HDCP Encryption/Decryption Code Released 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."
Obligatory (Score:3, Funny)
Get it on a shirt, on Digg, and in sigs everywhere!
No hardware? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No hardware? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
The reason this is useful is not for bluray, it is for first-run broadcast content.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The HDCP handshake happens over a low-speed link. If you can capture raw HDMI video at all, in theory it's not that much more work to add HDCP support on top of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I expect most modern STBs watermark the content leaving the TV in addition to HDCP protection. Therefore anyone stupid enough to release content they've captured on P2P can probably kiss their service goodbye as well as opening up the possibility of prosecution. Just saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Capture from multiple sources and check for differences. It should be easy enough to find watermarks and not terribly difficult to edit them out automatically. If there's a unique identifier, it can't be in two sources.
Besides which, making imperceptible watermarks than can survive arbitrary lossy compression techniques is hard. If a person can't see a certain detail, a good video compression algorithm should throw it out. Just saying.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
'special' in that it RECEIVES hdmi.
no normal pc does that. reminder: pc's SEND hdmi, not receive it.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Still people who don't understand what HDCP does. It has nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with movies. It encrypts whatever your graphics card displays, and decrypts it on the monitor. If Windows bluescreens then the blue screen will dutifully be encrypted between your PC and the monitor.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Even at the "free" price point, nobody seems to want information... unless it has boobies.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
In order to receive HDMI through the video card, you would need specialized drivers to read input from the HDMI connection. Seeing as how difficult it is to get working open-source drivers in general for a video card, this seems extremely unlikely. Yes both input and output for HDMI are identical hardware, however the GPU is not programmed to act as input.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, show me a white paper or proof of concept or anything where this has been done, or even where someone with expertise on this talks about how it could be done. Hell, even an argument on why you think I am wrong would be something. A one-word AC response is, frankly, bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Hardware-wise, HDMI receivers and transmitters are identical. Now, for a GPU to utilize the HDMI as input, if possible, would at least require significant changes to the drivers and possibly firmware of the unit. I should have stressed that I meant that specialized drivers would be the bare-minimum of changes that would need to take place. You cannot just use a piece of software to start recording from HDMI.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Exactly my thought. I suppose he's talking about estimations on building a dedicated hardware HDCP decrypter.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:No hardware? (Score:5, Insightful)
NEVER underestimate a determined hacker.
Especially one who's been told it can't be done.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"No Linux for the desktop"
I DARE YOU HACKERS !
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And the answer was:
"It rans fine on my desktop. WORKSFORME/PBCAK."
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
no problem - i didn't realize you meant that either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they can't do 1080p IN REAL TIME.
Re:No hardware? (Score:4, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
who says the output of your card is HDCP encrypted?
HDMI != HDCP
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then all DVI to HDMI adapters are illegal stuff?
Re:No hardware? (Score:4, Informative)
HDMI port != HDMI cable. The active hardware has to output audio and be HDCP 1.1 compliant to be HDMI. An HDMI-DVI adapter is not active hardware, but a cable (or dongle; but as far as the tech goes they are the same anyway) so is not subject to the same standards. However, I am fairly certain that such adapters cannot be HDMI certified, therefore cannot display the HDMI logo (but can be labelled as HDMI, since saying that it converts DVI->HDMI or vice versa is not false advertising).
Now I think about it, I don't know if HDMI outputs are required to have audio, but certainly all inputs are required to accept at least stereo LPCM (which is why HDMI equipped monitors have audio-outs), so I may have got a little muddled up there.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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-cor
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
Again, the point being that specialized, dedicated circuits can far outperform software on a predetermined algorithm. HDCP is a subset of the AES cypher, and is pretty heavy on the CPU. I've implemented AES on nVidia's CUDA and it would be difficult to get better then 50MB/sec. A 1080p30 stream should use a little less than 60 MB/sec - so it's going to be work, but considering HDCP is less complicated, it should be doable.
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point: I bought an upscaling DVD player 5 or 6 years ago which supported HDCP over HDMI at 1080i.
Even then, it was less than $50.
Frankly, I'm really not surprised that cheap, dedicated silicon can do a faster job of [insert random job] than a general-purpose CPU. But I guess it must be a new concept for some folks.
*yawn*
Re:No hardware? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
The one with shovels, because it's more entertaining?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No hardware? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a clever argument: these chips do the job much more efficiently than CPUs, therefore they are free.
