"Sean Black" <sean@bucks-aggs.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kxkGxHZWIPnFFwgT@sean.bucks-aggs...
> In article <459cc05c$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net>, M.I.5¾
> <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> writes
>>
>>"Joshua Zyber" <joshzyber@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:NYidnfVDBO2H3QHYnZ2dnUVZ_qKknZ2d@comcast.co m...
>>> "M.I.5?" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:459bab6c$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>>> I have noticed that the last two DVDs that I have bought have been
>>>> presented in letterbox format rather than anamorphic widescreen.
>>>
>>> What DVDs would those be?
>>>
>>
>>Can't remember the title of the first one, but the most recent is Pirates
>>of
>>the Caribean - Dead Man's Chest, presented as a tiny 2.35:1 picture in the
>>middle of a 4:3 image (letterbox - curiously not mentioned on the box).
>>The
>>DTS sound is good though.
>>
> R2? I've got the R2 POTC- DMC, it's 2.35:1 but it's definitely anamorphic.

Well mine definitely isn't. I even checked the .IFO files and it is
definitely marked as 4:3 full frame. Definitely a Region 2. Is there
anything else you can tell me about yours (special edition etc.)? If
necessary, I will take this one back and complain.

Tony Morgan wrote:

> > CITE, you retarded mother ****er!
>
> It's phrases like this that completely destroy any credibility that you
> might otherwise have had.

He's a troll, located in San Diego.

Trolls by definition are people who have low self-esteem,
often for very good reasons like they're really ugly
or stupid or rejected by everyone or Mexican...

He's not a very smart one, either: If you live in San Diego,
would you sit around indoors insulting people?

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:lorkp2dh054uc3nsakd5kjnrnblo3mhiaa@4ax.com...
> Bobbie wrote:
>
>>Uuuum, because if they bought that HDTV with HDMI input prior to February
>>of 2006 they'd be SOL so far as connecting a HDCP compliant device to that
>>old and now antiquated HDMI television. I'd mush rather leave the unusable
>>antique hanging in the living room and just buy a decent 16:9 monitor for
>>the computer. It'd be much cheaper.
>
> Sorry, but I'm lost. I'd have sworn that HDCP has been built-into
> digital televisions for years.

It has, but the older HDCP was broken sometime in 2005. A new version had
to be deployed or the movie distributors threatened to shun the HD formats.
The down side is that anyone who has a TV that only supports the older HDCP
standard really is SOOL and won't be able to view protected HD material via
the HDMI ports. Part of the HDCP standard provides that it is not
upgradeable.

> I'd have sworn that my
> several-year-old widescreen CRT box, which is too old to have HDMI on
> it, has a fully HDCP-compliant DVI input.
>

If it has then it is only compliant to the older standard. HDCP was not
common on DVI inputs.

> Please provide proof of your assertions that HDCP has "changed" so
> that older HDCP-compliant displays will not work.
>
> In any case, you can still use the component-video inputs.
>

Except that the component video outputs are either downconverted (rare as it
requires extra hardware) or (more usually) disabled during the playing of
protected content. Like DVD-Audio, the disk can be coded to allow full
resolution video output, but most content providers are unlikely to do that.

JoeBloe wrote:

>LD is too huge, too bulky, and it presents the hardware designers
>with too many technical hurdles to make good gear for it. The wobble
>at the edge of a twelve inch platter can be huge.

Too bad that the market didn't go for the "needle and groove" video
disk that RCA tried to make work, eh?

8)

Rexunrex******.com wrote:
> Tony Morgan wrote:
>
>>> CITE, you retarded mother ****er!
>> It's phrases like this that completely destroy any credibility that you
>> might otherwise have had.
>
> He's a troll, located in San Diego.
>
> Trolls by definition are people who have low self-esteem,
> often for very good reasons like they're really ugly
> or stupid or rejected by everyone or Mexican...
>
> He's not a very smart one, either: If you live in San Diego,
> would you sit around indoors insulting people?
>

Well, lets all celebrate the collective plonk of this tiny bovine
brained wanker.

I think once or twice this thread has touched on the actual points a
consumer would consider, and thats really the only important ones.

First, is it logical to assume that consumers will be reluctant to part
with their dollars until they are sure what they buy will not be
tomorrows doorstop.

Second, having not done any price comparison, if HD movies are priced
higher than standard DVD, is the consumer going to feel the value added
is worth the increase.

Third, I don't know the market share of large screen HD TV's, but if the
CRT TV 27in and smaller is still the norm, then is there that much wow
factor available anyway?

