A cost analysis of Vista content protection [LWN.net]

A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Posted Dec 24, 2006 6:22 UTC (Sun) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]

I guess I just don't see how "when Vista becomes popular, open-source sound and video drivers will become an endangered species" logically follows from "device manufacturers are contractually obligated to not disclose any information that might be used to work around the fingerprinting process" even assuming the latter statement is true.

Monopoly power is a funny thing. If unchecked, it can be leveraged from the market in which the monopoly is attained to intrude into, and take over, other market segments. When a single company controls enough of a market to wield monopoly power, all others must conform to the constraints it imposes on that market or they are left to try to survive in the left-overs.

Microsoft has long used its power in the PC software market to control the PC hardware market. This is why we have such bizarre things as an 'on-off' switch which does not act like the 'on-off' switch on, for example, a lamp. (How long do you hold a lamp switch in the off position before the light goes off? Is it still drawing power after it's off?)

Try doing a search for "PC System Design Guide", with or without the quotes, and see what turns up. Try it for PC95 design guide, or PC97 hardware design guide, or PC98 system design guide, or PC99 system design guide, or PC2000 system design guide, or PC2001 system design guide.

Hardware manufacturers must design for inclusion in the monopoly or try to recoup their design and manufacturing costs by selling to the left-overs outside the MS Windows / PC market. How many can afford to reduce their market share by 80% - 90%?

Microsoft software ships pre-installed on most computers available in brick-and-mortar stores and on most computers available by mail order or by way of the Internet. With the OEM market in hand, Microsoft can dictate hardware design. Hardware manufacturers would need to take a bold gamble that MS Vista will not retain monopoly status in order for them to reject design criteria dictated by Microsoft.

A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Posted Dec 24, 2006 17:53 UTC (Sun) by joey (subscriber, #328) [Link]

> This is why we have such bizarre things as an 'on-off' switch which does not act like the 'on-off' switch on, for example, a lamp. (How long do you hold a lamp switch in the off position before the light goes off? Is it still drawing power after it's off?)

When was the last time you lost a file on your lamp due to unclean shutdown?

Also, it's not exactly unheard of for other equipment to have complicated on/off behavior. For example, my deisel truck needs to heat its glow plugs so has a two step process to turn it on. The space shuttle needs over an hour after landing to be safed and shut off. Nor is it unheard of for equipment unaffiliated with microsoft to draw power while "off", for example, my cordless phone here does. So do most televisions. Laying computer power switch behavior at the feet of microsoft's monopoly is an interesting assertian, I'd be intruiged to see some quotes justifying it.

A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Posted Dec 24, 2006 19:04 UTC (Sun) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]

Laying computer power switch behavior at the feet of microsoft's monopoly is an interesting assertian, I'd be intruiged to see some quotes justifying it.

See the PC97 design guide, or, if you prefer not to access microsoft.com:

"Microsoft proposed that all three platforms have system boards that support as a standard component the Advanced Configuration and Power Interface 1.0 specification or later, which was also put forward at the WinHEC conference.
"The company believes this requirement will ensure that the overall system properly supports the Plug and Play and power management capabilities for laptops as well as desktop systems.
"Microsoft is also pushing for next year's systems on all three platforms to support its OnNow Design Initiative. That initiative would control the on and off state of systems and peripherals, allowing them, for instance, to power up immediately like today's televisions."
-- Microsoft specifying PC designs, FoRK Archive, posted by Rohit Khare, referencing Ed Scannell, InfoWorld Electric

The start procedure you reference for a diesel engine is dictated by the way a diesel engine works. Likewise for the space shuttle. A PC does not require a complex power-off procedure. A power switch shielded from accidental tripping would be sufficient. Uninterruptible power supplies are the best answer to the problem of losing files due to disorderly shutdowns. The "instant on" provision is a convenience for many people. I don't think it adds enough convenience for the aggravation and it is certainly not dictated by the way a PC works. It comes, instead, from Microsoft, just as the extra keys with a MS Windows logo was dictated to the keyboard industry by Microsoft.

A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Posted Dec 24, 2006 22:46 UTC (Sun) by aya (guest, #19767) [Link]

> A power switch shielded from accidental tripping would be sufficient.

It would also need a big red sign next to it telling users not to press it until they had selected "shut down" from the Start Menu (which, by the way, they wouldn't read); alternatively, it couldn't actually shut the computer down immediately, at which point we're back to today's status quo. What you say is true, *if* all computer users were computer-savvy, which is obviously not the case. Most people won't understand without a lot of explaining that their important document didn't actually go to disk as soon as they hit "save", and most people won't really care, either.

Now, that being said, I do feel a bit skittish about Microsoft's potential control over hardware design, but this particular example isn't terribly insidious.

A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Posted Dec 25, 2006 0:57 UTC (Mon) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]

It would also need a big red sign next to it telling users not to press it until they had selected "shut down" from the Start Menu

What's a "Start Menu" and what does it have to do with turning a computer off?

