[OT] DRM OS

[OT] DRM OS

[James Simmons]

Microsoft patents loading a trusted OS into a trusted CPU. The OS prevents
untrusted applications from accessing Rights Managed Data.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=CR99&S1=5,892,900.UREF.&OS=ref/5,892,900&RS=REF/5,892,900

  .-.                               .-.
  oo|  Give Microsoft The Bird!!!!  oo|
 /`'\  Use Linux!!!                /`'\
(_;/)                            (_;/)
-----------------------------------------------------

Re: [OT] DRM OS

[Matt]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 08:00:12PM -0800, James Simmons wrote:

> Microsoft patents loading a trusted OS into a trusted CPU. The OS
> prevents untrusted applications from accessing Rights Managed Data.

> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=CR99&S1=5,892,900.UREF.&OS=ref/5,892,900&RS=REF/5,892,900

which means if the SSSCA passes it is a license for microsoft to print
money..

	matt

Re: [OT] DRM OS

[Rik van Riel]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2001, James Simmons wrote:

> Microsoft patents loading a trusted OS into a trusted CPU. The OS prevents
> untrusted applications from accessing Rights Managed Data.

I haven't looked up the link, but this sounds suspiciously like
what UNIX permission bits have been doing since the 1970s.

I guess MS trying to enforce their patent against anyone would
just get it invalidated, or the claim is narrow enough that
people can work around it.

> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=CR99&S1=5,892,900.UREF.&OS=ref/5,892,900&RS=REF/5,892,900

Then again, this only applies to people unlucky enough to live
in the US. No need to worry.

cheers,

Rik
-- 
Shortwave goes a long way:  irc.starchat.net  #swl

http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/

Re: [OT] DRM OS

[Andre Hedrick]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2001, James Simmons wrote:

> 
> Microsoft patents loading a trusted OS into a trusted CPU. The OS prevents
> untrusted applications from accessing Rights Managed Data.
> 
> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=CR99&S1=5,892,900.UREF.&OS=ref/5,892,900&RS=REF/5,892,900

I warned everybody the stuff was coming down the pipes.
This is their method of dealing with content protection and it is going to
pollute the hardware!  The next thing down the pipes will be a requirement
for IPC hardware encryption.

CPU(crypto)<->Memory(crypto)<->Framebuffer(crypto)
ata(clean)<->diskcontroller(crypto)<->Memory(crypto)<->CPU(crypto)
scsi(crypto)<->diskcontroller(crypto)<->Memory(crypto)<->CPU(crypto)
CPU(crypto)<->Bridge(crypto)<->Memory(crypto)

Just watch and see!

Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development
Linux Disk Certification Project

Re: [OT] DRM OS

[Aaron Lehmann]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 01:15:48AM -0800, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> CPU(crypto)<->Memory(crypto)<->Framebuffer(crypto)
> ata(clean)<->diskcontroller(crypto)<->Memory(crypto)<->CPU(crypto)
> scsi(crypto)<->diskcontroller(crypto)<->Memory(crypto)<->CPU(crypto)
> CPU(crypto)<->Bridge(crypto)<->Memory(crypto)
> 
> Just watch and see!

Why would crypto help at all?

Re: [OT] DRM OS

[TimO]

Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 01:15:48AM -0800, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> > CPU(crypto)<->Memory(crypto)<->Framebuffer(crypto)
> > ata(clean)<->diskcontroller(crypto)<->Memory(crypto)<->CPU(crypto)
> > scsi(crypto)<->diskcontroller(crypto)<->Memory(crypto)<->CPU(crypto)
> > CPU(crypto)<->Bridge(crypto)<->Memory(crypto)
> >
> > Just watch and see!
> 
> Why would crypto help at all?
> -

To prevent us from sniffing the bus to figure out proprietary protocols
like we do with USB devices.  ...and other things, of course.

-- 
===============
-- TimO
--------------------==============++==============--------------------
                             No Cool .sig

Re: [OT] DRM OS

[Alan Cox]

> On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 01:15:48AM -0800, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> > CPU(crypto)<->Memory(crypto)<->Framebuffer(crypto)
> > ata(clean)<->diskcontroller(crypto)<->Memory(crypto)<->CPU(crypto)
> > scsi(crypto)<->diskcontroller(crypto)<->Memory(crypto)<->CPU(crypto)
> > CPU(crypto)<->Bridge(crypto)<->Memory(crypto)
> > 
> > Just watch and see!
> 
> Why would crypto help at all?

