Each individual player has a different key, not each model. When The Man revokes an individual player, millions of regular consumers are totally unaffected.

Re:nothing is perfect by Sancho · 2006-12-27 20:10 · Score: 2, Informative

Trusted Computing solves this 'problem'. Debuggers won't be allowed to run on 'protected' programs, and this will be enforced on the hardware level (each program will effectively have to ask for permission to run).

For right now, not everything has TPM. We'll see how this changes in a few years (almost all new computers do include the TPM chip).

Re:Cheers! by msobkow · 2006-12-27 20:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

I agree. We shouldn't have to risk harassment from the *AA for exercising rights that have been granted to us by precendence in different countries, especially those which find their root in UK/Commonwealth legal systems.

It's unfair to expect the individual consumer to fend off such attacks, and insulting to the intent of law to allow the attacks to occur in the first place. The *AA and the various DRM fans are responsible for developing products and solutions/proposals that are compliant with the laws of their target markets, and should not be trying to shove their vision down our throats just to protect oligopoly and monopoly economic models.

The same goes for all industries. Why else has the EU so soundly rejected US proposals to make their patent database a global starting point for managing IP? It's stuffed with speculative junk patents.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.

Piracy not equal to Losses by kurt555gs · 2006-12-27 20:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

I do not agree that piracy has anything to do with losses. Who is to say that those that watch movies without paying a fee would actually pay to see them in the first place?

The only way there is a real loss is if some one is SELLING copied DVDs as if they are original. That is not what we are talking about here. We are in this insane mindset that if we see or hear something that we owe money to some one for it.

Utter stupidity if you really think about the concept.

The only way there is a real loss, is if you counterfeit the media and sell it to some one that actually WANTS to pay for it.

This whole issue of IP ownership makes no sense if one steps back and clearly thinks about it.

Cheers

--
* Carthago Delenda Est *

Re:Piracy not equal to Losses by evilviper · 2006-12-27 21:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

Who is to say that those that watch movies without paying a fee would actually pay to see them in the first place?

The only way there is a real loss is if some one is SELLING copied DVDs as if they are original.

Who is to say that those who buy cheaper illegal copies of movies would actually pay full price to see them in the first place?

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Piracy not equal to Losses by cpt+kangarooski · 2006-12-28 02:32 · Score: 2, Informative

The difference being that the (U.S.) law specifically protects the copyright holder from others selling his/her works without permission.

No it doesn't. It says that no one can sell copies unless those copies were lawfully made, in which case, anyone can sell them (or give them away, or in most cases, rent them, etc.) without permission.

However, cracking the encryption in order to copy the disc for backup purposes (or to transfer to a different medium) is protected by law (even the DMCA has a fair use clause) and in this case there's nothing illegal with cracking the DRM to get at the content you paid for (or otherwise obtained legally).

No it isn't. Circumventing protection measures is nearly always unlawful, and fair use does not change that. This is because fair use only applies to making copies, not to circumvention. Circumvention is a distinct step for which fairness has no legal relevance. In order to not break the law, you'd have to make a copy without having circumvented the protection measure, i.e. without ever having decrypted the disc in the process, so that your backup copy was still encrypted. What the DMCA has to say about fair use is merely that it doesn't alter fair use, meaning that it doesn't reduce it (so that it didn't cover certain kinds of copyright infringements, which circumvention is not anyway), and that it doesn't enlarge it (so that it doesn't apply to circumvention, which was never covered under fair use to begin with). And there's everything illegal about circumventing DRM to get at the content you paid for.

Also, making a backup, or shifting media, is not necessarily fair use. It will depend on the circumstances in each case. For some people, under some circumstances, it will be fair (yet still illegal if they circumvent in the process), and yet other times, not fair. It depends, and there is no bright-line rule.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Re:What's the fuss,anyway? by Rufus211 · 2006-12-27 20:33 · Score: 2, Informative

Who said the source was 320p? The source for most movies is a 35mm film print. The current digital cinema spec calls for resolutions that are essentially 1080p and 2160p.

Re:Cheers! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-27 21:12 · Score: 5, Funny

Something like "Just like the Beta-emacs vs vi-HS wars!" ?

