Slashdot Mirror
'First Pirated Ultra HD Blu-Ray Disk' Appears Online (torrentfreak.com)
Has AACS 2.0 encryption used to protect UHD Blu-ray discs been cracked? While the details are scarce, a cracked copy of a UHD Blu-ray disc surfaced on the HD-focused BitTorrent tracker UltraHDclub. TorrentFreak reports: The torrent in question is a copy of the Smurfs 2 film and is tagged "The Smurfs 2 (2013) 2160p UHD Blu-ray HEVC Atmos 7.1-THRONE." This suggests that AACS 2.0 may have been "cracked" although there are no further technical details provided at this point. UltraHDclub is proud of the release, though, and boasts of having the "First Ultra HD Blu-ray Disc in the NET!" Those who want to get their hands on a copy of the file have to be patient though. Provided that they have access to the private tracker, it will take a while to download the entire 53.30 GB disk. TorrentFreak reached out to both the uploader of the torrent and an admin at the site hoping to find out more, but thus far we have yet to hear back. From the details provided, the copy appears to be the real deal although not everyone agrees.
How quaint.
So, these guys are some of the smartest hackers / rippers on the planet. They're the first to break a widely sought-after protection scheme.
And their first accomplishment is to release The Smurfs 2?
Of course the alternative to AACS 2.0 being cracked is that someone accessed the video pre-encryption. This could have been an inside job at the studio/production companies, or they could have been hacked.
Slashdot is broken in multiple ways.
The mobile site doesn't display at all in Firefox. The page source shows that content was served, but it's broken enough to not display anything at all. There are features of the desktop interface, like the sliders to change comment thresholds, that simply aren't usable for mobile users.
On the desktop interface, links to older stories or to show all the stories on a previous day do not work at all. Instead, the front page is served up with the most recent stories.
All of these have been broken for several hours, and there are comments about it two stories ago. If there are issues with the server, the right thing is usually to notify users that there's a problem and it's being addressed. Nothing of the sort has been posted. I can't think of any good reason to test out changes on a production site.
If you're reading this, whipslash, this is a really bad experience for your users. Of course, you've made space to cram in more ads on comment pages, so all is well, right? Perhaps you should focus on building real value to this site instead of cramming in more ads to increase revenue in the short term. If you piss off enough users, that revenue will dry up in the longer term.
I would think the hardware players would be almost easier to attack these days than approved desktop players.
I'm afraid you don't understand encryption at all.
And this *isn't* encryption of data, so much as (attempted) encryption of transit.
Any encryption method, you can openly publish the decryption method and hardware. If you can't, it's no good.
What you *CAN'T* publish are the decryption keys. If you publish these, you are an idiot. CSS, AACS, etc. and pretty much all DRM schemes mis-use transport encryption by giving you the keys too, in some convoluted fashion. They are able to revoke keys, they are able to issue keys to manufacturers, but they are giving decryption keys to you. That's the problem, not the decryption device or decryption method.
Any encryption that cannot survive a known-plaintext attack is useless in the modern era. It's as simple as that. That's not how encryption has worked since the days of the Caesar cipher - even Enigma wasn't really that vulnerable to that because working out the key-settings for a known plaintext was computationally infeasible for the time. Don't believe every line in The Imitation Game ("Heil Hitler! Turns out that's the only German you need to know to break the code!").
So, no, what the problem is is not the encryption. It's the intended use. You give EVERY DEVICE MANUFACTURER a decryption key. Which you can revoke. But which millions of people share.
The reason for this is that otherwise you have to give every viewer a unique decryption key and give them unique copies of their disc, and encrypt data on-the-fly to them (because you can't store 6 billion differently-encrypted copies of the movie). And that just means that one guy has one key, and if he doesn't care about that key being later revoked, he can decrypt his own personal copy and problem solved.
AACS was a little bit more complicated, with all kinds of virtual machines checking state, and things like keys that were generically derivable if you have enough device keys (which means that nobody can trace who actually broke it or blacklist them).
But those are security-by-obscurity and inherent flaws of using encryption as DRM instead of its intended use.
But if you have an encryption scheme where you cannot publish the algorithm, or encrypted known plain-texts, you are very much back in the 60's (e.g. "Modern ciphers such as Advanced Encryption Standard are not currently known to be susceptible to known-plaintext attacks.")
This torrent appears to be the actual disc itself -- .m2ts files and BDMV\STREAM directory etc. It looks like the full 72.5 Mb/s source movie at the identical quality as the retail UHD disc, minus the DRM -- you could burn this puppy back to a UHD disc and play it on your player (assuming the player will play these UHD discs without DRM), or, more likely, use your favorite software player. Or, you could use Handbrake and compress it to the bitrate and container of your choice. But it looks like the real deal.
> This will last until people can't tell the difference between a format's video and their natural vision.
I predict it'll last much longer than that. Consider the audiophile scene. People spend hundreds, even thousands of dollars on simple cables for digital, when it can be easily proven that any non-cable will deliver bit-for-bit identical data. They insist on clearly reproducing frequencies four times as high as they can hear.
Ok, let's be clear on something. No matters how perfect your protection is, if it's on my screen, I can record it. I can output the signal and the audio on a HD recorder and there's no protection that will protect you from that.
Now, to my point, why the pirate even bother to pirate this encoding? I mean, why would I pirate the BlueRay image full of ads and pointless menu when I can download a perfectly fine and cleaned .AVI with all the Subtitles/Audio integrated?
Or am I missing something?
Elok
So, no, what the problem is is not the encryption. It's the intended use. You give EVERY DEVICE MANUFACTURER a decryption key.
Yeah, I'm sure that what's happened here is that someone extracted a device key and used it to decrypt the movie. I'm shocked that this is the first time it's been done. Actually, I doubt that it is.
Which you can revoke. But which millions of people share.
Actually, no. AACS provides a unique set of decryption keys to every individual device. Not model, but individual piece of hardware. Through a complicated (and rather cool, actually) sequence of derivations, every device can derive the keys needed for each disk, but if a player's keys are found to be compromised they can be revoked, and that player will be unable to decrypt any disks made in the future.
AACS was a little bit more complicated, with all kinds of virtual machines checking state, and things like keys that were generically derivable if you have enough device keys (which means that nobody can trace who actually broke it or blacklist them).
Again, no. AACS includes a traitor tracing scheme. I don't know if it's actually in use (but if we start seeing lots of UHD torrents, you can bet they'll start using it), but it allows the identification of the specific device that decrypted a movie, from the decrypted video stream. The way this works is that they encrypt some portions of the video twice, with keys chosen so that any given device can only decrypt one of the two copies. Then they apply different digital watermarks to each of the duplicate blocks. With n duplicated blocks they examine the decrypted output and identify which of 2^n devices decrypted.
But those are security-by-obscurity and inherent flaws of using encryption as DRM instead of its intended use.
True, but AACS gets about as close as you can get, I think, to a secure DRM solution that doesn't include a real-time, two-way negotiation.
Where it breaks down is that because "revocation" only affects future movies, an attacker who extracts the keys from a device on May 4, 2017 can use those keys to decrypt every Blu-Ray Disk pressed before that date (actually, probably before that date plus a few months). In addition, Blu-Ray players are dirt cheap. At the low end, they cost about the same as a disk. Given a cheap way to extract the key from one, it would be perfectly feasible to buy a new player for each movie you want to decrypt. But you don't even have to do that. Buy one per month and you can decrypt all the movies that come out -- at least until the AACS LA realizes that one model of player can be cheaply broken and pushes the manufacturer to tighten security to make it harder. They can make you work hard to keep up with changes in their security-by-obscurity.
Except they can't win that way, either. The trick is to break a set of devices and get all of their keys. Then identify the traitor tracing blocks in a movie and decrypt them with multiple players' keys, so you end up with both copies of many of the blocks. Then, when you construct the output to publish, choose among the traitor tracing blocks so that your output is different from any of the individual devices that you've broken. Examination of the published stream may finger some device in the world, but it will definitely not finger any of the ones you broke. You may cause some random individual's player to stop working (on future movies), but your keys will stay good.
At the end of the day, DRM is always breakable, because you have to distribute the keys. But it can be made pretty hard, and AACS is an incredibly good scheme, given the context in which it has to operate.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The extra colour and dynamic range with 4k, and even more so with 8k is really nice, but to get much out of it you need a dimly lit room and a TV capable of reproducing it.
Similarly with audio you need a dedicated room and to then sit in the sweet spot while listening.
Huh... nope. 8k and 10bits colour isn't the equivalent to 200$ monster digital cables and 192kHz sample rate.
- Ears have some physiological limits due to how physics work (your ears can hear very approx in the 20-20'000Hz range. your body can also feel vibrations in the 1-100Hz. There's no receptor in a human body capable of reacting to 90kHz).
- Physics of digital signals, and a whole bunch of signal processing science (e.g.: error correction) means that in the digital world, sometime a bit is just a bit, no matter the concentration of gold and diamond powder (sic!) in the cabling it goes through.
No matter the dedicated audio room you're sitting in, you'll never be able to hear ultrasounds (directly. though ultrasounds can cause distorsions in the audible range on some equiement), and monster cables will change nothing to the SPDIF link.
The "cinephile" equivalent of an audiophile insisting on 200$ monster cables and 192kHz rates,
would be a guy who insist on movie formats that not only record Red, Green and Blue primary colours, but also infra-red and ultra violet (i.e.: insist on frequencies/wavelenghts for which the human eyes doesn't have any receptors) and on buying a $10'000 silver screen to project projecting onto which, that should also perfectly reflect x-rays, gamma rays and microwaves (completely irrelevant given what is transmitted by the light of the beamer).
No matter if the movie room is dimly lit or not, insisting on wave-lenght outside the human range (like ultra-violets) is useless, as is insisting on a screen optimized for something completely irrelevant.
The same way, no matter the dedicated listening room and it's sweet spot, a human ear lacks receptors for 96kHz sounds.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]