So you cant tap the data anywhere. 

Think

encrypted music fed to an encrypted audio controller to speakers which
decrypt and add watermarks

encrypted video decrypted and macrovision + watermarked only in buffers
the CPU cant access

audio input that has legally mandated watermark checks and wont record
watermarked data.

That is the dream these people have. They'd also like the OS to scan for
"illicit" material and phone the law if you do, and to have a mandatory
remote shutdown of your box

(and if you read the MS media player license anyone who agrees to it signed
up to that)

Alan

Re: [OT] DRM OS

[James Simmons]

> > Why would crypto help at all?
> 
> So you cant tap the data anywhere. 

[snip]..

> (and if you read the MS media player license anyone who agrees to it signed
> up to that)

The end of the free world ;-< We know this will be global.

   . ---
   |o_o |
   |:_/ |   Give Micro$oft the Bird!!!!
  //   \ \  Use Linux!!!!
 (|     | )
 /'_   _/`\
 ___)=(___/

Re: [OT] DRM OS

[Andre Hedrick]

And it was almost a year ago when the world was exposed to this plot but
everyone ignored my commentary when I was asked.  The reality is, now is
to late to be concerned.  It is already in place.  The infrastructure is
laid and now it is the componet level of next generation of hardware.

Regards,

Andre Hedrick
CEO/President, LAD Storage Consulting Group
Linux ATA Development
Linux Disk Certification Project

On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, James Simmons wrote:

> 
> > > Why would crypto help at all?
> > 
> > So you cant tap the data anywhere. 
> 
> [snip]..
> 
> > (and if you read the MS media player license anyone who agrees to it signed
> > up to that)
> 
> The end of the free world ;-< We know this will be global.
> 
>    . ---
>    |o_o |
>    |:_/ |   Give Micro$oft the Bird!!!!
>   //   \ \  Use Linux!!!!
>  (|     | )
>  /'_   _/`\
>  ___)=(___/
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 

Re: [OT] DRM OS

[Aaron Lehmann]

On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 04:17:19PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> encrypted music fed to an encrypted audio controller to speakers which
> decrypt and add watermarks

Write a program that decrypts it. If the speakers can, so can the CPU.
Remeber DeCSS?

> encrypted video decrypted and macrovision + watermarked only in buffers
> the CPU cant access

Again, if weird hardware can decrypt it, so can the CPU. It only takes
one reverse-engineering.

> audio input that has legally mandated watermark checks and wont record
> watermarked data.

I haven't seen any serious watermarks presented.

> That is the dream these people have. They'd also like the OS to scan for
> "illicit" material and phone the law if you do, and to have a mandatory
> remote shutdown of your box

It's scarier than CSS.

Re: [OT] DRM OS

[Dave Jones]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Aaron Lehmann wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 04:17:19PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > encrypted music fed to an encrypted audio controller to speakers which
> > decrypt and add watermarks
> Write a program that decrypts it. If the speakers can, so can the CPU.
> Remeber DeCSS?

Remember DMCA ? Remember SSSCA ?

What you propose is classed as "Bypassing an access control".

Dave.

-- 
| Dave Jones.        http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs

Re: [OT] DRM OS

[Aaron Lehmann]

On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 09:05:55PM +0100, Dave Jones wrote:
> Remember DMCA ? Remember SSSCA ?

I watch DVD's with DeCSS. Come and get me.

The reality is that even things such as napster are absurdly termed
illegal, and that doesn't stop a huge segment of the population from
"bypassing" such laws. The same would happen if tools were available
for circumvention of DRM in computer hardware.

Re: [OT] DRM OS

[Dave Jones]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Aaron Lehmann wrote:

> > Remember DMCA ? Remember SSSCA ?
> I watch DVD's with DeCSS. Come and get me.

point ------>
<------ Aaron

I suggest you reread what happened to the implementor of
DeCSS since you've obviously forgotten.

Whilst it's not practical for authorities to go 'get' every user
of such things, there are several real world examples where
they've gone after implementors, and distributors of such
technology.

