News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have tw... by kelnos on Saturday July 08, 2017 @01:26AM (#14724215)
I think the parent's point is that it's absolutely feasible to build hardware and software that successfully enforces a DRM scheme, and also release the specs for the hardware and the source of the software.

That doesn't mean that a content producer will verify any old (modified) version of the software and allow it to play (and possibly "leak") their content.

Put another way: it's possible to build a secure DRM pipeline and then release all the source to it while maintaining the security of _that particular version_ of the pipeline. It's perfectly possible (cryptographically) to set it up so an unmodified version of that pipeline will be able to play protected content, while modifying it to (for example) dump decrypted bits to disk will cause the content to fail to play at all.

Re:Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have tw... by chii on Saturday July 08, 2017 @02:52AM (#14724453)
but what part of the pipeline is responsible for the verification of the 'unmodified' trait?

If it's a part that's open-sourced (hardware or software), then won't it simply be _modified_ to allow it to pass and allow extraction of decrypted content?

If it's _not_ open-source, then you don't have a fully open-source DRM scheme.

Re:Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have tw... by ngneer on Saturday July 08, 2017 @11:39AM (#14725758)
open source does not imply modifiable
Re:Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have tw... by vurpo on Sunday July 09, 2017 @11:01AM (#14730015)
From the Open Source Definition:

> 3. Derived Works

> The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

Re:Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have tw... by ngneer on Saturday July 08, 2017 @11:40AM (#14725759)
yes, that was my point