Blogger Objects To Accusations Surrounding Vista DRM

Technical Writing Geek writes "Self-described 'professional paranoid' Peter Gutmann of the University of Auckland has become the most widely quoted source of information on DRM and content protection in Windows Vista. The trouble is, according to ZDNet Blogger Ed Bott, Gutmann's work is riddled with factual errors, distortions, contradictions, and outright untruths. From the lengthy piece: 'As Gutmann would know if he actually understood how HD hardware works, Vista will indeed display HD content on this monitor over the D-Sub and component video outputs, which are capable of outputting 1080p and 1080i signals, respectively. In the future, a content provider might choose to constrict the output to these devices, but that decision would apply only to a specific piece of media, and it would have to be disclosed on the package, giving the buyer the opportunity to choose not to purchase it.'"

Comments

The problem with Ed Bott's response

[jkrise]

is that it lacks credibility. He quotes other blogs and manuals of equipment - and is light on actual technical details. No one outside of the core development team at Microsoft can claim any competence on the DRM implementation - and again, no one can predict when MS can choose to suddely implement hitherto unknown features via Service Packs or Auto Updates.

Considering that playing audio on Vista cripples the network and I/O badly, Guttman's assertions appear far more credible.

Vista 'will' or 'will not' display HD content

[Ed Avis]

The two writers disagree on the meaning of 'Vista will not display HD content on this monitor'. Ed Bott appears to contradict himself:

Vista will indeed display HD content on this monitor over the D-Sub and component video outputs, which are capable of outputting 1080p and 1080i signals, respectively. In the future, a content provider might choose to constrict the output to these devices,

In other words Vista will display HD images but only in un-DRM mode, and if you try to pay a movie that you have bought and paid for but which has the flag set for 'trusted output path' or whatever they call it, Vista will refuse to display it. Which is, I think, the point Peter Gutmann was trying to make.

Re:FTFA

[Andy Dodd]

You can't play DRMed HD over a "vanilla" DVI port. This is a known fact. Unless the port supports HDCP (not part of the official DVI standard, and known for LOTS of interoperability problems - see Westinghouse TVs vs. PS3 for example), you're screwed.

Also, the article summary attacks Guttman for claiming that HD can't be played over an analog port. Both are wrong here. DRMed HD can currently be played over an analog port because few discs enable the ICT (Image Constraint Token), but it's just a matter of time before the ICT starts getting flipped on and analog outputs start going to half resolution. I've heard rumors that some cable systems enable ICT for all cable content already.

Note: When I say "DRMed HD" I am referring primarily to the most well-known sources of DRMed high def content, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. Both have these limitations among others.

Re:FTFA

[ultranova]

Did I mention they're working on a fix? Ah, I did, but you didn't bold that bit.

I find it highly unlikely that they can fix this. After all, if they could, why ship with the reduced performance in the first place - remember, the network performance reduction was put on place intentionally as a hack to get around other flaws. Also, let's not forget that they also worked on WinFS for years, and still failed to deliver. Finally, Microsoft has a reputation of saying anything to help drive sales; in other words, they could be lying.

So That's a Yes Then?

[segedunum]

Vista will indeed display HD content on this monitor over the D-Sub and component video outputs, which are capable of outputting 1080p and 1080i signals, respectively. In the future, a content provider might choose to constrict the output to these devices, but that decision would apply only to a specific piece of media, and it would have to be disclosed on the package, giving the buyer the opportunity to choose not to purchase it.

So that's a yes then. In the event that special content gets displayed on Vista there is a DRM subsystem all ready and waiting to restrict it.

He's also debunking silly things like stupidly large monitors, and he fills an entire page with it:

So, this is "stupidly large (for a computer monitor)"? Not if you're planning to install it in an airport or an office lobby

Well no, but it is a daft size for the vast majority of people, as indicated when he wrote 'computer monitor'. You devoted a whole page to this?

Regarding code signing:

That sounds awful, doesn't it? If you own a hardware company you are completely at Microsoft's mercy, and if they decide not to approve your drivers, or just delay their approval, you'll starve to death. Too bad Gutmann is completely wrong. He is confusing digital signatures with the Windows Logo process administered by Microsoft's Windows Hardware Quality Labs (WHQL).

Again, he uses an incredible sleight of hand here. He doesn't deny that certificate signing is required, and talks about buying a certificate, which he notes are not controlled by Microsoft but are listed on Microsoft's site:

Anyone can get a software publishing certificate from the independent certification companies listed here, none of which is owned or controlled by Microsoft. I found a suitable certificate for $229.

Bottom line, ergo, you have to have a signed driver for use in the kernel one way or the other. He doesn't deny that at all, and it's an incredible piece of trying to tell us that the emperor is actually wearing clothes.

This is completely, unequivocally wrong. I've tested multiple systems, using HDMI, DVI, and analog outputs for video and TOSLink and coax connections for digital audio. There's no problem playing back HD video and listening to the accompanying audio over this type of connection.

Notice that he doesn't tell us what content he has tested here, nor does he deny that there is a DRM subsystem in Vista preventing playback on certain outputs given certain content.

Arguably the most popular HD DVD player, Microsoft's Xbox 360 drive, which also works on a Windows PC, has only component connections, in fact.

I don't know what kind of a rebuttal this is supposed to be, but you don't need HDMI for gaming as Microsoft has stated. However, Microsoft have not ruled out providing a HDMI pack which inevitably would include content protection for certain kinds of content. He doesn't deny this.

Wow, polling the underlying hardware every 30 ms? What a taxing demand on a modern PC! That's more than 30 separate instructions that have to be processed every single second! That will impose a tremendous drag on performance, won't it? Oh. Wait. I just looked it up. An entry-level dual-core CPU running at 2.0 GHz or higher

He doesn't deny anything here, but merely tells us that a modern PC can handle all this.

Vista's playback architecture checks the integrity of the video subsystem as part of the process of sending each video frame to the display. If there's a problem with the video subsystem, you'll know about it right away and be able to troubleshoot it. There, that's not nearly as scary, is it?

Depends on how you word it ;-). Why does Vista need to 'check the integrity of the vi