Re:Please improve the source code by Rufus211 · 2006-12-27 21:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

A quickly glanced at the java sources.
They are crap. No use of NIO, using Hashtable instead of HashMap and all sorts of strange quirks.
I predict, a proper version will be *much* faster in decrypting the content.
Please, someone with time on their hands: Improve this code

Why would those things matter at all? 99% of your time will be spent in the java-provided AES decription routines. Optimizing a single hash lookup will make about 0 difference.

Lookup premature optimization is and learn from others mistakes.

Re:Cheers! by Ironica · 2006-12-27 21:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

Anyone over the age of 40 I've talked to about the two formats has said, "What, you mean like Betamacs and VHS?" Just keep telling people that that's what this reminds you of, and wait for someone to start selling a less draconian product.

Um, except, VHS became the dominant format for many years, until (the more draconian) DVD unseated it. So the Betamax/VHS issue doesn't really serve to predict the failure of both formats, nor the rise of a new format which is more open.

--
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?

Re:Cheers! by Fred_A · 2006-12-27 23:09 · Score: 3, Informative

Anyone over the age of 40 I've talked to about the two formats has said, "What, you mean like Betamacs and VHS?"

Or even (for the ones with the better memory), "What, you mean like Betamax, VHS and V2000 ?"

--

May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.

Ease of chipping feature! by Cafe+Alpha · 2006-12-27 23:10 · Score: 2, Funny

I like that, the "ease of chipping" feature as a major selling point!

Re:Ease of chipping feature! by iainl · 2006-12-27 23:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

Welcome to Europe, where no-one wants to be unable to import films from the US.

With the new formats I expect it to be less of an issue eventually; at least we've lost PAL speedup now that our discs are 1080p/24 as well. But my US HD-DVD owning friends have now gone import crazy - HD-DVD's lack of region encoding is a huge bonus, and from a copy protection point kills at a stroke the need to bother with chipping for most people.

Although I've heard nothing other than rumours, I think Lions Gate at least are going to have to go dual format at CES, simply because all the (currently Blu-Ray exclusive) jewels in their US catalog keep coming out on HD-DVD through Canal+ and others in Europe and Japan. Once the money men start seeing the exclusivity is losing them money, I expect things to change.

--
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"

Re:What's the fuss,anyway? by Kjella · 2006-12-27 23:57 · Score: 2, Informative

How much data is actually present in a given movie will depend on grain, process, age of film etc. The bits, in point of fact, are there.

That's not a meaningful statement, I can have endless bits which will consist of nothing but random noise. As for how many lines of resolution is actually achieved by film, you can read here. The actual study referred to is here (pdf). The summary:

35mm RESOLUTION Measurement Lines Answer Print MTF 1400 Release Print MTF 1000 Theater Highest Assessment 875 Theater Average Assessment 750

So basicly, good film is HDTV (between 720p and 1080p somewhere). Film transfered directly to digital has about 1400 lines of resolution, which is better than current direct digital productions, but not by much (most production grade is 1080 lines, and so are people's HDTVs). Of course, while this is done using 'typical' equipment it's of a resolution chart under excellent conditions, I expect an actual movie would have less.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Re:Cheers! by WhatAmIDoingHere · 2006-12-28 00:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

DVD had more to offer over VHS compared to HD-DVD and BluRay over DVD. DVD offered no rewinding, special features, easy chapter browsing.. All things that VHS lacked. That's why DVD won over VHS. All they're offering in HD-DVD and BluRay is Slightly Higher Def, which is lost on like 95% of the TV owning public. Oh, and restrictive phone-in DRM.

--
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.

Re:Cheers! by aplusjimages · 2006-12-28 00:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

Always look to the porn industry. Where is the porn industry at right now? Still on DVD and downloadable content. Downloadable content is the future. Sing it with me "Downloadable Content is the way to go."

--
Can I bum a sig?

