Slashdot Mirror
Censoring a Number
Rudd-O writes "Months after successful discovery of the HD-DVD processing key, an unprecedented campaign of censorship, in the form of DMCA takedown notices by the MPAA, has hit the Net. For example Spooky Action at a Distance was killed. More disturbingly, my story got Dugg twice, with the second wave hitting 15,500 votes, and today I found out it had simply disappeared from Digg. How long until the long arm of the MPAA gets to my own site (run in Ecuador) and the rest of them holding the processing key? How long will we let rampant censorship go on, in the name of economic interest?" How long before the magic 16-hex-pairs number shows up in a comment here?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
For all its craziness, /. truly is da place to be!
They walk the walk :)
I was amazed at the quickness of the censors, when I clicked on the link here, and got the "Nothing to see here, please move along." message. I've often seen people say that they got that message, but was never quite sure if it actually happened. This time it did. In cooperation with the summary, here's the number: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
I would post the processing key, but I'll link to the original posting instead:
g e=6
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=121866&pa
I recommend interested slashdotters read the thread, there's a lot of interesting context to the discovery.
Quality, performance, value; you get only two, and you don't always get to pick.
I liked this version...
--- These are not words: wierd, genious, rediculous
Treating that number as a big-endian quantity, the representation in decimal is:
13256278887989457651018865901401704640actually it was posted before this article even came up. http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=233015&cid= 18945309
09:F9:11:02 - 9D:74:E3:5B - D8:41:56:C5 - 63:56:88:C0
I wonder if they'll be searching for the number in different forms... Like base 32?
t ring_use_the_linked_URL_to_get_your_desired_target ). Anyone want to place bets on whether Digg preemptively killed that story versus received a takedown notice? I'm guessing the former.
Aside: looks like *someone* killed the Digg story that included the number after a ROT-13 transform (http://digg.com/tech_news/A_useful_copyrighted_s
Scott Severtson
Senior Architect, Digital Measures
...and I was too late. However, .net and .org are still open...
Carousel is a lie!
Weird how those numbers get pulled from Digg ...
There's a very interesting story in the Health section of Digg. It's about improving your memory by memorizing a certain sequence of alphanumeric characters...
I wonder how long that one will last.
One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
That's been done before. Remember the RSA in 1 line of perl .signatures and t-shirts from the 90's?
More information about AACS's (Access Content System Licensing Administrator, LLC) take down notices can be found at: http://www.chillingeffects.org/index.cgi
and specifically: http://www.chillingeffects.org/anticircumvention/n otice.cgi?NoticeID=7180
They give an example of AACS's take down notices and pretty good legal analysis of its contents.
Tags can contain numbers but mustn't start with a number. It won't give you an error but you'll see that it doesn't "remember" your tag like it normally would. Don't think the dollar sign works at the beginning of a tag either either. So the tag needs to be something like : hex09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
Yeah, but the beautiful thing is that now the number lives on in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protected_t itles/April_2007/List , so it's still technically available on Wikipedia!
Yes, hex is way more art than this: http://www.makezine.com/blog/MAKE_599.jpg
The more you know, the less you need. [Admin added: from me.]
Right here is the T-Shirt.
A blog about stuff.
MPAA
New York (Anti-Piracy Office)
One Executive Blvd. Suite 455
Yonkers, NY 10701
I've heard that saying many times before, and it's as untrue now as it was when I first heard it.
An honest man needs nothing to maintain his honesty. Honest people are honest by definition. Determined criminals will always get what they want. Locks only keep out the lazy criminals, which fortunately is most of them.
The real difference here is that when you crack one safe, they don't ALL open their doors. In 50 years we'll still be selling safes. In 50 years the AACSLA will be defunct and forgotten.
The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
Yes, they are both posted on this page of a Doom9 thread. Look for the PDF's attached by Mistar Muffin, that's me.
mmm...muffins
A newly registered domain: http://09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63.com/
And yes, I own it. *grins*
"To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
I know this is fun an' all, but aren't the takedown notices directed at the program BackupHDDVD plus keys, and identifying them as such? Blathering on about a bunch of hex might be to their advantage since they won't be using that string again. Maybe it's our duty if anything to carry round that prog on our thumbdrives. But still, it's fun...
Here is Kevin Rose's response as to why they have been deleting the stories over at Digg. Will Slashdot follow as well? If not why or why not?
[alk]
static unsigned char processing_key[16] = {0x09,0xF9,0x11,0x02,0x9D,0x74,0xE3,0x5B,0xD8,0x41
static unsigned char encrypted_c_value[16] = {0x6D,0x02,0xCA,0xC6,0x7B,0x1A,0x7E,0x95,0xC2,0x16
static unsigned char decrypted_c_value[16];
static unsigned char uv[4] = {0x00,0x00,0x00,0x01};
static unsigned char media_key[16];
static unsigned char encrypted_verification_data[16] = {0x87,0xB8,0xA2,0xB7,0xC1,0x0B,0x9F,0xAD,0xF8,0xC4
static unsigned char decrypted_verification_data_should_be[8] = {0x01,0x23,0x45,0x67,0x89,0xAB,0xCD,0xEF};
static unsigned char decrypted_verification_data[16];
static unsigned char volume_id[16] = {0x40,0x00,0x09,0x18,0x20,0x06,0x08,0x41,0x00,0x20
static unsigned char decrypted_volumeid[16];
static unsigned char volume_unqiue_key[16];
oRijndael.MakeKey((char *)processing_key, CRijndael::sm_chain0, 16, 16);
oRijndael.DecryptBlock((char *)encrypted_c_value, (char *)decrypted_c_value);
for (j = 0; j 16; j++)
{
if (j 12)
{
media_key[j] = decrypted_c_value[j];
}
else
{
media_key[j] = decrypted_c_value[j]^uv[j-12];
}
}
oRijndael.MakeKey((char *)media_key, CRijndael::sm_chain0, 16, 16);
oRijndael.DecryptBlock((char *)encrypted_verification_data, (char *)decrypted_verification_data);
if (!memcmp(decrypted_verification_data_should_be, decrypted_verification_data, 8))
{
for (j = 0; j 16; j++)
{
printf("%02X ", decrypted_verification_data[j]);
}
}
printf("\n");
oRijndael.MakeKey((char *)media_key, CRijndael::sm_chain0, 16, 16);
oRijndael.DecryptBlock((char *)volume_id, (char *)decrypted_volumeid);
The Wikipedia page for discussing the hastily-performed speedy-delete of the article. For some reason, a proper article for deletion could not be performed and some editor had to go and speedy-delete it. As a consequence, the normal airing of both sides by editors of varied backgrounds is not going on. Wikipedia really sucks when certain admins decide to circumvent process and then use the outcome that happened because of their circumvention as retroactive justification. The speedy-delete editor, by the way, is calling the number an exploit.