(which, by the way, they wouldn't read); alternatively, it couldn't actually shut the computer down immediately, at which point we're back to today's status quo. What you say is true, *if* all computer users were computer-savvy, which is obviously not the case. Most people won't understand without a lot of explaining that their important document didn't actually go to disk as soon as they hit "save", and most people won't really care, either.

There are people who will use a fork to try to remove a screw and end up with a ruined fork and a ruined screw. Maybe there should be some mandated design guide for forks to make them not fit screw heads.

Now, that being said, I do feel a bit skittish about Microsoft's potential control over hardware design, but this particular example isn't terribly insidious.

Where do you get this "potential" qualifier? The potential was fulfilled more than 10 years ago. MS Vista is simply extending the remote control.

A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Posted Dec 24, 2006 6:49 UTC (Sun) by dang (guest, #310) [Link]

Based just on the snippets below, it looks like M$'s requirements put the gun right to the device manufacturers' heads. If you want to vend your wares to the huge M$ installation base, then it will be really, really hard to do so in a way that allows you to support open source platforms.

---snippets below----

"In order for this to work, the spec requires that the operational details of
the device be kept confidential. Obviously anyone who knows enough about the
workings of a device to operate it and to write a third-party driver for it
(for example one for an open-source OS, or in general just any non-Windows OS)
will also know enough to fake the HFS process. The only way to protect the
HFS process therefore is to not release any technical details on the device
beyond a minimum required for web site reviews and comparison with other
products."

----
"Since HFS requires unique
identification and handling of not just each device type (for example each
graphics chip) but each variant of each device type (for example each stepping
of each graphics chip) to handle the situation where a problem is found with
one variation of a device, it's no longer possible to create one-size-fits-all
drivers for an entire range of devices like the current
Catalyst/Detonator/ForceWare drivers. Every little variation of every device
type out there must now be individually accommodated in custom code in order
for the HFS process to be fully effective."

----------

"Once a weakness is found in a particular driver or device, that driver will
have its signature revoked by Microsoft, which means that it will cease to
function (details on this are a bit vague here, presumably some minimum
functionality like generic 640x480 VGA support will still be available in
order for the system to boot). This means that a report of a compromise of a
particular driver or device will cause all support for that device worldwide
to be turned off until a fix can be found. Again, details are sketchy, but if
it's a device problem then presumably the device turns into a paperweight once
it's revoked. If it's an older device for which the vendor isn't interested
in rewriting their drivers (and in the fast-moving hardware market most
devices enter "legacy" status within a year of two of their replacement models
becoming available), all devices of that type worldwide become permanently
unusable."

----

A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Posted Dec 24, 2006 12:26 UTC (Sun) by rwmj (subscriber, #5474) [Link]

Personally, I'm looking forward to the day when Microsoft "revokes" some popular piece of
hardware.

Rich.

driver revocation

Posted Jan 4, 2007 6:11 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]

I wonder how easily forgeable a revocation is?

A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Posted Dec 24, 2006 12:58 UTC (Sun) by csamuel (✭ supporter ✭, #2624) [Link]

But this is just security through obscurity, and I don't believe it is necessary with good crypto. GnuPG is open source and secure, the strength is in the algorithms and key management. So if the driver has the public key for the card and the card signs a message with its private key then the driver can be sure the message came from the card and hasn't been tampered with.

I suspect the problem is more likely to be with the identification of registers and other hardware controlling bits - there is a precedent for having a binary only module for this in the Intel open source graphics drivers, as Keith Packard put it:

This module contains stuff which Intel can't publish in source form, like Macrovision register stuff and other trade secrets. It's optional, so if you don't want to use a binary module, you don't get to use code written by Intel agents for these features.

To me this seems like an excellent compromise, the module is optional and you can still use your hardware quite happily.

A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Posted Dec 25, 2006 1:20 UTC (Mon) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]

To me this seems like an excellent compromise, the module is optional and you can still use your hardware quite happily.

Please let everyone know how Microsoft receives your proposed compromise.

A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Posted Dec 25, 2006 2:16 UTC (Mon) by csamuel (✭ supporter ✭, #2624) [Link]

Hmm, I'd missed the comment that the *spec* requires the details to be kept confidential.

So effectively Microsoft is using this as an excuse to compel hardware manufacturers to not publish specs, with the effect of hamstringing open source driver development. Of course they'll protest that it's not their fault but it certainly fits with past practices from Redmond. :-(

Without a copy of the spec it's hard to say how much is direct quotation and how much is inference..

A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Posted Dec 25, 2006 12:57 UTC (Mon) by i3839 (guest, #31386) [Link]

Problem is that any key on the PC, wherever it's hidden (driver or kernel) can be quite easily found and modified. I don't see how they can avoid a man in the middle attack with those public/private keys stored in software, not even with TMP hardware.

