CPRM copy protection for ATA drives
I read this article on theregister today:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15620.html
Does anyone have any details on this? I presume that the drive firmware is capable of identifying copy-protected data during a write. I also presume that nobody on lkml would condone such a terrible idea. I imagine that this system is pretty easy to defeat if you can modify the filesystem. Perhaps even a ROT13 modification to ext2 would be sufficient?
The consequences of being able to corrupt other people's backups by introducing "copy-protected" data are intriguing...
Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 3 lines
Does anyone have any details on this? I presume that the drive firmware is capable of identifying copy-protected data during a write. I also presume that nobody on lkml would condone
It seems to be very similar to the DVD stuff, including ideas for play once only blocks and the like. Pay per read hard disk...
Quoted 2 lines
such a terrible idea. I imagine that this system is pretty easy to defeat if you can modify the filesystem. Perhaps even
Its probably very hard to defeat. It also in its current form means you can throw disk defragmenting tools out. Dead, gone. Welcome to the United Police State Of America.
Quoted 2 lines
The consequences of being able to corrupt other people's backups by introducing "copy-protected" data are intriguing...
I'm just waiting for a few class action law suits against drive manufacturers when people's backup tools cannot cope
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
READ and reply to CPRM Account <[email protected]> Only... It is not worth the kernel traffic to blow appart the issue.
Quoted 6 lines · Alan Cox
Quoted 3 lines
Does anyone have any details on this? I presume that the drive firmware is capable of identifying copy-protected data during a write. I also presume that nobody on lkml would condone
It seems to be very similar to the DVD stuff, including ideas for play once only blocks and the like. Pay per read hard disk...
That is part of the potentially hidden issue is the usage counters.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
such a terrible idea. I imagine that this system is pretty easy to defeat if you can modify the filesystem. Perhaps even
Its probably very hard to defeat. It also in its current form means you can throw disk defragmenting tools out. Dead, gone. Welcome to the United Police State Of America.
No. Just blame the MPA (Motion Picture Association) for this level of paranoia. The object is to follow the money and the fronts that are hiding real issues.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
The consequences of being able to corrupt other people's backups by introducing "copy-protected" data are intriguing...
I'm just waiting for a few class action law suits against drive manufacturers when people's backup tools cannot cope
Oh, this is one of the issues that I brought up along with many others during the December Plenary Meeting. For the record, I was able to intensify the issue by my objections to postpone the adoption for 60 days. This subject will come up again in February. Since I can only represent my interest as a counsultant to the T13 Committee, because there is not organization offically known as "Linux".
I do expect to take a lot of heat on CPRM, but everyone here knows that I can take as much as I dish it! If you wish to send a note to complain about the issue, I will carry your points to the meeting.
CPRM Account <[email protected]>
Do not blow torch me or the issue.
Explain why you have issues.
Explain what is a better solution.
For the next point of record, I will be supporting Microsoft's proposal. It is the only one that will not effect us in a way that could be harmful. ftp://fission.dt.wdc.com/pub/standards/x3t13/technical/e00163r0.pdf
Additionally, Linux will have to deploy a command filter driver to force block the use of CPRM taskfile calls by browsers, which is the suspected method of performing this protected mode of access. The option will be submitted/included in the next rev of the kernel for v2.5.0 at the time of its annoucement. The default will be to block the is command set and you will have to compile the option in to allow the technically correct command to be accepted.
Lastly, I may end up losing my position on the Committee but hey it is for a good cause ;-)
Regards,
Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/