| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
A ruling in the bnetd DMCA caseA ruling in the bnetd DMCA casePosted Oct 4, 2004 14:23 UTC (Mon) by French_Guest (guest, #16946)In reply to: A ruling in the bnetd DMCA case by arafel Parent article: A ruling in the bnetd DMCA case
Wrong. Did you ever hear of assymetric encryption (RSA, etc...) ? A CD key could be implemented as a digital document signature, for example.
But with source, the server owner could simply change the code and recompile it to disable such checks... ;-)
(Log in to post comments)
A ruling in the bnetd DMCA case Posted Oct 4, 2004 17:58 UTC (Mon) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link] Yes, but you're assuming that they did anything that sane. Remember the Elcomsoft case? The encryption that Adobe went to court to defend was a piss-poor implementation of the Caesar shift cypher.
Basically, we're seeing companies use the courts to do the job that should go to real cryptographers.
A ruling in the bnetd DMCA case Posted Oct 5, 2004 8:24 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Unfortunatelly you can not create short activation code this way (short here is 12-24 characters i.e. 72-144bits: enough for symmertic encryption, way too small for assymetric).
|
|
||||||||||||