| |||||||||||||
still fixing xboxstill fixing xboxPosted Dec 24, 2006 18:06 UTC (Sun) by ccyoung (guest, #16340)Parent article: A cost analysis of Vista content protection
much of this seems in response to the xbox hack.
(Log in to post comments)
what? Posted Dec 25, 2006 1:16 UTC (Mon) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]
That would be really interesting, if not for reality getting in the way. You see the xbox wasn't even released until the end of 2001 but Microsoft was granted a patent on a "Secure PC" about the same time. So whatever "xbox hack" you're talking about would need to have happened before the xbox was released and before the patent application process began, in order for Microsoft's implementation of the DRMOS, as represented by Vista, and the design criteria for the hardware necessary for that implementation, as represented by the issues described in Peter Gutmann's analysis article, to be "in response to" that "hack".
referencing Posted Dec 25, 2006 17:36 UTC (Mon) by ccyoung (guest, #16340) [Link] I thought MS was significantly embarrassed by how easily the xbox was being hacked. The specs here, in large part, seem addressed at closing down those very hacks.
It could well be that they knew the xbox would be hacked and released it anyway.
facts and history are irrelevant Posted Dec 26, 2006 1:11 UTC (Tue) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]
Yeah, wonderful theory -- specs for PC hardware that can be trusted by "premium content providers", to implement a "Secure PC" patented 5 years ago, are addressed at closing down a game box "hack". I wonder how Mr. Gutmann missed such an obvious relationship and wasted all that writing about Vista.
|
|||||||||||||