You mean the part about how every player has a set of (253) device keys which it uses to process the media key block using the subset-difference algorithm, and how those keys are effectively shared among many players? Or do you mean the corollary that many repeated revocations would eventually force a revoke of the keys needed by a non-compromised player (or run out of MKB space, depending on how lazy hardware player manufacturers got with their buffers)? Now, they may have partitioned software and hardware players into separate subtrees, so revoking software players will never cause a hardware player to fail, but eventually people will hack some of the hardware players, and revocation then becomes a very sticky issue. And no, that probably won't require stripping the cpu like you claim in other posts. All modern hardware players will have CPUs, ROMs, and RAM, and there's a lot you can get from monitoring those. How do you think all the consoles got hacked? Sometimes, manufacturers will even leave solder points for a JTAG for you, how helpful! Joe Sixpack does not want to come home someday with a HD-DVD that doesn't play, when he has done nothing wrong himself -- but that's what will happen eventually if they really try to revoke every compromised key.
Or do you mean that I don't understand Muslix64's hack of scanning memory during playback initialization and trying each memory location as a key to find the one that decrypted the data files to valid video streams? Sure, the player will try to cover its tracks better by attempting to obscure the memory, but if a computation occurs on a processor, there is always going to be some way of recovering it. Or do believe that obfuscation will actually stop people from finding the key? It's not like hackers haven't been breaking those sorts of protections on games for 20 years or anything... clearly they are going to be helpless.
Your other posts reveal similar misunderstandings, such as this one where you state that each player has a single unique key, which is wrong[1,2]. Then there's this post, which shows you don't know about the player "bricking" ability build into AACS[3] (although its not used in this first revocation).
No, it's pretty clear you either have no idea what you are talking about, or you are trying to be deliberately misleading. Go ahead, call me dumb and troll like your posting history indicates you enjoy. I only started reading Doom9 in January, so I'm a n00b don't know what I'm talking about...
[1] Section 3.1, Advanced Access Content System (AACS) "Introduction and Common Cryptographic Elements" [2] Post by "FoxDisc" on Doom9 forum, topic "Understanding AACS (including Subset-Difference)" [3] Section 4.8-4.9, Advanced Access Content System (AACS) "Introduction and Common Cryptographic Elements"
Fluorinert, which is what is used for supercomputers, costs something like $3000 a gallon. Perhaps Garimella should consider the implications of that for a company wanting promoting immersion cooling for ordinary servers.
It all about volume. If you're only making 1-1000 of something, then an FPGA is way cheaper than an ASIC. High end devices often have low volumes (per revision), but even a low end device makes sense with an FPGA if you aren't selling that many of them. For the in-house robotics projects that are being done in my lab, they are indispensable since they can be used for replacing small logic chips and most of the glue logic; It's hard to beat an ARM chip with an FPGA next to it:)
Beyond the immediate fix we must reflect on how we got into this mess. To have the benefit of independent eyes we will have an external review of the events that transpired from the beginning of the design. They say that "many eyes make all imbalanced forces shallow." Seriously though, this sounds a lot like a common problem in programming: Checking the common, operating case, and neglecting to think about a corner case which is untested. The design reviews probably focused on proper operation, and not so much on startup/shutdown. Engineering is engineering I guess:)
Directly along the approach there is a *continuous* stream of airplanes. On a clear day you can see five or more planes in a row coming in to land. Given that each plane can have 200 people in it, and LA is a low-density city (we aren't talking Manhattan), I could believe it approaching a few percent directly along the approach. Given the overhead that each person on a phone might incur, that gets multiplied a lot, and you are now talking about a major disruption of the cell network. Also, if it really bothers you that much, I can use Atlanta's airport as an example, since it's even busier, while being in an area with lower population density.
Now, there are a lot of assumptions in that, and maybe in reality its not a problem at all. However, the GP's "proof" was flawed, so I called him out on it. You ban phones if there *might* be a problem (what I'm trying to show). OTOH, you can allow phones only if you can prove that there is no possibility of a problem (what the GP was trying to show, which is much harder).
