Slashdot Mirror
Blu-ray BD+ Cracked
An anonymous reader writes "In July 2007, Richard Doherty of the Envisioneering Group (BD+ Standards Board) declared: 'BD+, unlike AACS which suffered a partial hack last year, won't likely be breached for 10 years.' Only eight months have passed since that bold statement, and Slysoft has done it again. According to the press release,
the latest version of their flagship product AnyDVD HD can automatically remove BD+ protection and allows you to back-up any Blu-ray title on the market."
I'm beginning to increasingly believe the old cliche, "Information wants to be free".
Well time for me to go buy a blu-ray player now that I know that if it fails, I can back up my data onto my PC, play them on Linux and actually be able to use blu-ray.
There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
When will people learn that making bold statements about their technology's security will only make them look like a fool when it is finally broken?
Now that that's been handled, looks like it's time to start shopping for a BD player.
The vast majority of customers for blu-ray technology won't give a rats arse about this. I certainly don't
We've been able to crack dvd's for years, but every house I visit still has a pile of purchased dvd's, and I know of not one person who backs them up. The only people who use the cracking stuff that I know, do so either directly from borrowed dvd's, or indirectly through downloading movies. A know a few who never buy dvd's, because they prefer some dodgy rip. Beats me why, I know the average quality, and I don't think it's worth it, especially since they usually end up just taking up drive space.
The same will most likely occur with blu-ray. Most, if not all, purchased blu-ray discs will never be backed up. This cracking will be employed only by people who don't want to pay. They most likely wouldn't anyway.
So why don't we just drop this 'legal backup' crap and admit that this is only going to be of use to people who have no intention of buying the 'legal' dvd's in the first place.
The whole problem with encrypted media is that in order for the customer to want to purchase it, they will need to access the media they have purchased. In order to access that media, they will at some point need the key(s) that unlock it. Simply put, the purchaser of the media has the locked media, but they will also have the key. If you give people the key to the lock along with the lock, it is only a matter of time before someone figures out how to get the key.
It really does. If they "delayed" release of this, then they must have been waiting to "lock in" the format war so that they wouldn't have to go supporting both standards. Apparently the Blu Ray was easy enough for them and now that there is "vendor lock-in", this pretty much says that they really are dictating the markets. This really speaks volumes about marketing tactics.
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
1. This won't affect piracy, the places where you can get pirated movies are already full of BD releases so obviously those creating the pirated releases were already able to get the data (probably by ripping it out of the decoded video stream at some point).
2. Software patents or no, I believe that I should be able to do what I want with something I purchase as long as it's not harming others. Moving my movies from physical disks to my media server is not harming anybody.
3. As others have already said, DRM is fundamentally broken. To view DRM encrypted content you have to have the keys. If you have the keys then the encryption can't be secure. The sooner people (the content industries) realise this the sooner they can stop pissing off their legitimate consumers without actually denting piracy. This is a win for all. EMI have realised this, and I think a couple of other music studios, now it's just a waiting game until the rest of them get it.
As was posted earlier to /. regarding gaming, the studios et. al. should really focus on _customers_, not pirates because, duh, customers buy things. Some customers demand fair use rights by hook or crook (for example those that want for various reasons to have a lone htpc+speakers+monitor be your entire HT), and now that slysoft has provided for a fee, the _customer_ base for Fox. et. al. just expanded. The pirate base is probably unchanged by this, so really the studios should be celebrating, and the people that should really be cackeling incessantly are the ones that get the mandatory fee paid for providing the snake oil that is the useless AACS and BD+ "protections".
From the slysoft AnyDVD HD forum:
Xtrap1979
I can now make a collective order of all the Fox titles
http://forum.slysoft.com/showthread.php?t=14787&page=3
As long as the content ultimately gets decrypted/decoded to a format which is percievable to human senses, it can be cracked. There is nothing stopping a dedicated pirate from going, pixel by pixel, dumping the current pixel color values into a massive 2d array - in fact in the pre-deCSS days there was a program that worked with PowerDVD by doing that very thing. Dump all the pixelvalues as arrays into a screenshot bypassing Windows, then stream together the screenshots in a video format of your choice, and you've got uncompressed, perfect digital video. From there you can just run a male to male cable from your stereo out jack to an audio input, and you've got your sound. Mux them together and you've got everything you need to make your pirated copy. Its low tech, but it works. The fact is, no matter what these antipiracy groups do, they can *NOT* beat technology with more technology. Because all it takes is a bored geek with a soldering iron and some spare time to bring down their house of cards.
