Slashdot Mirror


Draconian DRM Revealed In Windows 7

TechForensics writes "A few days' testing of Windows 7 has already disclosed some draconian DRM, some of it unrelated to media files. A legitimate copy of Photoshop CS4 stopped functioning after we clobbered a nagging registration screen by replacing a DLL with a hacked version. With regard to media files, the days of capturing an audio program on your PC seem to be over (if the program originated on that PC). The inputs of your sound card are severely degraded in software if the card is also playing an audio program (tested here with Grooveshark). This may be the tip of the iceberg. Being in bed with the RIAA is bad enough, but locking your own files away from you is a tactic so outrageous it may kill the OS for many persons. Many users will not want to experiment with a second sound card or computer just to record from online sources, or boot up under a Linux that supports ntfs-3g just to control their files." Read on for more details of this user's findings.
Re — Photoshop: That Photoshop stopped functioning after we messed with one of its nag DLLs was not so much a surprise, but what was a surprise: Noting that Win7 allows programs like Photoshop to insert themselves stealthily into your firewall exception list. Further, that the OS allows large software vendors to penetrate your machine. Even further, that that permission is responsible for disabling of a program based on a modified DLL. And then finding that the OS even after reboot has locked you out of your own Local Settings folder; has denied you permission to move or delete the modified DLL; and refuses to allow the replacement of the Local Settings folder after it is unlocked with Unlocker to move it to the Desktop for examination (where it also denies you entry to your own folder). Setting permissions to 'allow everyone' was disabled!

Re — media: Under XP you could select 'Stereo Mix' or similar under audio recording inputs and nicely capture any program then playing. No longer.

21 of 1,127 comments (clear)

  1. Dear Microsoft, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Even we can't defend you any more. If it happens in our computers, we're going to record it.

    Fuck you.

    Love,
    All of us.

  2. Just say no by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Linux has gotten "good enough" on PC hardware that I just don't see any reason to even play the game anymore with Microsoft. Time to get off the ride. All of the "windows only" apps that I use seem to work under wine. The rest all have some open equivalent (firefox/thunderbird/openoffice/etc).

    *shrug*

  3. Will people care? by javacowboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's the question. There are two kinds of DRM:

    1) The kind that people do care about, like the Sony Rootkit or Spore's DRM. That's the kind they take notice and take exception to.

    2) The kind that people accept and don't really notice, like iTunes DRM.

    Microsoft is banking that their new DRM will be 2), as long as they don't do anything overt, like disable users' MP3 collections.

    Still, with Linux getting easier to use to the point where regular people are willing to try it, this DRM could be the final nail in the coffin for a lot of Windows users.

    --
    This space left intentionally blank.
  4. Virtual machine by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Given the firewall issue and the sound card degradation it seems like windows 7 is begging to be run inside a Linux virtual machine so it can't get so cozy with the hardware.

    Of course I have reason to believe they are already two steps ahed of me on that. When I run windows XP pro inside virtual box (host is Mac) then when I plug in my windows media device in the USB, windows media player only sees it as a USB disk not as a windows media device.

    So i suspect that windows only sees those DRM devices if it can have direct hardware access. Presumably this is to prevent someone from making a software windows media device emulator.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Virtual machine by Allador · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't use PS so I can't comment on that but in XP Pro every program that wanted firewall access got a nice popup saying "This program wants a firewall exception" and you had the choices of "Unblock/Keep Blocking/Ask Me Later" so I don't see where the problem is with XP.

      I think you're missing the poster's point.

      He chose to run the PS installer with an admin account, and the installer made programmatic changes to the firewall config.

      Thats it. The problem is that the poster thinks this is some sort of grand conspiracy, rather than just Adobe refining/changing their installer from the XP days.

  5. This reeks of user error by Sc4Freak · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I suspect that the user upgraded to Win7 beta from XP - because ever since Vista there has been no "Local Settings" folder. In Vista, the old "Local Settings" folder which existed in XP was relocated to AppData\Local.

    In the location of the old Local Settings folder is an NTFS junction, which merely redirects to the new AppData\Local location. Windows Explorer doesn't handle these junctions correctly and instead of redirecting you, will erroneously give you an "Access Denied" message.

