Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

HDCP Encryption/Decryption Code Released

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the didn't-take-long dept.

Encryption 225

rtj writes "We have released an open-source (BSD licensed) implementation of the HDCP encryption/decryption algorithms. The code includes the block cipher, stream cipher, and hashing algorithms necessary to perform an HDCP handshake and to encrypt or decrypt video. The code passes the test vectors provided in the HDCP specification and can encrypt video at a rate of about 180 640x480 frames/second on a 2.33GHz Intel Xeon CPU. This isn't quite fast enough to decrypt 1080p content in real-time on a single core, but decryption can be parallelized across multiple cores. There are also many opportunities for further optimisation, such as using SSE instructions. We are releasing the code in hopes that others will further optimize it and use it in their HDCP-related projects."

cancel ×

225 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Obligatory (2, Funny)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33732922)

Get it on a shirt, on Digg, and in sigs everywhere!

Re:Obligatory (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33732942)

No one on Digg to see it anymore :)

That was quick (1)

maroberts (15852) | more than 3 years ago | (#33732932)

Only about a week or so since the master tables were released.

Re:That was quick (1)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 3 years ago | (#33732966)

Yep. Doesn't take long.

Any bets on when we see this implemented in more full-featured software suites?

I'm thinking maybe a month at the outside.

HDCP is dead. And nothing of value was lost. :)

Re:That was quick (1)

arndawg (1468629) | more than 3 years ago | (#33732972)

HDCP is dead.

Leo Strut.

Re:That was quick (1)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733112)

Leo Strut.

Awwww Yeaaaahhh....

For some reason, "Leo Strut" always makes me think of the opening bars to "Stayin' Alive" playing as it's soundtrack. Does anyone else have that happen, or is it just me?

Re:That was quick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33733700)

Leo Strut.

Awwww Yeaaaahhh....

For some reason, "Leo Strut" always makes me think of the opening bars to "Stayin' Alive" playing as it's soundtrack. Does anyone else have that happen, or is it just me?

Damn you... Now it's stuck in my head.

Re:That was quick (2, Funny)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733712)

if it was just you, it isn't now
*bana wah wah. wah. wowadah wowa da wah wah*

Re:That was quick (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33732998)

HDCP is dead.

Netcraft confirms it!

Re:That was quick (2, Interesting)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733484)

Any bets on when we see this implemented in more full-featured software suites?

Never, as no software suites have any use at all for HDCP.

HDCP is used only for encrypting content as it travels across the cable to the display. Only devices connected to the display cable will ever see HDCP-protected content. Software players process the data before it is encrypted with HDCP.

The only thing this is good for is for wiretapping a display cable to capture uncompressed video, or for making a box that fools your paranoid computer into believing the display connection is protected.

Re:That was quick (1)

grub (11606) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733614)


The only thing this is good for is for wiretapping a display cable to capture uncompressed video, or for making a box that fools your paranoid computer into believing the display connection is protected.

I can see use in non-CableCo PVR software. They've started flipping off Firewire output on certain channels (or turned it off entirely), this could make it easy to still record the shows you want with a non-CableCo box.

Re:That was quick (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#33734312)

Yes, that would fall under the first case.

(Also, I doubt it would be "easy", since the amount of data contained in an uncompressed HD stream is pretty daunting. Like they say, they still can't decrypt it in realtime, to say nothing of encoding it. Just getting it onto a disk fast enough might be a challenge.)

Re:That was quick (1)

manybit (1876458) | more than 3 years ago | (#33734116)

Now the only question is when Jon Lech Johansen makes a GUI for it and takes full credit.

No hardware? (3, Interesting)

gtvr (1702650) | more than 3 years ago | (#33732956)

So does this negate Intel's statement that you can only do this if you build a chip with the code in it?

Re:No hardware? (1)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 3 years ago | (#33732982)

Certainly appears that way.

Frankly, I always thought that That Intel statement was FUD anyway. Intel knew it could be software implemented. I doubt they thought it would be done this fast though. They really should know by now. NEVER underestimate a determined hacker.