In a hypothetical scenario where we have sound drivers that
provide ways to bypass watermarking and the likes
(or even failure to implement whatever technology is
 deemed "necessary"), kernel.org becomes a distributor of
"software to bypass access controls".

Amazing, just a few days since the Sklyarov release, and
already people are forgetting this is a very real problem.

regards,
Dave.

-- 
| Dave Jones.        http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs

Re: [OT] DRM OS

[H. Peter Anvin]

Followup to:  <Pine.LNX.4.33.0112182116070.29077-100000@Appserv.suse.de>
By author:    Dave Jones <davej@suse.de>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> 
> Amazing, just a few days since the Sklyarov release, and
> already people are forgetting this is a very real problem.
> 

Who's forgetting?  The scary part is that corporate fascism is
basically the political reality in the U.S. (who is pushing very hard
to export it to the rest of the world, for obvious reasons) today.
Note that SSSCA failed not because of any freedom concerns, but
because Microsoft and Intel didn't want the gov't to tell them what to
do.

I don't say this lightly.  However, I really think that the U.S. no
longer is classifiable as a democracy, but rather as a plutocracy.

	-hpa

-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt	<amsp@zytor.com>

Re: [OT] DRM OS

[Helge Hafting]

Dave Jones wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> 
> > > Remember DMCA ? Remember SSSCA ?
> > I watch DVD's with DeCSS. Come and get me.

> I suggest you reread what happened to the implementor of
> DeCSS since you've obviously forgotten.
> 
> Whilst it's not practical for authorities to go 'get' every user
> of such things, there are several real world examples where
> they've gone after implementors, and distributors of such
> technology.

There will simply be a lot of implementors that either
don't take credit for their work "Look at this cool
bypassing sw I found!..." or use nicknames.  
Implementors can't be stopped, merely driven underground.

Helge Hafting

Re: [OT] DRM OS

[Rik van Riel]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 09:05:55PM +0100, Dave Jones wrote:
> > Remember DMCA ? Remember SSSCA ?
>
> I watch DVD's with DeCSS. Come and get me.

Punishable by fines of up to $500,000 and 5 years
in prison, per violation.

That adds up quickly if you watch multiple movies
a week.

cheers,

Rik
-- 
DMCA, SSSCA, W3C?  Who cares?  http://thefreeworld.net/

http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/

Re: [OT] DRM OS

[Gábor Lénárt]

On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 06:44:41PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 09:05:55PM +0100, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > Remember DMCA ? Remember SSSCA ?
> >
> > I watch DVD's with DeCSS. Come and get me.
> 
> Punishable by fines of up to $500,000 and 5 years
> in prison, per violation.
> 
> That adds up quickly if you watch multiple movies
> a week.

Ehh. What if I don't want (let's say) I can't pay money for a DVD player
software? Is there any legal DVD player sw for Linux? For win it's not
solution for me since win is not legal unless I buy it :) So I can't watch
my own DVD disk according the law? Imho it's against the constitution of
most countries: if I beleive that Open Source is the RIGHT solution (let'say
this is my religion, namely: I beleive in freedom so I can only use open
source softwares :), then I can't watch DVDs. So I'm under detrimental
distinction because of my religion. Hmm ;-( [sorry it's very OT maybe some
linux-kernel-flame mailing list should be created, like linux-flame mailing
list in Hungary :)]

- Gabor

Re: [OT] DRM OS

[Thomas Dodd]

Gábor Lénárt wrote:

> Ehh. What if I don't want (let's say) I can't pay money for a DVD player
> software? Is there any legal DVD player sw for Linux? For win it's not


Not the last I checked.

> solution for me since win is not legal unless I buy it :) So I can't watch
> my own DVD disk according the law? Imho it's against the constitution of


Exactly. That's what DMCA says.
It basicly nullifies all reasonable use rights in the U.S.A.

> most countries: if I beleive that Open Source is the RIGHT solution (let'say
> this is my religion, namely: I beleive in freedom so I can only use open
> source softwares :), then I can't watch DVDs. So I'm under detrimental



No one with the money (read millions of dollars) has channanged the
Constitutionality of the DMCA yet. Even when it happens, what are the
chances of the courts understanding the technical side? The politicians
surly didn't. They beleived that it would stop mass copying and
distribution, like in Malaysia with VCD, audio CDs, and software,
When all it stops is individuals using the product they bought.