Cracked or no, still formats in search of a market by punterjoe · 2006-12-28 01:14 · Score: 2, Informative

Maybe if the powers behind the format had put aside their petty squabbling and released a single format, they could have devoted their energy to finding a market for the format. Now they're busy battling each other for market share, yet this competition doesn't seem to be benefitting consumers. By the time they have a format inexpensive & useful enough, a new format will have likely come along & crptured the public's attention anyway.
HD is not a selling point. It may be useful as a marketing term. I hear many stories - and know some firsthand - of people who connect their flatscreen to a DVD or SD cable and think they have HD. Most people don't know the difference & can't be bothered to learn. Until their is one high capacity disc format, and it's affordable enough to compete against hard drives for storage or flash memory for portability, the manufacturers are wasting their time - and ours. Lack of DRM alone won't sell this.

Re:Cheers! by danpsmith · 2006-12-28 01:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

Um, except, VHS became the dominant format for many years, until (the more draconian) DVD unseated it. So the Betamax/VHS issue doesn't really serve to predict the failure of both formats, nor the rise of a new format which is more open.

Yes, but I guess nowadays most people are assuming that consumers won't want to get involved in a corporate battle for format control like they did not then, not knowing that their newly purchased betamax machines would be shiny pieces of garbage as they had to buy a second VCR. I think acknowledging this as Betamax/VHS is to acknowledge the fact that it's wise not to get involved while the two respective companies duke it out. Which is exactly what a lot of people will do, while continuing to buy DVDs.

--
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.

Re:Cheers! by ajs318 · 2006-12-28 01:29 · Score: 5, Informative

And the Sony C6 Betamax recorder, given a decent aerial, could record the Teletext signal along with the picture (even if your set was non-Teletext, since it's being picked up by the recorder's internal receiver). I never even realised VCRs weren't supposed to be able to do that. All those old Betamax cassettes in lofts and cupboards are hiding not only subtitles, but little vignettes of the news and sporting events of the day they were recorded.

The only problem was that in order to get that resolution better than 280 lines (think about it - that's only chucking away 32.5 of 'em, which isn't bad), a Beta machine needed more moving parts than its VHS cousin (although they moved less often. VHS laced the tape when you pressed PLAY and unlaced it when you pressed STOP. All fast-winding was done inside the cassette -- which allows you to move the tape faster, but you cannot switch to picture-search without lacing it. Betamax laced the tape the first time you pressed PLAY and unlaced it when you pressed EJECT. Fast-winding was done inside the cassette until you first pressed PLAY [to allow for rapid rewinding before watching], and thereafter, with the tape laced; making it possible to switch instantaneously from fast-wind to picture-search.) Thus, VHS recorders were easier to field-maintain. And in an era before everything was made to be disposable, that was the deal-clincher.

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!

OK. . . by kimvette · 2006-12-28 01:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

NOW I am willing to buy hi-def DVDs since I can:
- Take advantage of Fair Use (make backups, format-shift to my PocketPC, keep copies of the movies on my HDD)
- Play DVDs on Linux
- Not worry about downsampling output on non-HDCP video cards

Now the Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD format war does not matter so much. Does anyone here care WHICH one wins now that both have been cracked?

Thanks guys, you rock!

--
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50

Re:Cheers! by Steve001 · 2006-12-28 01:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

danpsmith wrote and included with a post:

Um, except, VHS became the dominant format for many years, until (the more draconian) DVD unseated it. So the Betamax/VHS issue doesn't really serve to predict the failure of both formats, nor the rise of a new format which is more open.

Yes, but I guess nowadays most people are assuming that consumers won't want to get involved in a corporate battle for format control like they did not then, not knowing that their newly purchased betamax machines would be shiny pieces of garbage as they had to buy a second VCR. I think acknowledging this as Betamax/VHS is to acknowledge the fact that it's wise not to get involved while the two respective companies duke it out. Which is exactly what a lot of people will do, while continuing to buy DVDs.

Unfortunately, the video companies did not learn one of the factors that made CD a success: a single format. Although many formats were proposed, only one was chosen and accepted by the music industry. They saw what happened with Quad (seven incompatible formats), and were determined that CD not meet the same fate.

Due to the format war going on between the two DVD successors, I will stay with DVD and sit out the war until long after there is a victor. For me, DVD is good enough for now and I have no pressing reason to move to either format. It is the same reason that I am staying with CD, versus going with either of the CD successors.

I wouldn't be surprised if the above paragraph reflects the views of many people concerning the new formats.