It's shocking that a gasoline car advocate would add fuel to the fire by igniting an argument with electric car advocates. Maybe he doesn't have the capacity to understand the power of electric vehicles.
I don't think "It was the airplane's problem for having faulty shielding, not the electronic device" would be much of a comfort to relatives. Can't we just be a little patient while the last of the analog phones (which really can interfere) disappear, and the FAA/FCC test out onboard picocells? People here talk like addicts -- as though somehow its impossible to not use your phone for a few hours.
Wouldn't the RF channel used by the handset need to be reserved on every tower that could see it? Or do phones have such a low duty cycle in transmission that it wouldn't matter? If there needs to be reservation of channels to avoid interference between handsets, it could be more a case of using up channels/spectrum rather than actual data bandwidth.
You're making a faulty assumption that airplanes are uniformly distributed. On an approach to LAX, for example, a not-insignificant fraction of the population is in the air. Also, over a densely populated area (such as around LAX), your mobile phone might be able to connect to something like 50x the towers as a phone on the ground. The result would be that phones would barely work around airports, which nobody would like.
Now, the real solution is to have picocells onboard the airplanes. In the mean time, is it that hard to not use your phone for a few hours on a domestic flight? On real long flights over oceans and completely unpopulated areas, you wouldn't be able to use them anyway.
Another I watch is G.E. - they make nothing, directly, anymore. Good or bad company? I'm not sure.
Apparently you watch them so well you don't bother to go to the "products" page on their website? For some examples, they make most of the world's jet engines, nearly all of North America's diesel-electric locomotives, and have a big chunk of steam turbine and wind turbine markets for power generation. Their primary work over the last decade or more has been increasing the efficiency of such systems, so I'd hazard to guess they are a good company now if you care about decreased emissions[1].
You really have to take a step back, and think about such conspiracy theories. If one company can go against the conspiracy and make more money, they'd do it. That's why secret conspiracies don't really work, and only public ones such as OPEC succeed. In OPEC, nations can face sanctions from the other members if they cheat on the oligopoly, but if it were secret you couldn't do that without making it clear something existed.
The only real "conspiracy" is very large companies not wanting to take risks in their research and development, and what you get is what seems like a lot of foot dragging. However it's primarily just inertia and highly risk averse primary investors. Would you bet your retirement fund on unproven investments? Probably not. So, you look to small companies for innovation, but the reality is that many small companies fail. That's just the nature of business -- nearly anyone can start a company, but only a few can grow large in a market with limits.
[1] Their environmental history sucks though, in particular with regard to dumping PCBs, but find me a large company that didn't abuse the environment when they could get away with it prior to the 1970s.
Yeah that's exactly my sentiment. Every time my testing updates slow down in their rate, I know that a release is coming. After the release, development heats up again and I will have new toys to play with. It also means I can cut a few unstable/experimental tags from/etc/apt/preferences.
I'm just curious, but why was Monotone chosen over the other distributed version control systems? Something like Darcs might not be able to scale up to a project that size, but Mercurial should work fine. Git is great for large projects, although maybe its Windows support isn't good enough? Just wondering what the reasoning was...
Not to mention you'd get sued for any name containing {paint, photo, draw, color,...}. I don't like the name GIMP, but I can understand why they needed something very different from existing programs. That's the real reason most OSS programs have strange names -- all the obvious ones are already trademarked.
That said, I don't know about pidgin though, but maybe it will grow on me. I used to use "everybuddy", which has a great name for a multi-protocol IM program, but eventually it got eclipsed by Gaim/Pidgin.
So, since when has OpenBSD had something called voluntary_preempt just like Linux? If you were just reimplementing similar code, why copy a line that would never be useful?
It seems clear the devolper copied the code, and was reimplementing it in parts, which is questionable even after all the parts have been replaced. That is because it could be argued that the code is a derived work. As a mental exercise, imaging doing this with code lifted from a commercial vendor; How would they respond? Probably the first you'd hear of it would be a lawsuit.
Something being on Law & Order doesn't automatically make it fake; They have been known to pull things from real headlines. Of course, if it was on Law & Order: SVU...