Re:No hardware? (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733022)

Well they can't do 1080p yet. So it's true for a few weeks more. Then after that some guy will write a 3D extension and soon after a 2k and 4k extension will be made - not that you can view it on a standard monitor; but that's not the point. All the videos want to be set free.

Re:No hardware? (2, Insightful)

alexandre_ganso (1227152) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733174)

No, they can't do 1080p IN REAL TIME.

Re:No hardware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33733328)

No, they can do 1080p in real time on a high-end dual-core, or mid-range quad-core processor.

If they implement GPU support they're set.

Re:No hardware? (4, Interesting)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733348)

In other words, the HDCP hardware decryptor is more powerful than the main CPU. Even with the specialized-vs-generic advantage, just think about the power wasted encrypting/decrypting it for no reason but letting the cartel control the market market and the complexity of the electronics you have to buy with your own money.

Every HDCP device should be slapped with a huge carbon and recycling tax -- with an extra punitive rate, since the waste is introduced intentionally.

Re:No hardware? (4, Interesting)

blincoln (592401) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733406)

In other words, the HDCP hardware decryptor is more powerful than the main CPU.

I'm pretty sure it's not, given that the $50 video card I bought last week to run a second monitor at work has an HDMI port on it. If the chip were that powerful, it would be too expensive to put on a card that cheap.

I'm sure this is just a case where specialized hardware is able to accomplish the task a lot more quickly than the first version of some software running on a general-purpose CPU.

Re:No hardware? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33733528)

who says the output of your card is HDCP encrypted?
HDMI != HDCP

Re:No hardware? (1)

Alphathon (1634555) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733762)

Actually, all HDMI ports have HDCP - it's a requirement of the spec. Of course there is nothing to stop companies or individuals from buying HDMI ports and just attaching them to DVI pins, but if they did that they wouldn't be legally allowed to advertise it or label it as HDMI (false advertising etc). Likewise, it also has to be able to output audio or it is technically not HDMI.

Re:No hardware? (1)

phoenix321 (734987) | more than 3 years ago | (#33734466)

Then all DVI to HDMI adapters are illegal stuff?

Re:No hardware? (2, Informative)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733884)

Has no-one here ever used a SOFTWARE renderer in their games? Software on a general CPU is atrocious at accomplishing a task optimally. Hell, it sucked years before graphics required an extra card in your machine and it sucks even more now - how many "GHz" do you think your CPU would have to run at in order to match the performance of an average GPU by using software rendering? Probably a lot more than double what the best computer processor runs at now, or we'd be throwing GPU's away and buying quad-core's instead. Software implementations on a generic processor can't even come close to competing with a hardware device designed to do just that one task. Especially not on something that uses the x86 instruction set (go look at the speed of ARM chips compared to their heat / power / price).

Software implementations are basically emulations - take MAME or other emulators for example - you are software implementing a device that probably originally run at a handful of MHz and now requires a GHz PC to keep up with it, even if you remove quite a lot of the unnecessary interface logic. Now this is an entirely encryption affair here but even back in the days of VIA EPIA boards, VIA's on-chip encrypt/decrypt logic could outperform even the best Intel CPU.

It's a software implementation. Expect it to suck until it's optimised, and even then expect it to be way behind what a £10 FGPA could be programmed to do with the same base code.

Re:No hardware? (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 3 years ago | (#33734492)

This is not about video rendering, this is about decryption, where the data happens to be an uncompressed video stream. And the problem with that again is that uncompressed video is a hell of a lot of data.

Re:No hardware? (5, Insightful)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733534)

I think you greatly underestimate the advantage an ASIC has over a general purpose CPU (even the latest Intel CPUs with AES-NI) when it comes to crypto.

How about you RTFA:
"The HDCP cipher is designed to be efficient when implemented in hardware, but it is terribly inefficient in software, primarily because it makes extensive use of bit operations. Our implementation uses bit-slicing to achieve high speeds by exploiting bit-level parallelism. We have created a few high-level routines to make it as easy as possible to implement HDCP, as shown in the following example. "

Re:No hardware? (4, Insightful)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 3 years ago | (#33734014)

This is the "specialized-vs-generic advantage" I mentioned. You do waste a lot less power, but you still do waste it for no gain whatsoever.

