Slashdot Mirror
BD+ Successfully Resealed
IamTheRealMike writes "A month on from the story that BD+ had been completely broken, it appears a new generation of BD+ programs has re-secured the system. A SlySoft developer now estimates February 2009 until support is available. There's a list of unrippable movies on the SlySoft forums; currently there are 16. Meanwhile, one of the open source VM developers seems to have given up on direct emulation attacks, and is now attempting to break the RSA algorithm itself. Back in March SlySoft confidently proclaimed BD+ was finished and said the worst case scenario was 3 months' work: apparently they underestimated the BD+ developers."
instead of making decent movies to begin with
Learn a second language, you'll see there's no shortage of quality movies.
"Violence is the last refuge of the competent, and, generally, the first refuge of the incompetent" - Thing_1
From my understanding the crack was to emulate the VM to the point it could run existing programs, these new disks come with a more complex program their emulated VM can't handle.
Come as you are, do what you must, be who you will.
The key phrase is "their implementation". RSA the algorithm is sound as far as anyone can tell right now, but that doesn't mean they (BD+) didn't introduce a subtle flaw in their particular implementation of it.
The part where you have 19 MegaBYTES per second of bandwidth...(full 1080p stream from disc)
No.
Besides the fact that a stream's bandwidth is *never* defined in bytes per second (because 'byte' in the context of a stream isn't well-defined - ie. does it include error correction bits, transmission overhead, etc.), the bluray association itself says that BD-ROM video streams are 54Mbps.
BD+ isn't an algorithm so there's no global crack unless the designers made a serious mistake in their implementation. A movie protected by BD+ is partly damaged ... elements of the video stream are deliberately corrupted, making it unwatchable. The BD+ program runs and checks out the environment it's in. If it's happy it spits out a patch table, which tells the player how to repair the movie. Note that the patch table can alter the movie in arbitrary ways - theoretically, things could change depending on what player you use. This allows the developers to discover which player is leaking video.
Early BluRay discs weren't protected by BD+ at all, and the first titles that were barely used the features BD+ provides. They existed only to detect a buggy software player but otherwise didn't do much. This was deliberate - the BD+ people are playing a long game, and don't want to play all their cards at once. The idea is to reveal their tricks slowly, such that it takes a few months to unravel each time. Because most sales of the movies are soon after they come out, it doesn't matter if a 6-12 month old program is broken.
In theory every title could have a unique BD+ program that takes time to crack, but that's pretty expensive, so they seem to come in waves. Probably there are only a few people in the world who know how to write BD+ programs and then their work is used on lots of discs.
The first round in this game was easy - the BD+ titles simply relied on obscurity to protect them. If they ran at all, they spat out the patch table. After SlySoft and later the doom9 guys figured out how BD+ worked, there were confident predictions that the system was broken, but of course that was never the case. The second round is the one we're on now and it's apparently quite the smackdown ... nobody knows what they've done, but making the new programs think they're in a licensed player is tough.
FWIW I don't buy nor download BluRay movies, I just find BD+ a fascinating battle of wits. I'm sure there'll be a lot of back and forth over the lifetime of the system.
No, you're not. According to the DMCA however, you're still a criminal. Isn't it wonderful?
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
It would be respectable (probably) but not very surprising. RSA implementations have been broken many times before, by holes ranging from exotica like power-consumption attacks (figure out the secret key by watching how much electricity the system consumes at any given moment) to utter foolishness like the Debian random seeding fiasco. One advantage the hackers have going for them is that there's huge cost pressure on these consumer electronics and this can cause the hardware manufacturers to skimp on good implementations. For example, the way you protect against timing or power-consumption attacks is to deliberately waste time and power while performing the algorithm, and a hardware manufacturer may not want to do that.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
There's no such thing as an implicit license granted under copyright law. Where does this idea come from? It simply has no similarity with reality.
When you purchase an object which contains copyrighted content, you purchased that object. Full stop, end of story. No license is involved.
You don't need a license to use an object which contains copyrighted content. That's why there is no license in the picture. Not implicit, not explicit. You can do anything you want with that object and with that content so long as it is not forbidden by copyright. You can burn it. You can watch it 50 times in a row while eating hot dogs. You can make seven different copies, one for each day of the week. You can shift it to a different format so you can watch it elsewhere.
What you cannot do is distribute copies on a large scale or carry out a public performance of this content. Unless the copyright holder gives you permission, of course. But all the rest is simply permitted by default, because it's not forbidden. No licenses in sight.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
Your 15" laptop that you sit (15 x 8 / 5) 24" away from? You're actually agreeing with the parent post.
Resource intensive is such a relative thing. I think the parent poster is showing his age. Back in the day when you had a few main servers shared for the whole campus's business & acadmemic use with less computing power than a modern graphing calculator at a cost of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, even the few percentage points of CPU dedicated to text-only games was enough to raise ire.
Linux fortune files are rife with references to old, primitive games like xtrek that used to draw the wrath of sysadmins that are almost impossible to find now.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
In any case, after you transcode to h.264 at a reasonable bitrate, which you're going to want to do anyway to avoid using 30 gigs of hard drive space per movie
And exactly, how would you do that ?
That's the main problem currently : to shift format (for example to convert the movie so you can have it on your laptop or on your multimedia hard-disk enclosure to take it with you on a trip), you need to access the content of the movie.
Format shifting is a perfectly legal procedure in lots of countries around the world. But DRM completely forbids exercising this right.
Without BD+ being bypassed, there are no way to legally play legally bought discs on lots of your legal machine.
Currently, it's much simpler to just download the movie from the pirate bay. And as a bonus, the 54mbps BD VC-1 (or H264) film has already been recoded into a smaller 8GB H264 file, ready to upload on your laptop or multimedia hard disk enclosure.
DRM doesn't stop piracy (it takes just one single pirate team to just break one single copy and make it available on P2P and no matter how much the DRM is restrictive for the rest of the population the thing is already available).
DRM just fucks up normal customer rights, to the point where it is actually more convenient to *download a version from TPB* than to try buying the legal disc and do anything more complicated than playing the disc on a PS3.
As a Linux user, I want to be able to play a disc I've bought on my opensource software players. DRM completely stops me from doing this. Hence I'm not buying BD. I'm boycotting HD formats until there's an acceptable solution for me.
---
NOTE:
Format shifting is allowed where I leave (and lots of other countries).
Circumventing DRM for legal usage is allowed too.
In the USA, YMMV.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]