Two questions

On 2015-09-22 22:42:11 +0000, PeterN said:

On 9/22/2015 9:57 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-09-21 20:15, nospam wrote:

apple is anti-drm and fought the record companies to have drm-free
music.

They certainly are hard core DRM where video is concerned.



Also their propitiatory code.

Is that some weird gland?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , PeterN
wrote:

apple is anti-drm and fought the record companies to have drm-free
music.

They certainly are hard core DRM where video is concerned.

only because it's forced upon them. they'd rather not and were able to
not do that with music.


Again inside information is stated as fact. You must really know what
goes on inside that boardroom.

it's not inside information. apple has stated it publicly.

Psst! Have I got a proposition for you.

i'm sure you do.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

But he's correct. Over concern over excessive SSD writes is only a
concern for some (not all) server farms that use flash based SSD.

It needs to be considered - in my case with a data turnover of well over
100 GB per day (weather satellite data), putting all that onto an SSD
may not be the wisest choice!

first of all, that's well beyond a normal use case scenario.

second of all, it still does not matter all that much.

a recent endurance test showed that some ssds can last into the
petabyte range of writes.

Which ones?

techreport conducted an endurance test, with periodic reports. here's
the final analysis:
http://techreport.com/review/27909/t...riment-theyre-
all-dead
Today, that story draws to a close with the final chapter in the SSD
Endurance Experiment. The last two survivors met their doom on the
road to 2.5PB, joining four fallen comrades who expired earlier. It's
time to honor the dead and reflect on what we've learned from all the
carnage.

2tb at a rate of 100gig/day (which is what the other poster claimed was
needed) is over 50 years.

even if a given ssd only lasted for 1/10th that, it'd still be over 5
years, which is more than would be expected from a hard drive in the
same conditions. the computer itself would probably be replaced in that
time, maybe sooner because something *else* failed.

in other words, non-issue.

The high end ones that you denied were longer lasting?

that particular test was about hard drives, not ssds.

do try to keep up, or you'll look stupider than you already do.

Old saying: When you tell the truth you don't have to remember what you
said.

new saying: you're a stupid ****.

| I decided to pay somebody to do just that. He also feels that If I add a
| hybrid HDD, my current machine will run just fine, as my current CPU,
| (an i5, quad 4, ) is fine. He said that there would not be an
| appreciable speed gain from the bus on a new machine. Total cost of the
| upgrade would be about $80 for the HDD, and he would charge me under
| $100 to install it and transfer my programs. I have not picked a new
| graphics card, as my current one will handle the resolution of my new
| monitor, but is not 4k, and I don't think I really need 4K for my
| current work.
|

That sounds like a good plan. And you can
keep the old drive for backup.

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 09:56:49 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2015-09-21 23:47, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 20:15:45 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

what matters is if the passphrase is complex. the more complex the
better.

All of which comes to naught if side-channel analysis enables you to
see the encryption engine at work.

no need to see it, since the encryption algorithm is usually public
knowledge.

what isn't public knowledge is the encryption key used to encrypt.

That's the whole point. If you know the principles of how the
encryption engine works and you can 'watch' the details of what it is
doing you can eventually work out the key which it is actually working
on. This is much easier than trying to force a solution.

Uh ... just download the encryption specification. While it's not at
all trivial, it's far easier than divining it from watching operations
on data.

So the specification includes the particular key?

Over the last 10 years there has been great academic interest in
side-channel attacks and the theoretical principles which underly
them. That's why it's increasingly important to use hardware which
gives no hint of what is going on inside it. That's why, some time ago
in the distant past, I said that a SCSA/Vidity device is likely to
require the use of a secure chipset.

It could indeed. OTOH, existing / working side channel attacks still
require an evil maid.

Not all of them.

If the proposed Vividity scheme requires a tamper proof h/w device then
you can be sure that dedicated pirates will still recover the decoded
signal further downstream. There is always a way because defenses never
stand the offense test of time.

If it comes to the point that the final display (a television) requires
a Vividity device then you can be sure the attack on the device will
ramp up.

Sure.

See http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/UN65JS9000FXZA for example.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 09:47:02 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2015-09-21 20:08, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:19:12 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2015-09-21 18:47, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 08:54:23 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

--- snip ---

Unfortunately they require Evil Maid physical access to the device(s).
Not really the NSA's cup of tea which is generally intercept, record,
process (now or in the future).