A parable: a crazy dictator ordered his workers to make a huge earth mound and then to level it, with nothing but shovels. Another dictator ordered his troops to make a mound of the same size and then level it, but this time he granted them heavy machinery. Which dictator uses his people better?

Re:No hardware? (3, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#33734152)

The one with shovels, because it's more entertaining?

Re:No hardware? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33734176)

The former, as it leaves them with less time and energy to plot, duh.

Re:No hardware? (3, Informative)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 3 years ago | (#33734018)

This.
Simple bit operations are vastly faster when implemented in silicon.
Think of it. A simple "&" is 8 logic gates in silicon. In CPU it's a fetch value into register, reroute ALU to the bit-and operation, route source to source registers, target to target registers, select word sizes, perform the operation, fill the flag register in...

Or take something else. Reverse order of bits in a word. First is last, last is first. A very common operation, and if I recall correctly, essential in FFT.

i = (i & 0x55555555) << 1 | (i & 0xaaaaaaaa) >> 1;
  i = (i & 0x33333333) << 2 | (i & 0xcccccccc) >> 2;
  i = (i & 0x0f0f0f0f) << 4 | (i & 0xf0f0f0f0) >> 4;
  i = (i & 0x00ff00ff) << 8 | (i & 0xff00ff00) >> 8;
  i = (i & 0x0000ffff) << 16 | (i & 0xffff0000) >> 16;

How many CPU cycles would that be...?

Now in silicon, it takes 0 transistors. You just connect first input pin directly to last output pin, second to second-to-last and so on - "twist the ribbon 180 degrees". Zero cycles, zero transistors, speed - as long as the impulse takes to traverse a featureless path in silicon between the steps before and after this one.

Re:No hardware? (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 3 years ago | (#33734074)

Underestimate? I think he is totally unaware of what dedicated hardware can do. Does he know why CD players came out in the mid-80s but TEN YEARS LATER a PC or Mac with a CD-ROM drive would often crash while playing CD audio in software? Or when DVD players came out in the mid-90s and it wasn't until the early 2000s that you could watch a software-decoded DVD on a computer without pegging the CPU? Why the iPhone can play back H.264 video for several hours on a battery charge, but can only play certain games (or hell, run the camera) for an hour or two?

Re:No hardware? (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 3 years ago | (#33734164)

So, supposedly, implement this in Verilog on an fpga and you've got one efficient encryption scheme. Your handy video processor would still be faster without the encryption though.

Re:No hardware? (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733620)

I always thought if you added up the worlds extra CPU use just for encrypting/decrypting. The amount of power needed would cause so much CO2 that every country would ban it on the spot.
DRM is bad for the planet!

Re:No hardware? (4, Insightful)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733654)

In other words, the HDCP hardware decryptor is more powerful than the main CPU.

Um. No. Not at all. CPU's are highly generalized computational engines. A CPU's instruction set contains every instruction needed to perform every operation by a computer, including I/O to peripheral busses, etc. A GPU is a highly specialized processor designed to complement a CPU and offload graphics-specific computations that requires a large number of high speed mathematical computations. It's only purpose is to take data from the CPU and render it quickly for a display. The functionality of a GPU can be implemented in a CPU, although with a huge degradation in performance. The functionality of a CPU can not be implemented in a GPU.

In summary:
1. A CPU is the brain of the computer and the GPU is only meant to complement it.
2. GPU's are specialized and cannot replace the function of a CPU.
3. CPU's can perform the functions of a GPU but at a much slower speed.

Every HDCP device should be slapped with a huge carbon and recycling tax -- with an extra punitive rate, since the waste is introduced intentionally.

What a crock. Thanks to technologies like CUDA you can write your own programs that leverage the GPU's in your existing video cards. It's likely only a matter of time before you start to see GPU-based implementations of this code, which means the nVidia or ATI card in your existing PC could easily decrypt HDCP content in real-time. So are you willing to pay excessive taxes for the video card in your PC? When implemented in existing DVI & HDMI chipsets, HDCP really doesn't require all that much more physical overhead, certainly not enough to justify an absurd carbon tax. Highly specialized hardware like that is significantly more efficient than even the GPU in your PC.

Re:No hardware? (1)

cynyr (703126) | more than 3 years ago | (#33734350)

but still more power than simply not needing to encrypt video signals sent to sinks...

Re:No hardware? (1)

loki_tiwaz (982852) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733714)

yeah, the fact it takes a 2ghz cpu to decrypt standard definition fast enough should be sufficient to argue that it's not only a waste of time (keys are already cracked and now the algorithms are out in the wild) - the whole thing is defunct. it is only a matter of a very short time before they can't stop anyone plugging a computer into a hdmi output from an 'authorised' playback device and the computer pretends to be a monitor that knows the seekrits and voila, 100% pristine, unencrypted video dumped onto a hard drive (or piped into an encoder).

if only this was enough of a point to suggest they are wasting their energy and that any law that permits such stupidity is a bad law. let's not forget the stupid dvd/bluray disc is also encrypted and before it gets re-encrypted again, it has to be decrypted. that's three totally wasteful processing loads that are so big that for the same processing cost you could be decoding the whole stream in high definition if it wasn't encrypted.

i'll stop downloading bluray rips from the interwebs when they stop costing me twice as much electricity as is neccessary to decode their crappy movies. oh, and when they start realising that tiny little 2 metre high cinema screens, cruddy overpriced popcorn and no comfy seats and beers to drink are gonna make me think my 42 inch bravia and 8 channel surround system in my own loungeroom is much more pleasant. i'm sure i'm not alone and if the lawyers ever come to my house making overblown claims about how much i owe them i'll spend that money they are demanding on laywers to put them back in their place. not just violating the laws of cryptography but also the laws of free market economics. which on any other subject they will swear black and blue is 'The Way'.

oh and what are they going to do when high def eyegoggles finally hit the market? they better be hoping someone makes processors that are about 10x as calculation-per-second-per-watt more efficient than any portable media playing device can handle, cos otherwise the technology would be dead in the water.

Re:No hardware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33733352)

No, they can't do 1080p IN REAL TIME yet .

ftfy

Doesn't matter if you can do it in real time ... (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#33734090)

If you can't recompress it in real time then there's not much point in decrypting it in real time either. Just dump it to disk and process it later.

GPUs? OpenCL/CUDA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33734560)

No, they can't do 1080p IN REAL TIME.

.. on a traditional CPU. What about porting the code to use GPUs via OpenCL or CUDA?

Re:No hardware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33733030)

You need to take into account when HDCP was created, not what machines we can buy today.

This whole HDCP thing is not as big a deal as people are making it out to be. We've been able to buy HDCP strippers for years. Just because the home user is unlikely to buy one, doesn't mean content is protected. The home user can simply get the identical data online.

Re:No hardware? (3, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733148)

But the sink keys they used could be banned, no? Having the master key means you can't ban them, because you can generate any possible key.

Re:No hardware? (3, Informative)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733498)

In theory they could be banned, but in practice, due to sloppy distribution of keys, they can't ban them without breaking too many innocent devices, so they haven't.

Re:No hardware? (3, Informative)

Amouth (879122) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733810)

even in theory they couldn't be banned because they have the master key - meaning they can create any and all keys on the fly and at will - the only way to "ban" them would be to not use HDCP and use something else..

Re:No hardware? (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#33734248)

Yes, but I was speaking only of the devices that were made before the release of the master key. I was probably a bit unclear there.

Re:No hardware? (4, Insightful)

jamesh (87723) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733052)

NEVER underestimate a determined hacker.

Especially one who's been told it can't be done.

Re:No hardware? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33734010)

"No Linux for the desktop"

I DARE YOU HACKERS !

Re:No hardware? (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 3 years ago | (#33734416)

NEVER underestimate a determined hacker.

Er...So that means we should *correctly estimate* a determined hacker, right?

Which groups of people should we estimate incorrectly? That's probably a shorter list to remember.

Re:No hardware? (5, Informative)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 3 years ago | (#33732988)

Intel's statement had to do with the security of the use case of HDCP: digital video encrypted with HDCP being transported over HDMI cables. In other words, the hardware Intel claims is required, is specialized hardware which interfaces with HDMI ports. This software implementation is not interesting for cracking encrypted video if it cannot communicate with the Blu-Ray or other media player in question in a way which tricks the media player into thinking that the computer running the software is a certified display device.

Re:No hardware? (5, Informative)

norpy (1277318) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733092)

Errrrr the point of this software is to perform the handshake which authenticates it as a legitimate source or sink device. The master key also allows you to simply generate a NEW device key if the one you are using happens to get blacklisted by a firmware update.

The reason this is useful is not for bluray, it is for first-run broadcast content.

Re:No hardware? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33734322)

Yes, but I doubt most equipment will let you do HDCP handshake over anything but the HDMI(/DVI) port, so you still need to hook up the HDMI-out that you want to decrypt to a HDMI-in port. Can your regular graphisc card be rewritten to use the HDMI out port as an HDMI in port? If not, then the application is limited to the few that have HDMI capture cards. And even then you have to be able to inject the HDMI handshake into the capture card's driver. The easiest would still be to make a HDCP stripper adapter that does the handshake, decrypts the content and sends it on as a plain signal.

Re:No hardware? (1)

amazeofdeath (1102843) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733206)

As both cheap graphics cards and motherboards with HDMI outputs are very much mainstream nowadays, I think your use of the word "specialized" is inaccurate here.

Re:No hardware? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733450)

'special' in that it RECEIVES hdmi.

no normal pc does that. reminder: pc's SEND hdmi, not receive it.

Re:No hardware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33733562)

Errrr - Black Magic Intensity Pro HDMI Capture Card....$189 !

Just one example, plenty of others out there.

Re:No hardware? (1)

amazeofdeath (1102843) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733684)

Hmm, lost me there. Answer me this: What separates a HDCP capable computer without the software player from a HDCP capable computer with the software player? All the same parts, from Blu-Ray player to the graphics to the monitor.

Re:No hardware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33734072)

Hmm, lost me there. Answer me this: What separates a HDCP capable computer without the software player from a HDCP capable computer with the software player? All the same parts, from Blu-Ray player to the graphics to the monitor.

HDCP encryption is applied inside your computer's video card (by hardware) before the data is placed on the HDMI cable, it is then decrypted inside your monitor. HDCP encrypted content generally should never pass through the CPU.

The data inside your computer (ie. movie on blu-ray disk) is encrypted with AACS which is something else entirely.

Re:No hardware? (1)

amazeofdeath (1102843) | more than 3 years ago | (#33734154)

Yes, and you don't answer the question. If I have two similar computers, both HDCP capable at least on paper, what's the physical difference? HDCP is meant to be fast in the hardware, but it doesn't mean that it's not possible to decrypt it in software; and more to the point, there is no physical difference as the GGGP implies: It's just the same hardware.

Re:No hardware? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33734242)

I don't fully understand it, but the point of HDCP is for the signal to not be unencrypted at any point in the journey from the disc to the viewer. That is except for the last hop from the video card to the monitor, and only if the monitor knows the secret password to identify itself as secure.

What this would theoretically do would be allow for a software program to essentially remove that requirement and decrypt it on its way from the drive to the monitor. If I understand correctly, you'd still need to have a way of making the drive cough up the stream.

Re:No hardware? (1)

amazeofdeath (1102843) | more than 3 years ago | (#33734464)

This was addressed earlier in another post. You get the GPU-monitor and probably optical drive-motherboard (or GPU, if it's "direct" lane)handshakes made, there's (basically) no need for extra hardware, you just need the processing power to get the content decrypted.

We have seen plenty of specific HDCP breaks that can decrypt a limited set of movies; this is the general break, which does not care much about the HW and firmware (optical drive) details.

Re:No hardware? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#33732992)

That statement seemed pretty silly given that most applications will be to transcode the encrypted stream into something more portable, and transcoding doesn't have to be in real time.

Re:No hardware? (1)

jdimpson (789437) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733012)

That statement seemed pretty silly given that most applications will be to transcode the encrypted stream into something more portable, and transcoding doesn't have to be in real time.

Too early to tell what "most applications" will be.

Re:No hardware? (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733036)

Exactly my thought. I suppose he's talking about estimations on building a dedicated hardware HDCP decrypter.