"I merely murdered the man; it's not as though I also raped his wife, shot his dog, poisoned his well, and burned the house down. You should let me go."
It's waste. If it served a useful purpose, perhaps it could be justified. Life is full of tradeoffs and we all value things differently. But in this case, the user payed for two chips (to encrypt and then decrypt) and electricity to run them, and g
Re:No hardware? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
but still more power than simply not needing to encrypt video signals sent to sinks...
Doesn't matter if you can do it in real time ... (Score:2)
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.
Congrats! (Score:2)
Great stuff! Shows Intel's representative's earlier comments about software implementation not being feasible quite wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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! (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
You've got a disk which can store decompressed 1080p in real time?You've got a disk which can store decompressed 1080p in real time?
It's my understanding that many new-fangled media devices have "pause" buttons that would enable you to break the task into manageable chunks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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!) (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Is this going to be the next decade's bragging rights? "My Tivolike's capture card continuously draws only 130 Watts whenever something is on! (not counting all the case fans)" "Oh yeah? Well mine only uses 73 Watts!!"
(Just kidding; I get it that we're talking proof-of-concept.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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 app
Re:Congrats! (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Question: 60fps, why?
Answer: Stereoscopic or 30fps x 2 streams
--
So who is hotter? Ali or Ali's Sister?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But ripping discs isn't really the target here. There are already tools available which can rip BluRay discs in software, without having to read a disc and play them over the wire in real time. More practically, this is targeted at streaming video sources such as video from your cable company, or perhaps for ripping from your cable company's DVR. Those streams are seldom (never?) higher than 1080i or 720p at standard frame rates, so 30fps in real time gets the job done.
I'm not saying 720p at 59.94 is worth
Re: (Score:2)
i get 129fps @640x480 on my AMD Athlon X2 BE-2400+ (2.3ghz 4gb DDR2 dualchan ram) according to the test operation suppled with the program.
Re: (Score:2)
and 17fps @1920x1080 so... as it will scale to 64 cores, it should be doable on an X4, or an i7Q or even a lowend gpu.
Re: (Score:2)
Where you going to get the data from? Being able to implement an algorithm is a far cry from being able to sense and apply a voltage on an HDMI connector. The current HDMI capture cards do not provide access to the raw data stream.
Incoming lawsuit in... (Score:2)
3...2....1....
GPU Implementation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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-
BluRay Braille Reader! (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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;
DRM is so costly, it should be forbidden. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Years back I saw a chip-level presentation on the topic. It wasn't just a matter of decrypting the Blu-ray and reencrypting HDCP. Every content signal that came to a chip I/O was encrypted. The intent was that you wouldn't be able to buy hardware, open it up, hang probes on any chip, and capture "their" content.
Way more encryption hardware than you've suggested, but it's also specialized encryption/decryption engines, not GP processors.
I'm waiting... (Score:3, Insightful)
China. Where's my pass-through video card I can put in my MCPC to overlay text and graphics on my TV? I want to feed my TIVO into my MCPC so I can control my own PIP and overlays. I couldn't care less about pirating the stuff myself. If I want a local copy of something, it's already out in the wild - I'll get it that way. I just want to be able to control my media and view what I want how I want.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
HDCP is dead.
Netcraft confirms it!
Re: (Score:2)
How appropriate, because this code is BSD licensed. Netcraft-dead encryption code on a Netcraft-dead platform - kind of like the advertising blurb of the Betamax HD-DVD converter I've got clipped to my door.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
(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.)
HDMI without HDCP is basically just plain DVI (yes, I know that technically DVI can also carry HDCP). There are DVI to component converters available, and there is at least one device [hauppauge.com] that can record component video to MPEG-4 in realtime.
So, it's not really hard, but it might cost some money.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're using digital cable as the source, why not just use a CableCard tuner?
Re: (Score:2)
Because CableCard tuners don't work with Linux, perhaps?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't have a DVR, but a common complaint about CableCard is that a) many cable companies charge $5/mo for the card (which is as much as it costs to rent some of their DVRs), and B) CableCard is only supported using certain PVR software under windows (encrypted things have to be stored encrypted on disk). I could be wrong, but I think only MS's software supports it.
Though, honestly, with netflix and hulu, I don't see a reason to store gigs and gigs of video like I used to.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
if it was just you, it isn't now
*bana wah wah. wah. wowadah wowa da wah wah*
Re:What would be the issues with a hardware versio (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd love to see a device that generates a new key every time it boots up. The ultimate unblockable device, no matter how many keys get revoked.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.