A few years ago it was law that I could do what I wanted with a
cable/satellite signal broadcast over me. So They encrypted
the signals. I figured out how to decrypt that signal. The courts
called that legal. So the broadcasters changed the keys more often
until it was no longer worth the effort for me to "get it free"
(it takes a few hours to find the new keys, then it takes a
while to enter the new keys. So if the keys change twice a day
I only get 1-2 hours of usefull viewing).
The DMCA makes what had been legal, but dubious, use of
the signal, illegal.

I us gasoline to clean parts whe I work on old cars.
Next they will tell me I cannot use the gasoline I
buy for anything other than running a govt. approved
engine and have top buy a seperate, approved cleaning
agent to clean parts.

	-Thomas

Re: [OT] DRM OS

[Marco Ermini]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 18:44:41 -0200 (BRST)
Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 09:05:55PM +0100, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > Remember DMCA ? Remember SSSCA ?
> >
> > I watch DVD's with DeCSS. Come and get me.
> 
> Punishable by fines of up to $500,000 and 5 years
> in prison, per violation.

But not in Europe. Only in the USA. Algorithms may not be subjected to patents
in Europe (by now).

Anyway, maybe you may not get catched in the intimacy of your room. But I
could understand that it's not acceptable as a legitimate proposal for a
worldwide used OS, as Linux is, to suggest to every single user to violate the
law in the intimacy of their room to be able to use it. I may feel safe in my
own room and I may use these tools if I'm able to, but I can't propose to
anyone to use these such tools, that's the point.


bye

-- 
Marco Ermini
http://www.markoer.org
Perche' perdere tempo ad imparare quando l'ignoranza e' istantanea? (Hobbes)

Re: [OT] DRM OS

[Brendan Pike]

On Thursday 20 December 2001 06:40 pm, Marco Ermini wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 18:44:41 -0200 (BRST)
>
> Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 09:05:55PM +0100, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > > Remember DMCA ? Remember SSSCA ?
> > >
> > > I watch DVD's with DeCSS. Come and get me.
> >
> > Punishable by fines of up to $500,000 and 5 years
> > in prison, per violation.
>
> But not in Europe. Only in the USA. Algorithms may not be subjected to
> patents in Europe (by now).
>
> Anyway, maybe you may not get catched in the intimacy of your room. But I
> could understand that it's not acceptable as a legitimate proposal for a
> worldwide used OS, as Linux is, to suggest to every single user to violate
> the law in the intimacy of their room to be able to use it. I may feel safe
> in my own room and I may use these tools if I'm able to, but I can't
> propose to anyone to use these such tools, that's the point.
>
>
> bye

I feel i should have my opinions voiced here too. First of all, the USA has 
to many weird laws regarding to copyright. As a Canadian myself, i dont feel 
its fair that someone can go to jail for such a long time because of watching 
thier _own_ dvd disk they bought out of thier _own_ money. Its all about 
greed. If thier wasent so much greed from these billionaires, the world would 
be a better place. And seeing them _trying_ to make hardware standard to stop 
copying is even more sick. And them trying to change the laws to the worst by 
using the anti-terrorism bill is enough to make one puke. The RIAA wanted 
rights to literally _hack_ thier way into peoples boxes and delete all of 
thier stolen MP3s. Ive heard this, and i laughed so hard anyone could hear 
me. Now that they didnt get those rights, thier trying to get sound card 
makers to put crap in thier products since they couldnt get the hard disk 
manufacturers to. Will they ever stop? Thier "DRM OS" and "DRM hardware" is 
what they drool over, even tho thiers _ways_ to get by any form of methods. 
And heck, who will buy this kinda crap hardware? And do ya think the rest of 
the world is going to manufacturer such hardware when its only the USA 
whining to get such hardware? Remember the DVD? "Oh, thier never going to 
crack by its encryption."

just my 2 cents,

Brendan

Re: [OT] DRM OS

[Chris Friesen]

Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 01:15:48AM -0800, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> > CPU(crypto)<->Memory(crypto)<->Framebuffer(crypto)
> > ata(clean)<->diskcontroller(crypto)<->Memory(crypto)<->CPU(crypto)
> > scsi(crypto)<->diskcontroller(crypto)<->Memory(crypto)<->CPU(crypto)
> > CPU(crypto)<->Bridge(crypto)<->Memory(crypto)
> >
> > Just watch and see!
> 
> Why would crypto help at all?

