John Gilmore wrote:
...
PPS: On a consulting job one time, I helped my customer patch out the
license check for some expensive Unix circuit simulation software they
were running. They had bought a faster, newer machine and wanted to
run it there instead of on the machine they'd bought the "node
James Muir wrote:
> Alexander Klimov wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 May 2009, James Muir wrote:
>>
>>> There is some academic work on how to protect crypto in software from
>>> reverse engineering. Look-up "white-box cryptography".
>>>
>>> Disclosure: the company I work for does white-box crypt
On May 29, 2009, at 8:48 AM, Peter Gutmann wrote:
Jerry Leichter writes:
For the most part, software like this aims to keep reasonably honest
people honest. Yes, they can probably hire someone to hack around
the
licensing software. (There's generally not much motivation for J
Random User
Jerry Leichter writes:
>For the most part, software like this aims to keep reasonably honest
>people honest. Yes, they can probably hire someone to hack around the
>licensing software. (There's generally not much motivation for J
>Random User to break this stuff, since it protects busines
2009/5/27 Alexander Klimov mailto:alser...@inbox.ru>>:
> On Tue, 26 May 2009, James Muir wrote:
>> There is some academic work on how to protect crypto in software from
>> reverse engineering. Look-up "white-box cryptography".
>>
>> Disclosure: the company I work for does white-box crypto.
>
> Co
Alexander Klimov wrote:
> On Tue, 26 May 2009, James Muir wrote:
>> There is some academic work on how to protect crypto in software from
>> reverse engineering. Look-up "white-box cryptography".
>>
>> Disclosure: the company I work for does white-box crypto.
>
> Could you explain what is the po
>Their product inserts program code into
> existing applications to make those applications monitor and report
> their own usage and enforce the terms of their own licenses, for
> example disabling themselves if the central database indicates that
> their licensee's subsc
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 10:31 -0400, Roland Dowdeswell wrote:
> I have noticed in my years as a security practitioner, that in my
> experience non-security people seem to assume that a system is
> perfectly secure until it is demonstrated that it is not with an
> example of an exploit. Until an exp
This is getting a bit far afield from cryptography, but proper threat
analysis is still relevant.
On May 27, 2009, at 4:07 AM, Ray Dillinger wrote:
On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 18:49 -0700, John Gilmore wrote:
It's a little hard to help without knowing more about the situation.
I.e. is this a softw
On 1243421494 seconds since the Beginning of the UNIX epoch
"Marcus Brinkmann" wrote:
>
> However, it also sounds like they are shifting the
>burden of proof. Shouldn't they convince "you" (whoever they make the DRM
>for) that their system is working? Have we really reach
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 2:01 AM, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> John Gilmore wrote:
>>
>> It's only the DRM fanatics whose installed bases of customers
>> are mentally locked-in despite the crappy user experience (like
>> the brainwashed hordes of Apple users, or the Microsoft victims)
>> who are troubl
The introduction of the acronym "DRM" has drawn all the hysteria it
always does.
The description you've posted much more closely matches license (or
sometimse entitlement) management software than DRM. There are many
companies active in this field. Many are small, but Microsoft sells
so
On Tue, 26 May 2009, James Muir wrote:
> There is some academic work on how to protect crypto in software from
> reverse engineering. Look-up "white-box cryptography".
>
> Disclosure: the company I work for does white-box crypto.
Could you explain what is the point of "white-box cryptography" (e
Ray Dillinger wrote:
> And it turns out that she is an executive in a small company which is
> now considering the development of a DRM product.
> Does anyone feel that I have said anything untrue?
You should be able to confirm all these details with sources, and it sounded
like a plausible stor
John Gilmore wrote:
It's only the DRM fanatics whose installed bases of customers
are mentally locked-in despite the crappy user experience (like
the brainwashed hordes of Apple users, or the Microsoft victims)
who are troublesome. In such cases, the community should
I assume the Apple referen
On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 18:49 -0700, John Gilmore wrote:
> It's a little hard to help without knowing more about the situation.
> I.e. is this a software company? Hardware? Music? Movies?
> Documents? E-Books?
It's a software company.
> Is it trying to prevent access to something, or
> the c
If you've already explained to them that what they are trying to do is
both impossible and pointless, and they still want your consulting
services, take as much of their money as you can and don't feel bad
about it! Maybe you can get some more people on this list hired, too :)
/ji
--
Ray Dillinger wrote:
> Does anyone feel that I have said anything untrue?
>
> Can anyone point me at good information uses I can use to help prove
> the case to a bunch of skeptics who are considering throwing away
> their hard-earned money on a scheme that, in light of security
> experience, seems
It's a little hard to help without knowing more about the situation.
I.e. is this a software company? Hardware? Music? Movies?
Documents? E-Books? Is it trying to prevent access to something, or
the copying of something? What's the something? What's the threat
model? Why is the company tryi
At a dinner party recently, I found myself discussing the difficulties
of DRM (and software that is intended to implement it) with a rather
intense and inquisitive woman who was very knowledgeable about what
such software is supposed to do, but simultaneously very innocent of
the broad experie
20 matches
Mail list logo