Re:No hardware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33733912)

Exactly my thought. I suppose he's talking about estimations on building a dedicated hardware HDCP decrypter.

Wait a few months and there'll be probably be source for an FPGA floating around out there.

Wait a few years and it'll probably be doable on the 2015 equivalent of an Arduino.

Re:No hardware? (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 3 years ago | (#33734430)

Yep, but I think this much was obvious anyway.

Apparently Intel's content protection department aren't aware of what the rest of the company does- produces processing equipment precisely so stuff like this can be done with ease.

Congrats! (1)

amazeofdeath (1102843) | more than 3 years ago | (#33732976)

Great stuff! Shows Intel's representative's earlier comments about software implementation not being feasible quite wrong.

Re:Congrats! (1)

imbaczek (690596) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733072)

76fps on a 2.5GHz Core2 isn't impressive TBH, and they say decryption is 7x slower (which means ~15fps). Optimizations will help, but until they figure out how to make it at least 60fps, it's really not feasible.

Re:Congrats! (1)

amazeofdeath (1102843) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733146)

Core 2 Duo P9600 has 2 cores; we have moved much past that stage with six core CPUs and advancements in CPU architecture after C2D, and like mentioned, the code presented is pretty much an early alpha.

Re:Congrats! (1)

Barefoot Monkey (1657313) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733242)

Core 2 Duo P9600 has 2 cores; we have moved much past that stage with six core CPUs and advancements in CPU architecture after C2D, and like mentioned, the code presented is pretty much an early alpha.

Supporting that, the article says that the 76fps was timed while using only 1 of those 2 cores, that the process is parallelisable across multiple cores, and that they believe that they can achieve 1080p at 30fps on a high-end dual core.

Re:Congrats! (1)

l_bratch (865693) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733718)

Running the built in single core benchmark on my Core 2 Duo E8500 running at 3.7 GHz gets 351 FPS. If 7x slower for 1080p decryption is accurate, that'll give about 50 FPS on a single core. I'm sorted.

Re:Congrats! (4, Interesting)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733170)

It just means you can't do it in realtime on a 2.5ghz core2... Nothing to stop you dumping the encrypted data somewhere and decrypting it later.

Also consider a 2.5GHz Core2 isn't all that modern, and it doesn't even specify wether this cpu is dual or quad core. With 6, 8 and even 12 core processors available, plus the possibility to parallelize over multiple processors 60fps is quite achievable today.

There is also the possibility of using a GPU to do this.

Re:Congrats! (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733850)

Nothing to stop you dumping the encrypted data somewhere and decrypting it later.

You've got a disk which can store decompressed 1080p in real time? Please let us in on the secret...!

Re:Congrats! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33734132)

decrypted != decompressed

Re:Congrats! (2, Insightful)

cynyr (703126) | more than 3 years ago | (#33734452)

a raid 5.1 of 10k rpm sas drives say, 12 spindles, should be enough. maybe 4 500GB SSDs would be as well.

So no i don't have A disk that can do it, but you can do it with a few disks.

Re:Congrats! (2, Informative)

norpy (1277318) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733296)

Not quite.

They said decryption of 1080p is 7x slower than 640x480, not that decryption is slower than encryption. This makes sense as 1080p is approximately 7x more pixels than 640x480!

Transforming the numbers (Re:Congrats!) (3, Informative)

Eivind Eklund (5161) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733322)

Those rates are for a single core. They say that decrypting 1080p is ~7x slower than 640x480, which correspond well to 1080p having 6.75x more pixels.

However, there's no reason for this to be restricted to run on a single core or a single machine. If somebody were to use this for distributing a real time stream (e.g, a sports broadcast) there's no particular reason to not just have each recipient of the stream do their share of the decryption.

Running the number, getting 60 frames of 1080p from the Core 2 requires 5.33 cores, which would correspond to three dual-core machines. This means you can't, with today's machines, just share it with your friend if you both have dual core Core2 machines - but with two friends it should work, assuming enough bandwidth available from each of the friends: 3Gbit/s for the full unencrypted stream, plus 1Gbit/s down for the stream to be decrypted, plus 1Gbit/s up for the part of the stream decrypted on that machine.