But for open source it's even easier, as most protection is in place to verify DRM hardware. The hardware can't verify the driver as any private keys need to be in the driver and thus can be recovered. As we only want a functional driver and aren't trying to bypass the DRM, it's probably even legal.

A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Posted Dec 26, 2006 4:39 UTC (Tue) by csamuel (✭ supporter ✭, #2624) [Link]

Ah, but the private key(s) only needs to be in the hardware with its
corresponding public key(s) in the driver. Of course there can be
hardware attacks against the hardware based private key as well, but
that's going to push up the cost of an attack quite dramatically compared
to a software only attack.

This of course assumes that the report about the spec is accurate in that
all that is required is that the driver validate the hardware and not the
other way around.

Attacking the driver to modify its public key will only result in
stopping verification from working, so my guess is that it'd turn into a
DoS attack.

Regarding FLOSS drivers, it would mean that those drivers would have to
be purely reverse engineered if the hardware manufacturers are indeed
contractually bound to not release information about how they work. A
situation that would please Microsoft no end I suspect..

A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Posted Dec 26, 2006 13:32 UTC (Tue) by i3839 (guest, #31386) [Link]

True, but in that case it's the driver checking the hardware, and as we want to replace the driver it's quite easy, as there's nothing stopping us, except some obfuscated binary code.

But if we can so easily replace the MSWindows driver with a Linux one (concerning DRM "protection"), then what would stop people bypassing the DRM from the software side? Nice expensive hardware all for nothing because the software can't keep any key secret... (Even the key on the hardware isn't safe if they aren't very careful.)

Only way to fix the above problem is to pass encrypted data to the hardware with the software not knowing the keys, which is what happens I think. But I don't believe that all those hardware companies and content industry can keep their keys secret. If this is the case, then there's no need at all to be secret about interfaces and drivers information, as all decryption is done by hardware.

Considering the draconian regulations it means they went for a half assed solution which can be broken, and thus will be broken. If the hardware really did all the verification then things would be very simple for the driver, as the only thing that changes would be that the hardware is more expensive and has an extra feature.

Maybe it is a sneaky way to try killing FOSS after all...

A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Posted Dec 27, 2006 23:52 UTC (Wed) by csamuel (✭ supporter ✭, #2624) [Link]

My understanding was that the stated aim of the exercise is to stop
someone writing software that poses as video hardware to an existing
driver because the hardware & driver do a DH key exchange and the driver
encrypts the "premium" content with the exchanged keys.

Thus if your software was able to masquerade as a plug in video card and
did the DH exchange with the driver you would then be able to decrypt
the "premium" content yourself.

A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Posted Dec 28, 2006 15:33 UTC (Thu) by i3839 (guest, #31386) [Link]

Diffie-Hellman doesn't protect against man-in-the-middle attacks, so some form of authentication would be still needed. And for that there needs to be keys both in hardware and the driver.

The key in the driver could be replaced with any key the attacker wants, and then the authentication would seem to succeed and unencrypted content would be received by the fake videocard. I don't believe they're so stupid to bet on this...

But maybe they do, as it appears that the driver needs to do checks, and checks can be bypassed, so what the hell are they thinking? If the driver needs to do any checks then the system is broken by design.

A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Posted Jan 23, 2007 10:43 UTC (Tue) by i3839 (guest, #31386) [Link]

It seems they were indeed so stupid as this, both Blueray and HD-DVD are cracked because the encryption keys can be fished out of ram. Pathetic.

A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Posted Dec 27, 2006 20:09 UTC (Wed) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link]

One thing that seems to be missing in all this discussion of how to break this scheme is that in the largest market for PCs (the US), reverse-engineering or 'breaking' it will be completely illegal and very prosecutable, thanks to the DMCA. This will have a significant damper on legitimate free drivers, to say the least.

A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Posted Dec 27, 2006 23:53 UTC (Wed) by csamuel (✭ supporter ✭, #2624) [Link]

Amen.

Very handy for the agendas of both "content" providers and Microsoft.

A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Posted Dec 30, 2006 16:14 UTC (Sat) by i3839 (guest, #31386) [Link]

Well, breaking content protection may be illegal, but making a free driver that also honours the DRM surely isn't illegal?

A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Posted Dec 25, 2006 1:45 UTC (Mon) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link]

Very simple.

Microsoft will end up writing most of the video drivers for the card
manufacturers.

Already the closed video drivers available for X have microsoft code in
them.

The spec is very complex, and most of the function is system level as
opposed to video driver level, the only problem being that it has to run
in the video processor. Why not have MS write the complicated
communication and trip handling bits, and focus on the particularities of
your hardware.

If it isn't the case now, it will as Nvidea and ATI have trouble
delivering adequate performance and consistency, and MS starts losing
sales because of it.

And since MS will own the code, which IS the spec for the hardware, how
can anyone else have a go at it?

My opinion is that this will be an utter failure for everyone involved.
It will take a few years to shake out.

Derek