Side channel attacks most definitely require access to the device.

Actually thinking about this, this is not correct. Some attacks are
possible from a distance e.g. electromagnetic radiation, power
consumption, sound, which methods all work at different distances.

The amount of distance is so small as to constitute access to the
device. All you're quibble is about is defeating air gap defenses.

What made me write the post to which you have replied was the
recollection of Paul Kocher extracting information from something or
other in the next room. It needn't be close contact at all.

I never said it had to be in the same room. It needs to be close. The
further away, the signal (of whatever kind) drops as a square of the
distance.

Evil maid attacks occur in 2 phases. The evil actor physically accesses
the device and compromises it. Then the computer is accessed remotely.

Airgaped attacks are the domain of theoretical white hat research and
I've yet to hear of a practical and successful attack of any real impact
"in the wild". Some "working" airgap attacks still depend on a priori
Evil Maid attack.

All that's true but especially where there are large sums at stake,
the black hats will try the easiest way even if it's hard. Nothing is
perfect.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 04:17:39 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-09-22 08:12:37 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 00:33:38 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article 2015092121164375055-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

wrote:apple is anti-drm and fought the record companies to have drm-free
music.

Videos nospam - videos.

I suggest you take a look at the iTunes store and Apple TV for the
catalog of movies, videos, and other shows available, for rental,
purchase, subscription and streaming. I have a feeling that Apple
isn't going to have too much of a problem getting content, music, or
video for their purposes.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_318.jpg

of course apple won't have trouble getting content.

Netflix is beginning to encounter problems.

Because there is competition in the game with Amazon Prime and all the
others eyeing those massive war chests.

I'm talking about getting content. The studios are starting to flex
their muscles.


as i said the other day, vidity need apple more than apple needs vidity.

Is Apple a Vidity customer? Have you thought there may be no
commercial relationship?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 10:02:19 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2015-09-22 04:12, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 00:33:38 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article 2015092121164375055-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

wrote:apple is anti-drm and fought the record companies to have drm-free
music.

Videos nospam - videos.

I suggest you take a look at the iTunes store and Apple TV for the
catalog of movies, videos, and other shows available, for rental,
purchase, subscription and streaming. I have a feeling that Apple
isn't going to have too much of a problem getting content, music, or
video for their purposes.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_318.jpg

of course apple won't have trouble getting content.

Netflix is beginning to encounter problems.

Link please.

http://tinyurl.com/odauk62 "Netflix just ditched a big contract" is
another way of saying 'Epix was demanding too much ... "

This is not the only example.


as i said the other day, vidity need apple more than apple needs vidity.

Is Apple a Vidity customer? Have you thought there may be no
commercial relationship?

Link please. The other day you posted a list of Vividity victims, er,
clients. I didn't see Apple in there.

It was a list of founder members. Not victims/clients.

Note that the new Apple TV just came out. Nothing about a 3rd party
security module or s/w in there.

And I don't believe there is one. It will be interesting to see what
happens in the next year or so.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 12:52:06 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

as i said the other day, vidity need apple more than apple needs vidity.

Is Apple a Vidity customer? Have you thought there may be no
commercial relationship?

you said that apple would have to incorporate vidity in future macs,
which would make them a customer.

No I didn't. Go find a quote if you are sure you are right.

apple has enough clout and existing relationships with the movie and
music industry that they can easily say **** off to vidity.

none of this matters anyway. it's just a bull**** diversion. it stemmed
from the statement that apple might transition to arm-based chips for
some macs at some point in the future. whether they do that or not has
absolutely nothing to do with vidity whatso****ingever.

You absolutely know that, do you?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 09:59:48 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2015-09-22 00:16, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-09-22 04:01:12 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 20:15:46 -0400, nospam
wrote:apple is anti-drm and fought the record companies to have drm-free
music.

Videos nospam - videos.

I suggest you take a look at the iTunes store and Apple TV for the
catalog of movies, videos, and other shows available, for rental,
purchase, subscription and streaming. I have a feeling that Apple isn't
going to have too much of a problem getting content, music, or video for
their purposes.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_318.jpg

That isn't the point of contention. It is about evolving (per Eric) DRM
requirements and whether Apple will follow Vividity or not. (IMO they
will ignore it completely and continue to do their own thing. And the
video distributors will be stupid to ignore them whether or not they
follow Vividity).

That's quite a strong possibility.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens