A cost analysis of Vista content protection
Posted Dec 24, 2006 12:58 UTC (Sun) by csamuel
(✭ supporter ✭
In reply to: A cost analysis of Vista content protection
Parent article: A cost analysis of Vista content protection
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
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.
to post comments)