Slashdot Mirror
You mean the part about how every player has a set of (253) device keys which it uses to process the media key block using the subset-difference algorithm, and how those keys are effectively shared among many players? Or do you mean the corollary that many repeated revocations would eventually force a revoke of the keys needed by a non-compromised player (or run out of MKB space, depending on how lazy hardware player manufacturers got with their buffers)? Now, they may have partitioned software and hardware players into separate subtrees, so revoking software players will never cause a hardware player to fail, but eventually people will hack some of the hardware players, and revocation then becomes a very sticky issue. And no, that probably won't require stripping the cpu like you claim in other posts. All modern hardware players will have CPUs, ROMs, and RAM, and there's a lot you can get from monitoring those. How do you think all the consoles got hacked? Sometimes, manufacturers will even leave solder points for a JTAG for you, how helpful! Joe Sixpack does not want to come home someday with a HD-DVD that doesn't play, when he has done nothing wrong himself -- but that's what will happen eventually if they really try to revoke every compromised key.
Or do you mean that I don't understand Muslix64's hack of scanning memory during playback initialization and trying each memory location as a key to find the one that decrypted the data files to valid video streams? Sure, the player will try to cover its tracks better by attempting to obscure the memory, but if a computation occurs on a processor, there is always going to be some way of recovering it. Or do believe that obfuscation will actually stop people from finding the key? It's not like hackers haven't been breaking those sorts of protections on games for 20 years or anything... clearly they are going to be helpless.
Your other posts reveal similar misunderstandings, such as this one where you state that each player has a single unique key, which is wrong[1,2]. Then there's this post, which shows you don't know about the player "bricking" ability build into AACS[3] (although its not used in this first revocation).
No, it's pretty clear you either have no idea what you are talking about, or you are trying to be deliberately misleading. Go ahead, call me dumb and troll like your posting history indicates you enjoy. I only started reading Doom9 in January, so I'm a n00b don't know what I'm talking about...
[1] Section 3.1, Advanced Access Content System (AACS) "Introduction and Common Cryptographic Elements"
[2] Post by "FoxDisc" on Doom9 forum, topic "Understanding AACS (including Subset-Difference)"
[3] Section 4.8-4.9, Advanced Access Content System (AACS) "Introduction and Common Cryptographic Elements"
Fluorinert, which is what is used for supercomputers, costs something like $3000 a gallon. Perhaps Garimella should consider the implications of that for a company wanting promoting immersion cooling for ordinary servers.
Actually, it'll end when they run out of keys to revoke. AFAICT, the set is finite.
I hope you are proud of yourself; You're what's known as a "tightmod".
It all about volume. If you're only making 1-1000 of something, then an FPGA is way cheaper than an ASIC. High end devices often have low volumes (per revision), but even a low end device makes sense with an FPGA if you aren't selling that many of them. For the in-house robotics projects that are being done in my lab, they are indispensable since they can be used for replacing small logic chips and most of the glue logic; It's hard to beat an ARM chip with an FPGA next to it :)
Did they manage to redirect the result to standard out?
So, is the Higgs boson going to become the "OMG LOL" particle? I hope not...
Thanks, that was very informative.
Directly along the approach there is a *continuous* stream of airplanes. On a clear day you can see five or more planes in a row coming in to land. Given that each plane can have 200 people in it, and LA is a low-density city (we aren't talking Manhattan), I could believe it approaching a few percent directly along the approach. Given the overhead that each person on a phone might incur, that gets multiplied a lot, and you are now talking about a major disruption of the cell network. Also, if it really bothers you that much, I can use Atlanta's airport as an example, since it's even busier, while being in an area with lower population density.
Now, there are a lot of assumptions in that, and maybe in reality its not a problem at all. However, the GP's "proof" was flawed, so I called him out on it. You ban phones if there *might* be a problem (what I'm trying to show). OTOH, you can allow phones only if you can prove that there is no possibility of a problem (what the GP was trying to show, which is much harder).
It's shocking that a gasoline car advocate would add fuel to the fire by igniting an argument with electric car advocates. Maybe he doesn't have the capacity to understand the power of electric vehicles.