Ok, yes, books are more than *just* dead trees with ink squirted on them. But guess what, they also *are* dead trees. . . with ink squirted on them. Meaning they share at least some of the properties dead trees. For example, if you needed to, you could burn them in a fire place for warmth, if it came down to it. They have a high quantity of cellulose, so if you needed a source of cellulose for some sort of chemical reaction, you could possibly use books (or other paper - magazines, newspapers, etc) if you had to.
I think the GP's point was, he should be able to backup his movies to his computer, because at a low level, Blue Ray movies are just data on the disc. He should be able to backup *any* data on a BD to his computer. Yes, movies are more than data, but they also *are* data too. The power of abstraction is that I can usually treat any two *similar* things similarly, even when they aren't identical.
So that I can drive a Chevy Corvette or a Cavalier, a Ford F-150 pickup truck, or a Toyota Camry all on the same road, because they are all automobiles. Yes, a pickup truck is *more than* a set of wheels, a frame, and a motor, which collectively fit within a certain standardized set of dimensions and under a certain maximum weight, but it *is* also a set of wheels, a frame, and a motor which collectively fit within a certain standardized set of dimensions and under a certain maximum weight, which is why it can drive on the same road as the other vehicles.
I think one of the distinguishing features of most geeks, that sets them apart from the general populace, is the fact that they have the ability to see, when it's useful, that "a book is just a dead tree", and to be able to figure out when that fact is useful. It is the foundational principle of much of engineering and computer science. Most people see the forest, or maybe the trees. A good hacker sees the forest *and* the trees.
Your response to the GP just shows that you just don't get it. It doesn't mean he's any less correct. I hope this post helps you to see that.
I'm beginning to increasingly believe the old cliche, "Information wants to be free".
I am also beginning to increasingly believe that if you create a good enough dare, people will take you up on it, just to prove you wrong.
Mother nature likes to join in too sometimes, as one ship has shown us.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
HAHAHAHAHahhahaha, oh man, that was funny.
"...just sufficiently hard that the cat and mouse game is too much effort for the pirates."
Except the pirate have the time, and the skills, and the same computer power as the companies. Add to that they don't have an arbitrary budget and they get an Ego boost from doing it? do you really think these snake oil salesmen have a chance?
What next, a scheme for hiding porn magazines in your house from teenagers?
At least more and more media companies are beginning to realize the futility of these scheme, hopefully they will go away. Really, I want to buy by disk, put it on my computer and call it up when ever I want. That's the future, that is what consumers want and expect.
"You can't hide secrets from the future with math." - MS Frontalot.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
hmmm... I do see your point. However it does 'want to be free' in that people like to sharing information.
Which is a huge deal in that it's a very basic part of human nature. That is what the expressionmean. nobody believe information actually wants something, it's just a observation of human nature.
Like saying "Cars like to clump up in traffic." doesn't actually mean the cars like anything, it's just an observation of what car operators tend to do.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If the Satellite TV companies needed to protect a library built over years rather than just a current transitory stream, where they are in continuous contact with the player, their task would be much more difficult and conversely the rewards of cracking would be that much greater. Disk is different than broadcast.
This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
I don't think many people take the phrase literally. All it means is that it is very hard to keep a secret, human nature being what it is. Governments, companies, individuals all expend tons of effort to try and keep information locked down - and yet even the best systems are compromised.
In other words, the path of least resistance is to structure our society such that it isn't dependent on the keeping of secrets. The fewer secrets, the better - though all except the most extreme nuts would argue that some secrets are in fact necessary.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
and you should read mine over and over again.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
emph mine.
It seems like an appropriate saying to me--when information is locked down by secrecy or DRM, people will leak it or break the DRM. It's a nice expression that has meaning packed into it.
The same thing happened with cd and dvd. At first blanks were expensive (and generally half the capacity) but once it became the dominant media the economies of scale kicked in.
I'd say if Bluray becomes the dominant media (which isn't certain, I happen to think discs are doomed) we'll see spools of blanks for $20, just like the last two times.
Man, you really need that seminar!
> You can't hide secrets from the future with math.
Sure you can! With one time pads no one knows because they're secret.
The problem BD+ and ALL other DRM schemes have is that you can't keep the movie a secret from your customers because they pay to watch it! On other words, the problem is that these movies are not secrets.
It's the same problem as there is any IT security problem. Protectors need to be perfect every time, attackers need to be lucky/good (in that the protector missed something) once. Add to this basic fact the matter that there is an inherent architectural problem in content protection (you gotta give the attacker what they need or users can't see the media) and the fact that the usual relentless march of technology favors the attacker (more CPU power = easier key breaking, additional CPU power doesn't benefit the defenders) and I'm glad I'm not in the digital chastity belt biz, AKA content protection.
Min
On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before