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Wayne McClaine
<gary.griffith******.com>
wrote
on 3 Jan 2007 21:19:22 -0800
<1167887962.598432.130480@31g2000cwt.googlegroups. com>:
>
> Tim Smith wrote:
>>
>> This depends on what you mean by "broke". In particular, do you
>> consider a successful brute force attack a break? With its mere 40-bit
>> key length, and weak algorithms, CSS falls fairly quickly to a brute
>> force attack, in about 2^25 steps.
>
> Any encrypted cipher can be "foiled" by brute force - you're just
> looking for a key.

2^40 = 1.10 trillion. If one can look at a key every microsecond, that
only takes about a week and a half. That's about what it took a French
compute farm, if memory serves.

2^56 = 7.21 * 10^16. At the same key rate, that'll only take about 2.3
millennia. Fortunately, distributed.net has a faster key rate, since
the problem is inherently parallel.

2^1024 = 1.80 * 10^100, or 1.80 googols. Search company, meet
military-grade encryption-cipher. Dare I mention that the Universe is
at the very very most 80 billion years old or so?

>
> When it is doable in a relatively short time, it's broken. Not
> circumvented or broken "into", no magic bullet, but might as well be -
> even if you can't derive the key, if you can run through all
> possibilities, then what's the difference? You can get the key, and
> systems built on this are houses-of-cards. Hence, AES, 3DES, etc.
>
> So, our boy got a PowerDVD software key to then expose the DVD title &
> volume keys and such. And this is impossible for other players, how?
> Yawn.
>

How big is the key?

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
GNU and improved.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On 2007-01-04, JoeBloe <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
>>This depends on what you mean by "broke". In particular, do you
>>consider a successful brute force attack a break? With its mere 40-bit
>>key length, and weak algorithms, CSS falls fairly quickly to a brute
>>force attack, in about 2^25 steps.
>
>
> Show me where a person wrote an app that took a DVD drive and
> extrapolated a brute force key to use to decode the stream coming off
> the drive.
>
> CITE, you retarded mother ****er! Math doesn't mean jack **** if
> the logistics to actually implement it are too costly for the ****tard
> pirate brute twit to utilize.

The code is in libdvdcss. Set the DVDCSS_METHOD environment variable to
"disc" and libdvdcss will brute-force the disc key. Set that variable
to "title" it will use an attack on the title key.

Brute force attacks that require about 2^25 steps aren't too costly.
About 5 years ago, it required a fairly high-end PC, because it took
about 64 MB of RAM, but that's trivial now. Timewise, it took about
a day back then, and is much quicker now.

> Show me where it was ever done. DeCSS MPEG-2 DVD datagram encryption

It's done in basically every player that uses libdvdcss. BTW, if you
want to pretend you know something about this subject, you should start
getting the name of the system right. It's "CSS", not "DeCSS". DeCSS
was/is software to break CSS.


> was fine until the keys were released. Even though said keys have been
> released, I never5 saw any subsequent reports of any jerk having
> actually cracked it. I don't care how long the ****ing string is,
> dip****.

It's not surprising that you don't care about the effective key length,
since you apparently know nothing about cryptography.

M.I.5¾ wrote:

>"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>
>> Sorry, but I'm lost. I'd have sworn that HDCP has been built-into
>> digital televisions for years.
>
>It has, but the older HDCP was broken sometime in 2005. A new version had
>to be deployed or the movie distributors threatened to shun the HD formats.
>The down side is that anyone who has a TV that only supports the older HDCP
>standard really is SOOL and won't be able to view protected HD material via
>the HDMI ports. Part of the HDCP standard provides that it is not
>upgradeable.

Can you point me to some substantiation of these claims?

>> I'd have sworn that my
>> several-year-old widescreen CRT box, which is too old to have HDMI on
>> it, has a fully HDCP-compliant DVI input.
>
>If it has then it is only compliant to the older standard. HDCP was not
>common on DVI inputs.

Mine does have HDCP, no doubt the older standard. It seemed rather
common to me at the time, up until DVI was mostly replaced by HDMI
(which, of course, DVI can be adapted-to via cable).

>> Please provide proof of your assertions that HDCP has "changed" so
>> that older HDCP-compliant displays will not work.
>>
>> In any case, you can still use the component-video inputs.
>
>Except that the component video outputs are either downconverted (rare as it
>requires extra hardware) or (more usually) disabled during the playing of
>protected content. Like DVD-Audio, the disk can be coded to allow full
>resolution video output, but most content providers are unlikely to do that.

Hmm...

http://www.emedialive.com/articles/r...id=11424#viiib

"movies are required to disclose, either on their packages or at point
of sale, if they trigger the ICT."

I guess I won't be buying movies that "trigger the ICT" (See the
"Analog Video Connections" section of the referenced Web page.)

