Punkbuster / DRM / copy protection as Open Source?

This is a discussion on Punkbuster / DRM / copy protection as Open Source? within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; For example TrueCrypt and GnuPG are Open Source and not broken yet. The other exampels are Punkbuster / Digital Rights ...

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    88

    Punkbuster / DRM / copy protection as Open Source?

    For example TrueCrypt and GnuPG are Open Source and not broken yet.

    The other exampels are Punkbuster / Digital Rights Management or any copy protection. All those examples are based uppon Closed Source and closed protocols. Also Security by Obscurity / Security by Obsfucation. Next commonness, most of them got tricked already.

    Isn`t it possible to make those kinds of programs also professional, Open Source and uncrackable at least for a long while?

  2. #2
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,456
    What makes you think TrueCrypt and GnuPG haven't been broken already?
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    88
    Maybe someone has and isn`t telling us, but this is always theoretically possible and not constructive to think so. At least there is no public tool which *anyone* can easy download and click "crack".

    Example: you encrypt and usb stick with truecrypt, reading the manual before and using a strong password. If the usb stick gets stolen the only attack is bruteforce and it takes to long.

    Other ways are only workarrounds (using violence or hardware keylogger) but not fault of truecrypt. That`s what I mean with has not broken yet.

  4. #4
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,456
    All of the algorithms used in TrueCrypt belong to the public domain (I know at least Rijndael does). Meanwhile, libraries like Crypto, for instance, implement a number of AES algorithms.

    I'm not sure what your question is. You identified a couple of free and open source software that handles AES. Yet, your questions seems to be why there aren't any.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  5. #5
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    AES is insecure as I have stated before, it just isnt feasable for the average small country to crack it.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  6. #6
    Crazy Fool Perspective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,640
    >I'm not sure what your question is

    I think the question stems from the observation that current open standards remain in-tact, while some closed ones are broken. So why use closed encryption techniques?

    The academic world definately agrees with this line of thinking, the more scrutiny a cryptographic alogrithm is put through the better its chances of being secure.

  7. #7
    Crazy Fool Perspective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,640
    Quote Originally Posted by abachler View Post
    AES is insecure as I have stated before, it just isnt feasable for the average small country to crack it.
    It's cryptographically secure. That means that it can't be broken by an adversary with bounded computational power. The bound is usually the inability to solve some computationally difficult problem, like reversing a cryptographic hash.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by abachler View Post
    AES is insecure as I have stated before, it just isnt feasable for the average small country to crack it.
    Like you have stated before? When? Where?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    I'm not sure what your question is. You identified a couple of free and open source software that handles AES. Yet, your questions seems to be why there aren't any.
    My question was if Punkbuster / DRM / copy protection could be implemented as Open Source + if them could be uncrackable. Break 2 and 3 in my first posting.

  9. #9
    Internet Superhero
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    964
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    What makes you think TrueCrypt and GnuPG haven't been broken already?
    What makes you think they have? Innocent until proven otherwise right?
    How I need a drink, alcoholic in nature, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics.

  10. #10
    Deathray Engineer MacGyver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    3,211
    Punkbuster isn't an encryption program. You're missing the entire purpose of it.

    Programs like TrueCrypt and GnuPG are working in the interests of the user. In the case of PB, if the player is cheating, PB is working against the interest of the user. In this case, in the theoretical, PB always loses. Practically, this isn't necessarily the case.

    So because PB is "on site" (ie. on the computer) as far as an attacker is concered, it's easy to attack. Same with TrueCrypt, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueCry...ted_Weaknesses. Someone wanting to get through TrueCrypt could do it if they have access to the machine, but that's true for pretty much almost anything.

    But again, you're comparing two totally different things. An open source version of PB would suck worse than the closed one does now. Anticheating needs to be done via different methods than what is currently being employed.

  11. #11
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,456
    Quote Originally Posted by Neo1 View Post
    What makes you think they have? Innocent until proven otherwise right?
    Well McGyver beat me to it.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  12. #12
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,456
    Quote Originally Posted by Perspective View Post
    I think the question stems from the observation that current open standards remain in-tact, while some closed ones are broken. So why use closed encryption techniques?
    Gotcha.
    There's an unfortunate tendency on some commercial circles to believe that secrecy produces security, when it is in fact the other way around.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  13. #13
    Captain Crash brewbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,239
    Quote Originally Posted by abachler View Post
    AES is insecure as I have stated before, it just isnt feasable for the average small country to crack it.
    Please point me to this mythical non-brute-force method of cracking AES.

  14. #14
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Fast factoring
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  15. #15
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,456
    No, no no!
    Fast factoring has not even been discovered yet.

    AES is cryptographically secure. The problem with AES (and that of many other excellent algorithms) is the way it is implemented. That is, the wrapper application that leaves backdoors or leaks information.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. How to add copy protection to a software?
    By h3ro in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 09-07-2008, 07:09 PM
  2. propogation of open source
    By abachler in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-28-2007, 09:03 AM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-15-2002, 05:00 PM
  4. OpenGL Open Source
    By gnu-ehacks in forum Game Programming
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-28-2001, 11:50 PM
  5. Ghost in the CD Drive
    By Natase in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 10-12-2001, 05:38 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21