OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/24777/Google_Movies_Blocked_on_Rooted_Android_Devices Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2013, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Sat, 25 May 2013 23:05:26 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif OSNews.com http://www.osnews.com so the next step ... http://www.osnews.com/thread?474427 http://www.osnews.com/thread?474427 ... is to add a simple way to make it appear, to a particular app, that the device isn't rooted when it is. Tue, 24 May 2011 22:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (JoeBuck) Comments RE: so the next step ... http://www.osnews.com/thread?474438 http://www.osnews.com/thread?474438 Yes, yes it is.
DRM is useless. Tue, 24 May 2011 23:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tuaris) Comments RE[2]: so the next step ... http://www.osnews.com/thread?474445 http://www.osnews.com/thread?474445 ".. 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. Wed, 25 May 2011 01:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Alfman) Comments I guess they don't want me buying movies then http://www.osnews.com/thread?474450 http://www.osnews.com/thread?474450 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..... Wed, 25 May 2011 03:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (DREVILl30564) Comments Where have I seen this before? http://www.osnews.com/thread?474453 http://www.osnews.com/thread?474453 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 Wed, 25 May 2011 03:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (WorknMan) Comments RE: Where have I seen this before? http://www.osnews.com/thread?474455 http://www.osnews.com/thread?474455 Android != GNU/Linux

Android of course uses Linux kernel in some extent but it cannot be said it's an open platform fully. Wed, 25 May 2011 03:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (t3RRa) Comments RE[2]: Where have I seen this before? http://www.osnews.com/thread?474465 http://www.osnews.com/thread?474465
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 ;) Wed, 25 May 2011 04:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (WorknMan) Comments RE: Where have I seen this before? http://www.osnews.com/thread?474480 http://www.osnews.com/thread?474480 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 Wed, 25 May 2011 06:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Alfman) Comments RE[2]: Where have I seen this before? http://www.osnews.com/thread?474492 http://www.osnews.com/thread?474492
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. Wed, 25 May 2011 08:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Laurence) Comments Custom ROMs not rooted http://www.osnews.com/thread?474495 http://www.osnews.com/thread?474495 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) Wed, 25 May 2011 08:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (JAlexoid) Comments RE[2]: Where have I seen this before? http://www.osnews.com/thread?474536 http://www.osnews.com/thread?474536
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. Wed, 25 May 2011 13:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Slambert666) Comments RE[3]: Where have I seen this before? http://www.osnews.com/thread?474660 http://www.osnews.com/thread?474660 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. Thu, 26 May 2011 03:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Alfman) Comments RE[3]: so the next step ... http://www.osnews.com/thread?474687 http://www.osnews.com/thread?474687

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. Thu, 26 May 2011 10:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (vodoomoth) Comments RE[4]: so the next step ... http://www.osnews.com/thread?474728 http://www.osnews.com/thread?474728 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. Thu, 26 May 2011 17:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Alfman) Comments