M.I.5¾ wrote:

>> In any case, you can still use the component-video inputs.
>
>Except that the component video outputs are either downconverted (rare as it
>requires extra hardware) or (more usually) disabled during the playing of
>protected content.

Regarding disabling the component-video outputs entirely (from the
same page that I link-to in my other post):

"Part of AACS's collection of features, as well, is a Digital Only
Token (DOT). To further remove the possibility of analog copying the
DOT functions somewhat like the ICT but instead instructs the BD
playback device to transmit through only its (HDCP protected) digital
outputs. Initially, AACS license agreements prevent content publishers
from utilizing the DOT but all BD playback devices must still be able
to enforce the restriction in the event it is eventually permitted. At
this early stage in the market, it is unclear the terms under which
this might happen."

I'm not sure, but I think this is a legal issue right now, with some
content providers wanting the ability to for DO, but having it
currently illegal to do so. Obviously, the jury is still out...

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Wayne McClaine
> <gary.griffith******.com>
> wrote
> on 3 Jan 2007 21:19:22 -0800
> <1167887962.598432.130480@31g2000cwt.googlegroups. com>:
> >
> > Tim Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> This depends on what you mean by "broke". In particular, do you
> >> consider a successful brute force attack a break? With its mere 40-bit
> >> key length, and weak algorithms, CSS falls fairly quickly to a brute
> >> force attack, in about 2^25 steps.
> >
> > Any encrypted cipher can be "foiled" by brute force - you're just
> > looking for a key.
>
> 2^40 = 1.10 trillion. If one can look at a key every microsecond, that
> only takes about a week and a half. That's about what it took a French
> compute farm, if memory serves.
>
> 2^56 = 7.21 * 10^16. At the same key rate, that'll only take about 2.3
> millennia. Fortunately, distributed.net has a faster key rate, since
> the problem is inherently parallel.
>
> 2^1024 = 1.80 * 10^100, or 1.80 googols. Search company, meet
> military-grade encryption-cipher. Dare I mention that the Universe is
> at the very very most 80 billion years old or so?

More reason to use AES-256 if you're performance can handle. Should
survive brute force until the data is in our sun's black-hole.
However, if the key is left on a post-it on the keyboard, or in a dump
or a stack trace....

> >
> > When it is doable in a relatively short time, it's broken. Not
> > circumvented or broken "into", no magic bullet, but might as well be -
> > even if you can't derive the key, if you can run through all
> > possibilities, then what's the difference? You can get the key, and
> > systems built on this are houses-of-cards. Hence, AES, 3DES, etc.
> >
> > So, our boy got a PowerDVD software key to then expose the DVD title &
> > volume keys and such. And this is impossible for other players, how?
> > Yawn.
>
> How big is the key?

He doesn't get into this, but seems to hint that memory helps. Doesn't
really matter how big it is if you find it.

I understand the time required to DIY and the way distributed.net got
DES done. But a 2^25 step brute-force as stated by Tim seemed to be a
cakewalk. If 40 bits goes in 10 days, 25 should fall in under a minute.

Ray S wrote:

> First, is it logical to assume that consumers will be reluctant to part
> with their dollars until they are sure what they buy will not be
> tomorrows doorstop.

Indeed. The one possible inroad that I can see for
HDDVD is in the form of plain old data storage.
Toshiba has developed a laptop HDDVD burner,
namely this one:
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/10..._laptop_drive/
If they made it available and cheap, there might be
a chance for that to provide an indirect boost to the HDDVD
video market.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Wayne McClaine
<gary.griffith******.com>
wrote
on 4 Jan 2007 12:25:29 -0800
<1167942328.937332.194870@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups .com>:
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Wayne McClaine
>> <gary.griffith******.com>
>> wrote
>> on 3 Jan 2007 21:19:22 -0800
>> <1167887962.598432.130480@31g2000cwt.googlegroups. com>:
>> >
>> > Tim Smith wrote:
>> >>
>> >> This depends on what you mean by "broke". In particular, do you
>> >> consider a successful brute force attack a break? With its mere 40-bit
>> >> key length, and weak algorithms, CSS falls fairly quickly to a brute
>> >> force attack, in about 2^25 steps.
>> >
>> > Any encrypted cipher can be "foiled" by brute force - you're just
>> > looking for a key.
>>
>> 2^40 = 1.10 trillion. If one can look at a key every microsecond, that
>> only takes about a week and a half. That's about what it took a French
>> compute farm, if memory serves.
>>
>> 2^56 = 7.21 * 10^16. At the same key rate, that'll only take about 2.3
>> millennia. Fortunately, distributed.net has a faster key rate, since
>> the problem is inherently parallel.
>>
>> 2^1024 = 1.80 * 10^100, or 1.80 googols. Search company, meet
>> military-grade encryption-cipher. Dare I mention that the Universe is
>> at the very very most 80 billion years old or so?
>
> More reason to use AES-256 if you're performance can handle. Should
> survive brute force until the data is in our sun's black-hole.

