Linked by TADS on Tue 24th May 2011 21:13 UTC
Google Even though Google supports (some might say encourages) unlocking the bootloader and gaining root access on its own Nexus line of Android devices, it's currently blocking the newly announced Google Movies service on rooted devices.
Order by: Score:
so the next step ...
by JoeBuck on Tue 24th May 2011 22:37 UTC
JoeBuck
Member since:
2006-01-11

... is to add a simple way to make it appear, to a particular app, that the device isn't rooted when it is.

Reply Score: 2

RE: so the next step ...
by tuaris on Tue 24th May 2011 23:59 UTC in reply to "so the next step ..."
tuaris Member since:
2007-08-05

Yes, yes it is.
DRM is useless.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: so the next step ...
by Alfman on Wed 25th May 2011 01:23 UTC in reply to "RE: so the next step ..."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

".. is to add a simple way to make it appear, to a particular app, that the device isn't rooted when it is."

I wonder if a rooted device becomes blacklisted? Or if google deploys an application to determine if it is _currently_ rooted?

"DRM is useless."

Yep.

It's security by obscurity, inherently broken.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: so the next step ...
by vodoomoth on Thu 26th May 2011 10:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: so the next step ..."
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30


It's security by obscurity, inherently broken.

Just to satisfy my curiosity (and don't take this as a hint that I hold a point of view opposite to yours), what kind of security isn't "security by obscurity"? I mean, I use TruCrypt on one specific volume... and the security of what I store there is based on no one but me knowing the password. Ditto for my debit card, my computers, my online accounts, etc. It seems to me that every kind of security I ever face is based on some kind of obfuscation or secrecy, a.k.a "obscurity".

If this is "inherently broken", I wonder what would save us.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: so the next step ...
by Alfman on Thu 26th May 2011 17:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: so the next step ..."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

vodoomoth,

"what kind of security isn't 'security by obscurity'? I mean, I use TruCrypt on one specific volume... and the security of what I store there is based on no one but me knowing the password."


Security by obscurity is a term applied to those who rely on obfuscated code and/or not non-disclosure of source in order to protect content. This is opposed to using mathematically sound encryption algorithms in a correct way.

Encryption can only protect content from 3rd parties who do not possess the keys (obviously). And herein lies the fatal flaw inherent in all DRM - the keys are necessarily distributed to the end user.

All DRM, from microsoft, apple, real networks, digital cable boxes, and so on are flawed and will always be flawed due to the fact that they are using secure encryption algorithms in an insecure manor. So while the encryption algorithm (ie AES) is secure, the DRM implementation inherently suffers from the need to obscure the keys from the very party who will be using the keys.

DRM can make the attacker's job more difficult, but in the end it cannot be made mathematically secure due to the fact that the keys exist on the same endpoint which the DRM is attempting to restrict.



"Ditto for my debit card, my computers, my online accounts, etc. It seems to me that every kind of security I ever face is based on some kind of obfuscation or secrecy, a.k.a 'obscurity'"

Well it's true, there may be a semantic exception for "passwords". But encryption is unlikely to be the weak link in any of the examples you cited. It's much more likely for a partner to suffer a perimeter breach where the attacker has access to the unencrypted data.


"If this is 'inherently broken', I wonder what would save us."

Encryption is still sound against third party interception. It's the DRM model which is inherently broken, mathematically speaking.

Reply Score: 2

DREVILl30564
Member since:
2008-04-18

because it's my right to root and modify my android phone as I see fit. So I guess I'll be ripping and converting any movie that I own that I want to watch on my phone. enjoy the lost revenue.....

Reply Score: 2

Where have I seen this before?
by WorknMan on Wed 25th May 2011 03:32 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

You guys remember when Vista came out and they introduced HDCP, it was all, 'Oh nos.... we all need to switch to Linux to escape this evil DRM!!!' The FSF damn near had a shit fit. The problem was that the vitriol was being leveled at Microsoft instead of at Big Content, where it belonged.

Well, here's what happens when you mix Big Content with an open platform like Android.

Fact is, Google isn't going to stand up to these clowns anymore than Microsoft did. If you want their stuff legally on your platform, you have to play by their rules, so Google is just being Big Content's bitch and doing what they're told. Just like Microsoft did.

And, as usual, legitimate customers will continue to be inconvenienced while the pirates go unaffected.

Edited 2011-05-25 03:34 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Where have I seen this before?
by t3RRa on Wed 25th May 2011 03:35 UTC in reply to "Where have I seen this before?"
t3RRa Member since:
2005-11-22

Android != GNU/Linux

Android of course uses Linux kernel in some extent but it cannot be said it's an open platform fully.

Reply Score: 3

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Android != GNU/Linux

Android of course uses Linux kernel in some extent but it cannot be said it's an open platform fully.


Well, if it's not really open, then I guess it's no different than iOS, and Fandroids have been lying to me all this time ;)

Reply Score: 1

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Android != GNU/Linux

Android of course uses Linux kernel in some extent but it cannot be said it's an open platform fully.

Agreed but his point remains.

If Google want to provide their movie service, then they have to play by the content providers rules.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Where have I seen this before?
by Alfman on Wed 25th May 2011 06:42 UTC in reply to "Where have I seen this before?"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

WorknMan,

"You guys remember when Vista came out and they introduced HDCP, it was all, 'Oh nos.... we all need to switch to Linux to escape this evil DRM!!!' The FSF damn near had a shit fit. The problem was that the vitriol was being leveled at Microsoft instead of at Big Content, where it belonged."

That's only partly true. Unfortunately the Vista DRM was more pervasive than that. Starting with Vista, MS prohibited owners from installing their own drivers, a move which was clearly aimed at crippling the distribution of open source kernel drivers.


"And, as usual, legitimate customers will continue to be inconvenienced while the pirates go unaffected."

Right on.

Edited 2011-05-25 06:44 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

Starting with Vista, MS prohibited owners from installing their own drivers, a move which was clearly aimed at crippling the distribution of open source kernel drivers.


Smoking crack and posting on forums is a bad combination.

Reply Score: 0

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Slambert666,


"Smoking crack and posting on forums is a bad combination."

Well that was vague. What exactly was your problem with my statement? Maybe it is news to you that you cannot permanently install open source kernel drivers on vista?

http://www.ngohq.com/home.php?page=dseo

Integrity checks in the OS ought to be a good thing. Trouble is that MS is selling the keys instead of handing them to the owners. In other words, it's DRM telling users how they can and can't use their systems.

Reply Score: 2

Custom ROMs not rooted
by JAlexoid on Wed 25th May 2011 08:47 UTC
JAlexoid
Member since:
2009-05-19

One correction, they endorse custom ROM installation ability, not rooting. Rooting circumvents the security framework on Android.

Though I doubt they are blocking that movie rental service at their own will... (I'm looking at you members of MPAA)

Reply Score: 2