You'll also get real time decryption on a single Gulftown [wikipedia.org] CPU: E.g, a Core i7-980X runs 3200MHz and has 6 cores.

Re:Transforming the numbers (Re:Congrats!) (1)

norpy (1277318) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733794)

Just wait for someone to figure out how to run this code at a decent speed on some affordable FPGA dongle that can then be sold unprogrammed with a hdmi-in and hdmi-out for stripping the HDCP encryption.

It will be welcomed by anyone with a hdtv that doesn't play well with hdcp sources, or doesn't support HDCP at all.

Re:Transforming the numbers (Re:Congrats!) (1)

Nevo (690791) | more than 3 years ago | (#33734048)

This is exactly what I thought of when the announcement of the key was first made. I imagine this could be done with ~$30 worth of commodity hardware.

Re:Transforming the numbers (Re:Congrats!) (2, Funny)

Cajun Hell (725246) | more than 3 years ago | (#33734480)

Just wait for someone to figure out how to run this code at a decent speed on some affordable FPGA dongle that can then be sold unprogrammed with a hdmi-in and hdmi-out for stripping the HDCP encryption.

Surely you're confused about the primary purpose of such a device. The primary purpose of such a device would be to add HDCP to your computer's video output so that terrorists can't spy on your online banking.

Now wait a minute, before you say that is utterly 100% totally and absurdly useless bullshit application, remember that millions of media players on the market are already doing exactly that. If Intel's lawyers were to say that encryption is not a believable use (why would you want to encrypt your computer display?) then they'll be admitting HDCP does not effectively protect content.

Re:Congrats! (3, Informative)

cbope (130292) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733372)

60fps, why? That is 2x real-time, or a bit more than 2x if the source is 24fps. Once they are able to break 30fps decrypting in real-time, this is golden. It's only the first step, but it's an important milestone.

Re:Congrats! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33733748)

No, it's not golden. Not unless you like crap like doing 3-2 pull-down to actually watch the 24 fps stuff on a 30 Hz TV. That is why TVs today do 120 or 240 Hz. It is an even multiple of both video and film rates.

Re:Congrats! (1)

Gates82 (706573) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733826)

Question: 60fps, why?

Answer: Stereoscopic or 30fps x 2 streams

--
So who is hotter? Ali or Ali's Sister?

Re:Congrats! (2, Informative)

Malc (1751) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733984)

Blu-ray supports 720p at 59.94 fps. That's a greater amount of data than 1080p at 24 fps. 720p59.94 is also one of the Blu-ray 3D supported resolutions (i.e. doubling the differences with 1080p24 further).

Incoming lawsuit in... (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733006)

3...2....1....

This will revolutionize the porn industry. (0, Offtopic)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733062)

Now porn companies can protect their intellectual property? Maybe now is the time for me to get involved in the porn business.

Re:This will revolutionize the porn industry. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33733704)

WTF?

GPU Implementation (5, Insightful)

Alias14 (1657713) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733082)

I guess the next logical step would be a GPU implementation....

Re:GPU Implementation (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33733642)

but how are you going to get the HDMI output of your DVR into your GPU?

without doing the handshake right, there will be no stream to decode later on.

people will need to build an FPGA implementation of this, maybe parallel, to strip the HDCP.
by programming the FPGA with loads of possible sink key's they can switch as soon as one is blacklisted.

I don't know if there are any HDMI grabbers out there, but i don't think they're HDCP compliant.
i do know there is a component one that does 1080P, so maybe a HDMI->Component converter can be built.
(i know these exist already, but they might be blacklisted. i don't know if any device can have it's key updated, but this implementation will)

strange brew that's also good for you (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33733134)

That would be home made Kombucha. Free, as in you make it yourself.

Practical use (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33733346)

What could a end-user do with that?!

link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33733428)

http://www.softpedia.com/

What would be the issues with a hardware version? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733458)

If any...

I can see how this might be very useful for someone with an older HDTV that predates HDCP. Personally though I'd prefer a small box over a big case with a multi-core CPU. I imagine the scheme was designed with efficient hardware implementations in mind.