    Also, programs have always been able to insert themselves as exceptions into the Windows Firewall. Many applications which require internet access and which are blocked by the firewall will ask you if they can create a firewall exception for themselves. So programs have always been allowed to insert exceptions into the firewall - it's not a requirement that the program has to ask you first.

    If a program is already running on your computer then it means the firewall is no longer responsible for stopping that application in any way - the firewall only protects against outside threats.

    It's also far more likely that your modifications to the DLL broke something, which would explain why CS4 no longer worked. Why jump to the inane conclusion that Microsoft/Adobe are plotting against us all in some wild conspiracy?

  6. Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut by stinerman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My "fix" is to revoke the copyright for any programs that have DRM.

    No DRMed program will ever enter the public domain in any real sense (in that it could be modified/built upon/etc.)

  7. Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut by Artraze · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Of course; having an amendment that says "DRM is bad" would be pretty silly.

    The idea would be to neutralize the government's ability to back up DRM and similar tech (like Trusted Computing). DRM would be a noting but a waste of money and a fun challenge if not for the DMCA. Similarly, no one's going to waste their time and money on TC hardware unless they are forced to.

    So I'd envision it more like:
    "Congress shall pass no law limiting the rights of persons to manipulate, operate, or otherwise utilize as they see fit any of their possessions or effects, nor the sale or trade of tools to be used for such purposes."

    There ya go, "The Hacker's Amendment". And it leaves plenty of room for interpretation, just like the rest of the Constitution...

  8. Re:FUD? False alarm? by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Agreed. For all we know, the problems this guy is having with his sound card are due to a driver bug or incompatibility rather than an intentional crippling of the audio, while the problems he's having with Photoshop and the problems with his Local Settings folder are due to introducing foreign code that messes up Windows in ways that Microsoft could not have anticipated.

    Besides... why would the current version of Photoshop be coded against undocumented features in still unreleased Windows 7?

    I am Willing to abandon Windows over draconian DRM, but I want evidence of that before I'll lambast Microsoft for it.

    --
    "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
  9. Unsourced FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A guy gets on here and makes a bunch of unsourced statements about MS and everyone laps them up like mother's milk.

    It's funny how the most recent scuttlebutt has been about how Windows 7 is really just Vista SP3 and is no different from Vista and boy isn't it amazing how MS just keeps putting out Vista with a different name.

    Yet apparently, this OS that is just another version of Vista is so radically different that it changes the very nature of hardware access.

    Fully aware that the Nazi's will mod this down into invisibility, but had to post it anyway, for pete's sake people, get a life.

  10. Re:Yes, and no. by Z34107 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It seems that the problem was that Windows was cooperating with the app vendor to lock out such hacking attempts.

    No, it doesn't. It seems that the "hacked" DLL is broken. Or, at incompatible with how Photoshop is expecting to link with it. Or doesn't exactly mimic the expected entry points. Or doesn't initialize the same global variables correctly. Or is referenced differently by the Windows 7 kernel. Or did work through some black magic but is now broken through a new security model. Etc.

    DLLs are "dynamic link libraries." They're .lib files that live in memory and can be used by multiple programs simultaneously. Using them is relying on Windows to compile your program for you; change them at your peril. This is a Windows 95-era problem.

    But, more evidence that this article is unresearched garbage.

    And then finding that the OS even after reboot has locked you out of your own Local Settings folder ...

    Here's what actually happened. Open a command prompt under Windows 7 (doesn't even have to be an administrator command prompt) and navigate to your user profile. (C:\users\username). Type in dir a:l. Those of you following along at home will notice that Local Settings is a reparse point - the "real" location where all of these files reside is at AppData\Local. (They're similar to *nix hard links.)

    Vista (and evidently Windows 7) use reparse points to make sure legacy (or poorly-coded) programs don't break. Install a 32-bit program on 64-bit Windows and it will magically end up in Program Files (x86) instead of Program Files.

    There are security permissions associated with these. No 32-bit process will ever make it's way to the 64-bit Program Files folder even if Administrator with a capital-A Himself launched that process with his UAC-emblazoned blessing. The same thing is true for that Local Settings reparse point.

