On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 09:36:13AM -0700, Larry Colen wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:19:43PM +1000, Anthony Farr wrote: > > 2009/7/28 P. J. Alling <[email protected]>: > > > It reminds me of the brand (forgotten which one) which recently > > declared that use of third party batteries would void a camera's > > warranty. Do they have snoop-ware in the firmware that can sniff out > > non-compliant attachments and create a hidden log-file? > > Actually, that's likely how they do it. They probably have a chip in > the battery that will use a key to hash a random number that the > camera sends it. I haven't read up on Alice, Bob et. al. in a while, > but it's pretty straightforward crypto.
That's far, far too complicated. If the camera (or whatever) can detect a third-party battery, there's a much simpler solution; just refuse to do anything. That, IIRC, is what recently caused the stir; some manufacturer stated that third- party batteries would not work in the device. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