Nothing yet Proven by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 02:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

This guy wrote a Javaclient based on the open AACS spec which can decrypt the AACS format using Java AES calls.
The program takes a title key as input.
This is nothing special - any student given the spec could write this.

For the whole thing to work, needs a title key.

He did not include those keys - as someone here pointed out, what looks like a key are infact hash-indici to associate the discs with the keys - the keys are however nulled out.

He now claims that it is easy to find the keys if you're looking in the memory.

Case 1: He is right:
According to AACS rules, you need to keep the keys highly confidential. The robustness rules would explain this, I assume you have to hide things from debuggers and not keep keys clean in one memory location, etc... Black art of tamper-resistance is required.
If the player vendor didn't do that, they face serious consequences in addition to the key being revoked.

Case 2:
He wants that others try to find the keys, because he could not do it himself.

Case 3:
This is a hoax and on January 2nd, when he offers us the update, he will laugh at us all

Case 4:
Someone is trying to badmouth something here, be it HD DVD, AACS or PowerDVD

Anyway, I guess we need to wait. Until then, nothing has been proven....

Re:Cheers! by sbaker · 2006-12-28 03:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

The irony of that was that the format that eventually won (VHS) was technologically the worst of the three. The format that lost out the fastest (V2000) was technologically the best of the three (by far actually). If there is something to be learned from this it is that technological superiority doesn't count for much in setting global de-facto standards.

--
www.sjbaker.org

Exactly! by Dion · 2006-12-28 04:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

I've been saying this for a while.

The way this will work is that undiscovered player keys are used to decrypt title keys and the title keys them selves are then distributed.

As long as everybody keeps his piehole shut the collection of title keys just grows and grows, maybe even by dynamically requesting a title key before playing a movie.

If a player key is discovered and disabled by the goonsquad then that player key is simply published along with the title keys that it can't be used to obtain, that way the whole key package shinks every time the evil content overlords disable a key.

It's likely that player keys will be discovered with some frequency, so the freedom fighters might choose to publish player keys on their own just to shink the key package.

Someone needs to put together the infrastructure to support title key distribution and some dynamic way of decrypting an encrypted title key.

--
-- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][

Re:Cheers! by KingArthur10 · 2006-12-28 04:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

The local Walmart has a VHS section that usually has new releases on VHS tapes. What's funny is how much cheaper a new release on VHS is over DVD. The studios kept telling us how DVD prices would come down because DVDs are cheaper to manufacture over tapes, but it never happened. The studios just sat on the extra cash and got fat and happy.

--
I came, I saw, She conquered.

Re:Cheers! by NormalVisual · 2006-12-28 04:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's also interesting in that the porn industry sees by far the most copyright infringement, but seems to care about it a lot less than the **AA does. Even with all that copying going on, they still somehow are able to make quite a bit of money without whining about it and suing people left and right.

--
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas

Re:Cheers! by djh101010 · 2006-12-28 04:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

If there is something to be learned from this it is that technological superiority doesn't count for much in setting global de-facto standards.

One could say that the OS wars have confirmed this. Remember, the common cold is very popular too, that doesn't mean it's good...

Re:Cheers! by ajs318 · 2006-12-28 04:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

Betamax VCRs never really became "shiny pieces of garbage" in the way Blu-Ray / HDDVD machines will. The crucial thing is, video cassettes were always recordable. You can still watch all your old recordings of Charles and Di's wedding, Fawlty Towers, It's A Wonderful Life and the entire Carry On series, and even record new programmes (VHS tape is the correct width, 12.7, to be wound into worn-out Beta cassettes; but note that you do need to keep the original metallic leader tape, since Beta and VHS used different auto-stop mechanisms and clear plastic leader won't trigger it). As I've hinted elsewhere, Betamax has better resolution and better colour reproduction.

The problem with play-only formats is exactly that: they are play-only, and so there can come a point where nobody is making any new material to play on them.

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!

Re:nothing is perfect by swillden · 2006-12-28 06:08 · Score: 3, Informative

Trusted Computing solves this 'problem'. Debuggers won't be allowed to run on 'protected' programs, and this will be enforced on the hardware level (each program will effectively have to ask for permission to run).

