[6646] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Copy protection proposed for digital displays
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Honig)
Wed Feb 23 11:06:54 2000
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000223070920.007a9430@pop.sprynet.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 07:09:20 -0800
To: Ian Farquhar <Ian.Farquhar@Aus.Sun.COM>, Ian.Farquhar@Aus.Sun.COM,
cryptography@c2.net, eugene.leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de,
kelsey.j@ix.netcom.com
From: David Honig <honig@sprynet.com>
Cc: Ian.Farquhar@Aus.Sun.COM
In-Reply-To: <200002230647.RAA20946@tolstoy.Aus.Sun.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 05:46 PM 2/23/00 +1100, Ian Farquhar wrote:
>Of course, there are also ways manufacturers could try to counter
>this. Constructing tamper-resistant cases for monitors is one
>way. Indeed, I'll suggest to everyone here that tamper
>resistant enclosures (everything from "mousetraps" to FIPS-140
>style boxes) are going to become much more common in consumer
>electronics.
When the decryption unit is in the same package as
the video DACs, the game will be much much harder.
Its not been done yet, but it will.
>Ultimately, this will come down to being a tradeoff between
>investment and return. Who's Intel targeting? I'd suggest
Well, directly they're targeting folks like
http://www.opencable.com/public_docs.html
who are the actual purchasers of chips in mass
quantities.
>they're targeting casual copiers and underfunded bootleg
>operators. Against them, this may be viable. Against even a
>moderately well funded piracy operation, forget it.
"They have logic analyzers in hong kong"