    So, why did his foray into Local Settings fail? Explorer.exe is supposed to know about AppData\Local and is barred from the legacy backdoor. Why couldn't he set privileges or take ownership or use his crappy Unlocker program? You can't take ownership/set privileges/whatever on a reparse point; that has to be done on the folder it links to. All of those actions would have succeeded (or have been unnecessary) on AppData\Local.

    Interestingly enough, the command prompt can use the Local Settings reparse point. Navigate to c:\users\username . The command cd Local Settings will succeed (even on a non-administrator command prompt.) The command mkdir loltest will succeed and show up in a directory listing. But double-clicking on the Local Settings "folder" in the Explorer shell will fail. But, the loltest folder will show up in AppData\Local even though it supposedly created inside Local Settings. I wonder why the command prompt use the Local Settings reparse point, but the shell can't.

    As for degraded record quality while playing back? I called it "crappy audio drivers" when Vista was first released. Lo, Creative fixed it, however slowly. Have faith, or turn down the sample rate in the control panel.

    --
    DATABASE WOW WOW
  11. Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut by erroneus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We know DRM exists and what it does. What is interesting to me is how few technology people know what it is. One of my older brothers makes his living supporting Microsoft apps and runs his whole home on various Microsoft technologies and when I mentioned to him about DRM, he asked me what that was and he thought I was crazy when I told him.

    All of this stuff being written into the operating system sounds like a HUGE and CRAZY conspiracy theory... and yet we know it exists and whose interests it serves. How many other crackpot ideas get written off because they sound too far fetched to be believed? It isn't in Microsoft's interests to include what is there, so whose interests are they serving and why? We'll never know the answer to that. We only know that pure Open Source will never be able to hide those things.

  12. Don't notice iTunes DRM? by ratboy666 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    True Apple Story -

    I bought my wife an iPhone. First Apple product I've purchased in a LONG time. Makes for a lovely phone -- but we can't access the "Apple Store" and also can't put media onto the device. We use Solaris and Linux.

    I get iTunes running under Wine, and sign up for the Apple Store. This allows my wife to buy from the Apple Store. Yeah!

    Now, my wife wants a case for the device. She purchases a case; all seems good for a couple of days. But... the phone begins to behave "oddly". It turns the screen off, but leaves calls connected, and other (more minor) ailments.

    We book an appointment to the Apple "Genius Bar". We are told we MUST attach the iPhone to a computer at least once; that the problem is the "old software". Ok, we explain that we have no computer capable. Answer: well, then use someone elses.. "Will you do it?". Answer: no.

    My wife works as a librarian -- she has a circulation desk computer with Windows XP. Downloads and installs iTunes, plugs in the iPhone, and is asked "Do you want to sync automatically or manually?". That's really it! She chose "manual", because she didn't want to put all of her personal photos on that computer. Bad mistake... "Are you sure you want to upgrade?" "Yes" --- and BOOM! All the data is GONE. Just... vaporized... She calls Apple Support "Oh, yes, that would happen; there is nothing that can be done".

    Miserable, miserable, miserable... Complete data destruction without even a "are you sure" dialog. And it's all iTunes fault. Why do we use it? DRM. The Apple iPhone databases CANNOT be updated without anything else. We have a perfectly servicable application (Amarok) that we use for playback, but it no longer works to load music. Gotta use that iTunes shitware. Even a self-booting DOS or Linux disk for updating, *or* a failsafe firmware updater...

    And, as a final added insult -- the Genius Bar was wrong. The problem was that the iPhone 3G requires specific cases, and the case being used was wrong (it was an iPhone case). Go figure. I'm still buying a "Mac Mini" as an accessory to the iPhone, but still -- this is what DRM does. Locks out people who could possibly do a better job of it.

    --
    Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
  13. Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut by Angst+Badger · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It especially doesn't make sense as MS's yearly net profits exceed the entire gross revenues of either the recording or movie industries.

    I'm glad to see I'm not the only person who's noticed that. I have long found it perplexing that the music and movie industries get to call the shots for the vastly larger software industry when it comes to legislation. I can only assume that the software industry must have some incredibly shitty lobbyists. It's not like it doesn't cost Microsoft money to pay developers to engineer their operating system to RIAA/MPAA specifications. If there aren't some large checks being written to MS to get this done, then Steve Ballmer is an even bigger meathead than I thought -- and do not underestimate how big of a meathead I think he is already.