Yes and no. You're right about the effect, but wrong about the mechanism.

The TPM can't control what programs can or cannot be run, so it's not correct to say that disallowing debugging of protected programs will be enforced on the hardware level.

The enforcement will be done purely in software, by the operating system. What the TPM will do, though, is to provide a place to securely store the player key, and to bind that key to a specific operating system environment. Boot a different OS, or modify some part of the OS that is considered important for security and the player key will no longer be available.

So, if you use the unmodified OS, it will note that the DVD playing software is not "debuggable" and will not allow your debugger to attach to it. If you try to patch the OS to force it to allow debugging, then the player key won't be available to the player, so you can't grab it with the debugger.

Note that in order for this to work, there must be no exploitable security holes in the OS that allow you to patch the OS after it's been booted into its fully functional state. This is because of the way that the TPM "binds" a key to a given system state.

Basically, during the boot process each chunk of code feeds data to the TPM. The TPM hashes all of this information into a Program Control Register (PCR). This hash value in the PCR is what represents the system state. To bind a key to the PCR, the TPM simply XORs the PCR with its internal master key and uses the result as an encryption key to encrypt the bound key (in this case, the player key). Retrieving a bound key works the same way: The TPM reads the encrypted bound key from disk, XORs the current PCR value with the master key and uses the result to decrypt the bound key.

If you boot into a different OS, or in any other way change the data that is fed to the TPM during boot, then you change the PCR value. Different PCR means different result when XORed with the master key, means different result when the bound key is decrypted.

So, to make such a protection system work, it is necessary that all of the software that is used to enforce the protection be part of the data that is fed to the TPM for hashing into the PCR. BUT, if you can exploit some hole to patch the software *after* the PCR has been fully initialized, then you're golden.

Another way that attackers can try to work around the TPM is by snatching the key before it's bound to the TPM, or by arranging for it to be bound to an already patched OS. Most likely, software player manufacturers will try to work around this by asking the TPM to "attest" to its configuration (meaning its PCR value) before giving out a key.

It's not clear how well that will work, though, because it means that every booted Vista system has to have bit-for-bit identical software so the player mfg can know what the "valid" PCR value is (well, large groups of Vista systems have to be identical, giving the mfg a set of valid PCR values). That doesn't seem like a problem until you realize that part of the data that has to be hashed into the TPM to make the system secure is the BIOS/EFI code. Because if an attacker compromises the code at that level, any protections the operating system tries to implement are irrelevant.

It may be possible to use a string of attestations, one for the PCR value from each stage in the boot process to work around *that* problem, but it's not clear how feasible that is.

Bottom line: The TPM will be used to strengthen DRM systems, but it seems pretty likely that it will be defeatable (and defeated) in many ways. This is because TCPA wasn't designed as a copy protection system, or to prove to third parties that the machine won't violate DRM. Rather, it was designed as

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.

Re:Cheers! by cayenne8 · 2006-12-28 07:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

"That's what I said. I only know one person with a HDTV. Everyone else sees a 32" CRT for $76 compared to a 20" HD LCD at $290, and they grab two 32" TVs."

Not me baby....you ever try to carry TWO 32" CRT's??

:-)

Hehehe..seriously....I am completely over CRT's....no matter the cost....just too bulky and heavy. This is especially true for computer monitors...but, also true for television.

My preference? DLP Projectors....that that expensive...with a screen, less than many large LCD or Plasma tv's...are HD resolution compatible...and take up very little room, and are easily transportable. Hell...I can grab my projector...take to a friends house and hook to their dvd player, and have 'portable' movie night just about anywhere.

For a bit over a grand...100" picture and great resolution, and taking up very little room.....I don't think they can be beat.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

Re:Cheers! by NormalVisual · 2006-12-28 08:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

Or put another way, the porn industry has a business model that is more resilent to outside influences beyond their control without having to buy off politicians. Yeah, you don't players in the porn scene that are multi-millionaires to the degree of someone like Tom Cruise, but in general they seem to do well when compared with the average American.

--
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas

Slashdot Mirror

HD-DVD and Blu-Ray AACS DRM Cracked

99 of 432 comments (clear)