Vista DRM Cracked by Security Researcher

An anonymous reader writes "Security researcher Alex Ionescu claims to have successfully bypassed the much discussed DRM protection in Windows Vista, called 'Protected Media Path' (PMP), which is designed to seriously degrade the playback quality of any video and audio running on systems with hardware components not explicitly approved by Microsoft. The bypass of the DRM protection was in turn performed by breaking the Driver Signing / PatchGuard protection in the new operating system. Alex is now quite nervous about what an army of lawyers backed by draconian copyright laws could do to him if he released the details, but he claims to be currently looking into the details of safely releasing his details about this at the moment though."

Comments

He won't need to ...

[Midnight Thunder]

Now that people know it is possible, I am sure it is only a matter of time before others across the globe attempt to find the weakness. Some of these people won't even be affected by USA law, unless they decide to visit or transit through the country.

Crushing of Freedom of Speech

[resistant]

Yes, I know it's been said very many times before, but I'm moved to say it again. It's simply obscene that runaway copyright law provisions should be used to casually stomp on this kind of freedom of speech, especially in the U.S.A., where allegedly there is a First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech. I would very much like to see a full-out legal confrontation between these terroristic laws as they stand, and the Constitution. The alleged and artificial "right" of the smirking lawyers at commercial companies to keep their nasty little secrets does not in any sense abrogate the innate, natural right of the people to talk to each other about any damn thing they want, particularly complex subjects, and in any way they wish, including via carrier pigeons and Morse code, let alone in plain English (or whatever language) on the Web.

It's really a shame that other countries such as Sweden actually surpass the U.S.A. in this area.

Frankly, this pisses me off enough that I'm very strongly tempted once my finances improve enough for the expensive legalities, to spit in the eyes of these jerkoffs with a direct, blunt and extremely widespread explanation (possibly on a Russian server to further annoy and frustrate them) of whatever it is that they absolutely are frantic to not have explained, along with the text of the Constitution with the First Amendment highlighted in red. I think a well-crafted attack on this crap would gather quite a lot of support, moral and otherwise.

Re:Why bother even having DRM?

[i kan reed]

Not for the pirates, no... It's generally beleived that DRM is to screw those who actually pay for things into paying for them more than once.

Re: It's a shame

[Alwin Henseler]

It's a shame that things have come to a point where developers/security researchers have to worry about releasing findings like this, perhaps *even* when they are not under US law.

1st is to realize credit is overrated.

[Kadin2048]

Well, he's already probably a bit screwed.

Here's the problem: there's virtually no way to get in trouble, if you just release an exploit anonymously. (By definition, if it's truly anonymous, they can't catch you; there are lots of ways to basically ensure your anonymity today.) Where you start to get in trouble is when you want to release an exploit that's going to ruin somebody's day and take credit for it.

This comes up with regards to other, less-politically-sensitive bugs. When you step forward and take credit for something that you've released, you're basically holding up a big "come and get me!" sign. It's a lot easier to sling mud at a person, than it is at some anonymous entity on the Internet.

It's really taking credit that burns people, not releasing the bug/hack/exploit. It would have been trivial for this guy to release his code, anonymously or even pseudonymously, and keep it firewalled from his real-world identity. If he had done that, there might have been some attempts to uncover who he really was, but I doubt anyone would try that hard -- it's harder to go after someone that's anonymous, than an actual person. With a person, you have something to put in your mind under 'enemy,' that you just don't have with some vaporous person or persons on the Internet. Being anonymous diffuses a lot of the hatred, because it's harder to hate someone that might not exist. By standing up and taking credit, you're accepting everything.

Personally, if I were to discover something like this, there's no way I'd publicly admit it. I live a happy enough life without becoming some sort of hacker/security icon; the downsides of becoming the next Dimitry Sklyarov seem far greater than the possible benefits. Release the code somewhere in public, maybe signed with a private key that you have stashed away (so, decades down the line, you'd be able to claim it, if you wanted to and if the statute of limitations had run out), and only communicate via Usenet dead-drops and anonymous remailers. The tools to remain completely hidden are all there -- heck, you could probably do interviews in Wired under a psuedonym, the only absolute would be keeping the Clark-Kent-esque secret of your true identity hidden, and I'm not sure if some people would be able to swallow their pride enough to do that.