Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection

[keyboard]

Interesting information about Windows Vista

A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection

Peter Gutmann, pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz

Last updated 23 December 2006

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt

[Spooky]

This same thing was posted over at NeoWin, and I posted the same responses at My Response #1 and at My Response #2

After reading that whole thing, and it was interesting too, its not true. The clue is in the section "Denial-of-Service via Driver Revocation" where he specifically states;

"Once a weakness is found in a particular driver or device, that driver will have its signature revoked by Microsoft, which means that it will cease to function (details on this are a bit vague here, presumably some minimum functionality like generic 640x480 VGA support will still be available in order for the system to boot). ....... but I've heard mention of multimillion dollar fines and embargoes on further shipment of devices alongside the driver revocation mentioned above."

This is not true and is not based upon any scientific testing or fact what so ever. The author also tries to qualify this, by adding a standard 'give the benefit of the doubt' statement of '...details are sketchy...' and '...details on this are a bit vague here...' and then tries to raise apprehension levels to re-enforce belief by adding a standard dooms day sceinario that appeals to the personal context by stating "...but I've heard mention of multimillion dollar fines and embargoes on further shipment of devices alongside the driver revocation mentioned above....". The author also ignores the fact that un-signed drivers can be used in Vista also (yes they can, i know it for a fact cause i'm using some un-signed drivers) and devices continue to function just fine if the driver is written correctly, heck, one can even produce unsigned drivers for Vista by using the new SDK (and WDDK) from MS.

The author indicated statements by ATI and others that may be taken totally out of context to re-enforce the authors views and attempt to add credibility to the writing. By including these statements by reputable companies the author implies that what is in the article is true and implies a certain personal relationship with, and insider information from, these companies.

This article does not offer one piece of verifiable proof. The author doesn't tell you several very important facts simply because they are not in line with the thrust of what he would have you believe and would undermine the credibility of his article and so called 'scientific' research. While there are some very small grains of truth in the article, these grains of truth have nothing to do with what the article is trying to say, these grains of truth mostly consist of something along the lines of 'DRM exists' well...Duh! of course it does, but these grains of truth establish a trust bond belief in what the author is saying is true. However, what makes this article totally BS is the author has played to a persons natural inclination to believe something that can personally affect them and forgotten that what he oulines is down-right illegal (disabling parts of your system and violating your legal rights to ownership). Unless our systems of laws is now decided by MS and other companies then what the article offers as proof is total BS.

This whole article is carefully crafted to portray authoritative truth by simply taking advantage of human nature's natural inclination to believe by stating grains of truth then adding in authority and half truths to re-enforce that this is a scientifically auhtoritative research and thus must be the truth. Mary Poppins did the same thing with 'A spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down', sugar is sweet and palatable so it must be true that the medicine will go down eaisier. The same trick is used here, the appeal to human nature that "well, this one part is true so the rest must be true also because its from an authoritative source". Its the same trick used by snake oil salesmen for centuries.

I am not trying to defend Vista or MS, and I don't like the DRM thing myself, its just that when the BS meter reaches 100 its time to point out the fact that it is BS, especially when so many read this stuff and want to believe it.

The point i'm making is that if anything is going to be done, it isn't going to be done because someone said so, its going to be done when the problem is defined, documented, and then proven, in a scientifically objective and credible manner. This article doesn't do any of that and only adds to the confusion and hype and plays upon the emotions of others, it actually decreases the effectivness of any effort to resolve the effect that DRM has on our rights and freedoms.

Spreading pseudo-scientific/authoritative articles like this only serve to damage and not support any serious work being done. I'm all for free speech and the freedom of expression and opinion but when articles of this nature appear, and are accepted, as authoritative when they aren't it undermines the legitimate work being done to protect our digital rights and freedoms.

None of the MS references used by the article do anything the article tends to portray as a dooms day sceinario of total violation of our legal rights, instead the MS references only point out that preminum content can still be used if one is legitimately licensed for it which we all already know. The MS articles simply support a way of accomodating premium content for use.

I request that a moderator close this thread before this spins out of control and that MSFN take no part in assisting in spreading this.

Edited December 25, 2006 by Spooky

[LLXX]

Actually, the author isn't some random person.

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/

But I'll say this again as I've said it many times...

Anything they come up with, there will always be a way around it.

[Spooky]

yes, I know who he is.

Actually, the author isn't some random person.

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/

But I'll say this again as I've said it many times...

Anything they come up with, there will always be a way around it.

[fizban2]

i wouldn't call this a cost analysis of vista at all, at most this covers one specific point that the auther has a large amount of expertise in (at least it is assumed he does) his point shed a little light on things that might cause issues. he gives no proven facts or actual trial data. i'll leave the link up for right now as it is a good read. His one statement about audio signals i have run across before, where my MP3s that are DRM'd witth fade in and out though a MP3. though i account the beta drivers of Creative to this issue more then the DRM. till i can rule out driver issues i can't comment further. In my mind his paper is more hypothetical then anything else.