That's just the point!  The hardware manufacturers are going to implement the
crypto so that only valid digitally signed files can be played on that hardware,
and there will be crypto at every step to try and prevent people from getting at
the unencrypted bytestream.

They want to keep us from doing cd/mp3 or DVD/DivX type conversions.

Chris

Re: [OT] DRM OS

[Alan Cox]

> and there will be crypto at every step to try and prevent people from getting at
> the unencrypted bytestream.
> 
> They want to keep us from doing cd/mp3 or DVD/DivX type conversions.

Much more the music industry needs to be sure that nobody else has a viable
means for distributing music, otherwise very soon they run out of artists.
With every 16 year old on the net its rather hard to hide the truth and
actually sign people up into the mainstream record companies

Alan

Re: [OT] DRM OS

[Andre Hedrick]

http://www.lsilogic.com/techlib/marketing_docs/consumer/ACF394.pdf

Merry Christmas -- 

On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Chris Friesen wrote:

> Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 01:15:48AM -0800, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> > > CPU(crypto)<->Memory(crypto)<->Framebuffer(crypto)
> > > ata(clean)<->diskcontroller(crypto)<->Memory(crypto)<->CPU(crypto)
> > > scsi(crypto)<->diskcontroller(crypto)<->Memory(crypto)<->CPU(crypto)
> > > CPU(crypto)<->Bridge(crypto)<->Memory(crypto)
> > >
> > > Just watch and see!
> > 
> > Why would crypto help at all?
> 
> That's just the point!  The hardware manufacturers are going to implement the
> crypto so that only valid digitally signed files can be played on that hardware,
> and there will be crypto at every step to try and prevent people from getting at
> the unencrypted bytestream.
> 
> They want to keep us from doing cd/mp3 or DVD/DivX type conversions.
> 
> Chris
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 

Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development

Re: [OT] DRM OS

[Henning P. Schmiedehausen]

Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> writes:

>http://www.lsilogic.com/techlib/marketing_docs/consumer/ACF394.pdf

So this chip encrypts before storing data on a HD. Thats' fine with
me, because there is no logic inside the drive involved. If the drive
would contain the "encryption algorithms", so that I cannot run a
"free" OS on it, then I would be concerned.

What I really _do_ hate is the "Advertisment insertion" paragraph.

	Regards
		Henning



-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen       -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH     hps@intermeta.de

Am Schwabachgrund 22  Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0   info@intermeta.de
D-91054 Buckenhof     Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20   

Re: [OT] DRM OS

[Thomas Hood]

Rik van Riel wrote:
> Then again, this only applies to people unlucky enough to live
> in the US. No need to worry.

Naïve.

Re: [OT] DRM OS

[Jesse Pollard]

Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>:
> 
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2001, James Simmons wrote:
> 
> > Microsoft patents loading a trusted OS into a trusted CPU. The OS prevents
> > untrusted applications from accessing Rights Managed Data.
> 
> I haven't looked up the link, but this sounds suspiciously like
> what UNIX permission bits have been doing since the 1970s.
> 
> I guess MS trying to enforce their patent against anyone would
> just get it invalidated, or the claim is narrow enough that
> people can work around it.
> 
> > http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=CR99&S1=5,892,900.UREF.&OS=ref/5,892,900&RS=REF/5,892,900
> 
> Then again, this only applies to people unlucky enough to live
> in the US. No need to worry.

Besides, there are several technical flaws in the patent itself. First
and formost is that it isn't new (check the Orange book on trusted computer
systems and object reuse). It doesn't include the memory controled by
peripherals - graphics frame buffers and device cache buffers - (the TSEC
object reuse specifications do).

It doesn't even include controlling access to the "trusted OS".

If it did, then owners/users would no longer be able to apply any of the
hundreds of patches such a system (if from M$) would require...:-)

Never mind having access to a "trusted time server" by a disconnected laptop.

Or defining what happens under a power failure...

I wouldn't expect this to last even a first challenge, as long as the
governments own documents were presented as "prior art".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: pollard@navo.hpc.mil

Any opinions expressed are solely my own.