I don't think "It was the airplane's problem for having faulty shielding, not the electronic device" would be much of a comfort to relatives. Can't we just be a little patient while the last of the analog phones (which really can interfere) disappear, and the FAA/FCC test out onboard picocells? People here talk like addicts -- as though somehow its impossible to not use your phone for a few hours.
Wouldn't the RF channel used by the handset need to be reserved on every tower that could see it? Or do phones have such a low duty cycle in transmission that it wouldn't matter? If there needs to be reservation of channels to avoid interference between handsets, it could be more a case of using up channels/spectrum rather than actual data bandwidth.
You're making a faulty assumption that airplanes are uniformly distributed. On an approach to LAX, for example, a not-insignificant fraction of the population is in the air. Also, over a densely populated area (such as around LAX), your mobile phone might be able to connect to something like 50x the towers as a phone on the ground. The result would be that phones would barely work around airports, which nobody would like.
Now, the real solution is to have picocells onboard the airplanes. In the mean time, is it that hard to not use your phone for a few hours on a domestic flight? On real long flights over oceans and completely unpopulated areas, you wouldn't be able to use them anyway.
IIRC, the combo is up up down down left right left right B A.
Apparently you watch them so well you don't bother to go to the "products" page on their website? For some examples, they make most of the world's jet engines, nearly all of North America's diesel-electric locomotives, and have a big chunk of steam turbine and wind turbine markets for power generation. Their primary work over the last decade or more has been increasing the efficiency of such systems, so I'd hazard to guess they are a good company now if you care about decreased emissions[1].
You really have to take a step back, and think about such conspiracy theories. If one company can go against the conspiracy and make more money, they'd do it. That's why secret conspiracies don't really work, and only public ones such as OPEC succeed. In OPEC, nations can face sanctions from the other members if they cheat on the oligopoly, but if it were secret you couldn't do that without making it clear something existed.
The only real "conspiracy" is very large companies not wanting to take risks in their research and development, and what you get is what seems like a lot of foot dragging. However it's primarily just inertia and highly risk averse primary investors. Would you bet your retirement fund on unproven investments? Probably not. So, you look to small companies for innovation, but the reality is that many small companies fail. That's just the nature of business -- nearly anyone can start a company, but only a few can grow large in a market with limits.
[1] Their environmental history sucks though, in particular with regard to dumping PCBs, but find me a large company that didn't abuse the environment when they could get away with it prior to the 1970s.
Yeah that's exactly my sentiment. Every time my testing updates slow down in their rate, I know that a release is coming. After the release, development heats up again and I will have new toys to play with. It also means I can cut a few unstable/experimental tags from /etc/apt/preferences.
I'm just curious, but why was Monotone chosen over the other distributed version control systems? Something like Darcs might not be able to scale up to a project that size, but Mercurial should work fine. Git is great for large projects, although maybe its Windows support isn't good enough? Just wondering what the reasoning was...
Not to mention you'd get sued for any name containing {paint, photo, draw, color, ...}. I don't like the name GIMP, but I can understand why they needed something very different from existing programs. That's the real reason most OSS programs have strange names -- all the obvious ones are already trademarked.
That said, I don't know about pidgin though, but maybe it will grow on me. I used to use "everybuddy", which has a great name for a multi-protocol IM program, but eventually it got eclipsed by Gaim/Pidgin.
Similar? Here's a comment from the BSD driver:
/* XXX bcm43xx_voluntary_preempt() ? */
So, since when has OpenBSD had something called voluntary_preempt just like Linux? If you were just reimplementing similar code, why copy a line that would never be useful?
It seems clear the devolper copied the code, and was reimplementing it in parts, which is questionable even after all the parts have been replaced. That is because it could be argued that the code is a derived work. As a mental exercise, imaging doing this with code lifted from a commercial vendor; How would they respond? Probably the first you'd hear of it would be a lawsuit.
software patents?
A river can still help though; They could use river water in evaporative cooling towers, just like many nuclear plants do today.
not funny.
I'm sure they already did get good incentives for their new site.
Something being on Law & Order doesn't automatically make it fake; They have been known to pull things from real headlines. Of course, if it was on Law & Order: SVU...