    It's more than the money, too. Our civilization would trundle along just fine if music and movie production ground to a total halt, but we have long since passed the point where we could operate without software, even Microsoft's buggy, insecure software.

    Oh well, it's no skin off my nose. Ever since it became possible to run CS3 under WINE, the only reason I haven't switched completely to Linux is that I just haven't had the time to shift everything around. Time to get cracking, I guess.

    --
    Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
  14. Re:Yes, and no. by dark_requiem · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Quick bit of research and I can probably tell you exactly why the dll wouldn't work. It was probably amtlib.dll, which is involved in activation, and either he's running 64 bit Photoshop, and he used the 32 bit hacked dll, or vice versa.

    That wasn't worth posting, and definitely isn't front page material. Screens, links, more than two paragraphs, any evidence or information at all? Clearly just an "Oh, shiny!" headline to catch the eye, but no substance.

  15. Re:No it wouldn't by jythie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    True, but some big IT shops are going to have a serious issue with software that can override security features. Unless microsoft provides an 'enterprise' way to make SURE the policy IT sets is actually set, many customers will find some other way.

  16. Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut by jonaskoelker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We only know that pure Open Source will never be able to hide those things.

    See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underhanded_C_Contest

  17. Re:No it wouldn't by donaldm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The only thing they will respond to is a mass boycott. And considering this is Windows, which is pretty much locked into most large scale networks as it is, not to mention end users' homes, good luck.

    It seems to have worked with Vista.

    If Microsoft's largest customers (IT departments) reject this version of windows over it's anti-piracy measures just like they rejected last version of windows over it's performance issues, you'll get your wish.

    Mass boycott of Vista? That may have worked for the people who wanted to upgrade and decided that it was not worth it when XP was "good enough", however for many people Vista was not an option when purchasing a new PC. As far as the corporate was concerned many businesses had contracts in place and had already payed for their Vista upgrade whether they liked it or not. Unfortunately I don't see the adoption of MS Windows 7 being any different.

    The only way this will change is when Government sectors insist of having Linux on their desktops and except for a few countries this is not happening very quickly.

    --
    There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
  18. Re:No it wouldn't by Michael+Hunt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's not the DRM that'd piss me off (none of my users are paid to care about audio, period) but the dodginess with Adobe (and presumably others). What nobody seems to have noted yet is that in order for Windows 7 to pick up that you've warezed your CS4, one of two things needs to be occuring:

      - Windows 7 ships with a secret blacklist of known warez MD5s/SHA1s. Make it a rolling hash a-la rsync for maximal anti-warezing.

    or, worse again

      - Microsoft have a secret API (not a huge surprise here) that they've shared with a few 'trusted' software OEMs such as Adobe. CS4 and friends register the MD5s (or whatever) of their more likely warez vectors, and an expanded version of WFP (in a 'protected' process a-la PVP-OPM in vista) makes sure you don't fuck with those files.

    If this is even half true, then Microsoft just quit the game. For keeps.

  19. Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut by aurispector · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think he's basically right, too. MS is desperate to get in bed with the content providers so it can better compete with Apple, etc., in the mobile & media player market. Since the whole DRM paradigm is broken it probably won't work unless they figure an effective way to force Win 7 down everyone's throats. I think ultimately they'll just stop supporting xp, since after playing with win7 for a month I still don't see a compelling reason to "upgrade" from xp.

    --
    I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
  20. Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut by Cjstone · · Score: 3, Interesting

    People that do their own mixing are a very small percentage of total computer users. If it means getting a larger slice of the digital media pie, I'm sure Microsoft would gladly give up that market.

    Besides, if big-name movies and music were only available through Microsoft's media distribution software, which is only available on Windows Seven, most people would have at least one Windows Seven computer. Even the people that do their own mixing; they'd probably have an audio workstation running Linux (because Mac OS seems to be cramming DRM in as well,) and a media-center running Windows.

    And before people start arguing that it would be hard for Microsoft to compete with iTunes: Remember that the record labels want Apple to increase the DRM restrictions. I'm sure they'd jump ship fast if another company offered a product with the same capabilities and market penetration (a player that comes pre-installed on Windows computers would meet this part,) and more of the DRM that they want so badly.