Re:What would be the issues with a hardware versio (4, Informative)

mike260 (224212) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733778)

There are already bootleg hardware HDCP strippers on the market. It used to be possible to shut down these devices by revoking their keys, but that's now gone out the window with the master-key leak. Expect the next generation of devices to let you upload new keys to them, or maybe generate new keys themselves.

Software decryption is kinda interesting but you're right, hardware is where it's at.

Re:What would be the issues with a hardware versio (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33734352)

As others have said, somebody will almost certainly port the code over to CUDA or in some other fashion use the GPU to do the work. Hardware solutions probably aren't going to be around too much longer, although, as full dubbing facilities, they may have some utility.

Re:What would be the issues with a hardware versio (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733780)

Probably none, this game is just getting started. There are already HDCP strippers out there, anyway, intended for just that purpose (or HD projectors with DVI but not HDCP support) but they're super expensive (likely due to supply and demand)

Re:What would be the issues with a hardware versio (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 3 years ago | (#33733970)

It's easier for Intel et al to go after people who are selling a product, especially a physical device. Much easier for a software author to be safely anonymous so the DMCA can't touch 'em.

Where's the stripper? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33733500)

I guess what's in everyone mind is "where's the stripper?". For HDCP, you evil minds!

BluRay Braille Reader! (2, Interesting)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#33734020)

Nice, a Braille reader for BluRay subtitles should now be technically possible. BluRays make decent eBooks with the right software.

(HDMI neglects to ship closed-captioning data so you *have* to capture/diff/ocr from HDMI rasters to extract the text).

dencryption consumes 1% of US power (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33734046)

When you watch a DVD or Bluray, the content is decrypted, then encrypted and decrypted again for HDCP.

A significant amount of energy is devoted to protecting the pre-internet business model.

This will only get worse over time, as media gets larger and media companies more aggressively cling to the old business model.

It took more than 100 years for the world to really adjust to the printing press. I assume at least the same time period for the Internet, before we can have our enlightenment period.

Re:dencryption consumes 1% of US power (1)

Cajun Hell (725246) | more than 3 years ago | (#33734392)

This will only get worse over time, as media gets larger and media companies more aggressively cling to the old business model.

Don't you mean abandon the old business model? The old business model was that you sell un-DRMed content and make a billion dollars. This was deemed unacceptably profitable.

Don't think of DRM as clinging to the past. The past already proved that DRM is undesirable from the seller's point of view. The new business model is to tell people, "No you can't do that if you buy this; if you need to timeshift your TV, play your Bluray on an unapproved display, etc. then go download the pirates' version instead."

Still waiting for the REAL app.. (0, Redundant)

Cajun Hell (725246) | more than 3 years ago | (#33734328)

..which adds all Sony televisions to players' revocation lists. (Or is that signed with a different key?) The beauty of something like that, is that they are the ones who are distributing the malicious software. It would be hilarious if their own malware ended up biting them on their own asses, forcing the recall of millions of devices to have their keys reflashed.

DRM is so costly, it should be forbidden. (5, Interesting)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 3 years ago | (#33734418)

DRM must be really really costly. And the bad thing is we're all paying for it - the honest customers even more than the "pirates" against which it is supposed to protect.

When I see how much computing resources it takes just to en/decrypt a stream - OK it's a general purpose processor, not something dedicated - I am thinking of the cost of those resources in all the devices we have. After all your BluRay player has to read the BR disk, decrypt the content, then encrypt it again to an HDCP stream, which is sent over to say a TV, which then decrypts it again to make it a watchable image.

Now if only we wouldn't need that encryption.

BluRay itself is (all but) cracked, that's one decryption step that can be done away with.

HDCP transfer is now done with; that's another two steps of en- and decryption that can go.

That is at least three pieces of beefy hardware. That's three chips that won't come for a few pennies each. That's three chips that will be wasting significant amounts of energy.

Plus of course the huge upfront cost to develop all that: to develop the algorithms, set up the secure key supply, designing the dedicated de/encrypt chips and writing all the software around it to make it work.

And all of us are paying for it. It makes BR players and disks and HDCP compliant hardware more expensive than necessary, it even increases our power bills unnecessary. I really wonder when this madness can come to an end.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>