Pedant Point: white dwarf. Cf. "Chandrasekhar limit" (it's about
1.44-1.50 M_sol to create a neutron star; I'm not sure what the
mass is for a black hole).

As for 2^256 = 1.158 * 10^77...yeah, that's pretty safe, too.
That translates into 3.669 * 10^63 years -- way more than enough,
unless the mathematically-inclined types find a short cut.

> However, if the key is left on a post-it on the keyboard, or in a dump
> or a stack trace....

Q: "Wow, what a secure fortress!"
A: "Thanks."
Q: "Hey, what's this under the doormat?"
A: "DON'T YOU DARE...aw ****. Now I gotta change the locks again. Why
do they keep stealing my house key?"

>
>> >
>> > When it is doable in a relatively short time, it's broken. Not
>> > circumvented or broken "into", no magic bullet, but might as well be -
>> > even if you can't derive the key, if you can run through all
>> > possibilities, then what's the difference? You can get the key, and
>> > systems built on this are houses-of-cards. Hence, AES, 3DES, etc.
>> >
>> > So, our boy got a PowerDVD software key to then expose the DVD title &
>> > volume keys and such. And this is impossible for other players, how?
>> > Yawn.
>>
>> How big is the key?
>
> He doesn't get into this, but seems to hint that memory helps. Doesn't
> really matter how big it is if you find it.

True.

>
> I understand the time required to DIY and the way distributed.net got
> DES done. But a 2^25 step brute-force as stated by Tim seemed to be a
> cakewalk. If 40 bits goes in 10 days, 25 should fall in under a minute.
>

~33.6 seconds, actually. Not the most secure of ciphers, nowadays. :-)

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
People think that libraries are safe. They're wrong. They have ideas.
(Also occasionally ectoplasmic slime and cute librarians.)

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Rexunrex******.com wrote:
> Ray S wrote:
>
>> First, is it logical to assume that consumers will be reluctant to part
>> with their dollars until they are sure what they buy will not be
>> tomorrows doorstop.
>
> Indeed. The one possible inroad that I can see for
> HDDVD is in the form of plain old data storage.
> Toshiba has developed a laptop HDDVD burner,
> namely this one:
> http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/10..._laptop_drive/
> If they made it available and cheap, there might be
> a chance for that to provide an indirect boost to the HDDVD
> video market.
>

Oh, lordy, I imagine the movie studies will scream bloody murder over
any technology that makes it even slightly feasible for joe blow to copy
HD material on their PC.

In message <dR9nh.652$G23.517@newsreading01.news.tds.net>, Ray S
<mail@mail.com> writes
>Rexunrex******.com wrote:
>> Tony Morgan wrote:
>>
>>>> CITE, you retarded mother ****er!
>>> It's phrases like this that completely destroy any credibility that you
>>> might otherwise have had.
>> He's a troll, located in San Diego.
>> Trolls by definition are people who have low self-esteem,
>> often for very good reasons like they're really ugly
>> or stupid or rejected by everyone or Mexican...
>> He's not a very smart one, either: If you live in San Diego,
>> would you sit around indoors insulting people?
>>
>
>Well, lets all celebrate the collective plonk of this tiny bovine
>brained wanker.
>
>I think once or twice this thread has touched on the actual points a
>consumer would consider, and thats really the only important ones.
>
>First, is it logical to assume that consumers will be reluctant to part
>with their dollars until they are sure what they buy will not be
>tomorrows doorstop.
>
>Second, having not done any price comparison, if HD movies are priced
>higher than standard DVD, is the consumer going to feel the value added
>is worth the increase.
>
>Third, I don't know the market share of large screen HD TV's, but if
>the CRT TV 27in and smaller is still the norm, then is there that much
>wow factor available anyway?

Sometimes I wonder if it's often an ego thing - huge TVs. tiny mobiles
(cells).

Though by sacrificing other things I suppose I could go there, but I
certainly don't feel the need.

If I had lotsa money I suppose I would go for a huge-screen TV - but I
don't so I won't.

In a previous life I worked for a time at EMI's at Hayes here in the UK
where we built and managed the sound-stages at Elstree - so it makes me
smile when some people I know build their hi-fi and studio cinema
systems in rooms with laminate flooring and plastered/painted walls.

--
Tony Morgan

There are no more worries. We can play 'm both with a single player from
now on :-) LG will introduce a HD DVD and Blu-ray-combi-player at CES!

cheers

-martin-
--