›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

SailSail
edited May 2007 in Technology
Okay, anyone who uses Digg is very familiar with this number by now and it's worth discussing.

Will this be the end of Digg.com?
«1

Comments

  • omegafinalomegafinal
    Let's sing a song about it.
  • HeavyCruiserLostHeavyCruiserLost
    Yay!

    Go teh intarwebs!

    Oh, and 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0, say what?!
  • Josh BytesJosh Bytes
    DRM cracked on HD DVD discs. It's the processing key. According to the internet anyhow. If it's the real deal Rym and Scott should be getting a cease and desist email.
  • SailSail
    edited May 2007
    Here's an idea, move Digg to Tor.
    Post edited by Sail on
  • AndrewAndrew
    Let's sing a song about it.
    Your song is lame. This is a real song.
  • SailSail
    Let's sing a song about it.
    Your song is lame. This is a realsong.
    An advert for cPanel isn't much of a song.
  • SailSail
    Ya know, I really just can't see Digg surviving this. People are going ballistic about this. I understand that Digg is a company, and I really have no problem with them censoring content. It is their site, after all, and they have every right to do so. No one ever said that Digg was a place of free speech.

    If Digg dies, I don't think I'll bat an eyelid. Something new and better will come along and I'll just migrate with the masses.
  • tinytiny
    edited May 2007
    You know, I should really be going to sleep, but it's fun just to watch Digg swarm.

    The stories start getting bigger and bigger, then pop pop pop they all dissapear
    Post edited by Rym on
  • KieyKiey
    edited May 2007
    This won't kill Digg: if anything it will make it better, since all the dumbass people who keep posting this stupid key everywhere on Digg will be gone.

    Yes, we get it! The number is really important and all, now can we just move on? So what if Digg is deleting the stories? It's trying to protect itself from getting it's ass sued. and Considering they don't make much money there, I imagine it would kill the site. And, since everyone seems to know the damn number by now, what does it matter if its on Digg anyway?
    Post edited by Rym on
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Digg should have left the comments up but gotten rid of the link.

    This is a major problem with Digg. Rather than fix things they just delete them.
  • AlexAlex
    edited May 2007
    At least Kevin Rose knows when he can't win. Or, if not 'knows', is able to learn.
    Post edited by Alex on
  • KieyKiey
    I knew it was only a matter of time until Rose said something, but I kind of feel like he shouldn't have buckled to the pressure.
  • AprecheApreche
    Kevin should just be glad he doesn't have stockholders to be accountable to. If he did, then this kind of decision would be the end of him.
  • AlexAlex
    I knew it was only a matter of time until Rose said something, but I kind of feel like he shouldn't have buckled to the pressure.
    This is all guesswork on my part, but I suspect he didn't really have a choice. There were so many stories, comments, etc being submitted by so many users that Digg probably doesn't have the staff to actually police this successfully. And so long as they kept deleting stuff, they were losing popularity with users, getting bad press, and getting more submissions that contained the number in question.

    "Giving in" will probably ensure that this leaves Digg faster than any other method would have, because they've removed the incentive for users to keep talking about it.
  • PilitusPilitus
    These numbers have been posted at RIT upon the SAU. I may upload a picture later, if another RIT denizen doesn't do it first.
  • JasonJason
    I just tried to explain this issue to my boss, and now she is trying to convince me to write a weekly column about Internet culture. I tried to tell her that it's a stupid idea -- that anyone who would understand the content would already know about it, and is logging on to read thousands of blogs and such about it. *Sigh* I say we round up all these non-techies like my boss and have them shaved, sterilized, and destroyed.

    This is the same woman, by the way, who couldn't get her e-mail to work because it was minimized to the task bar.
  • AndrewAndrew
    This is the same woman, by the way, who couldn't get her e-mail to work because it was minimized to the task bar.
    That is all I need to hear. Hey, why don't you try to incorporate the code secretly into the article. Like making the first letter of each sentence corresponded with a digit/letter in the code.
  • AprecheApreche
    I don't see why you shouldn't write an article. You write something that will help normal people to understand what we geeks are up to. Also, including the code in the column would be awesome.
  • PilitusPilitus
    I agree Jason. There's still room for someone to write about this culture in a way that explains it to the outside world. Consider yourself to be Jane Goodall living among the beasts, reporting back to the rest of humanity about the strange culture and habits.
  • JasonJason
    This is incredibly difficult -- even more so than I would have ever thought. Pilitus' description is sadly all-too accurate. Gorillas in the fucking Mist indeed. I already have to write most articles on a fifth-grade level (public schools work!), and 1337 is written on a graduate level. I'm taking a stab at it. We'll see if the higher-ups think it will work.
  • ThaedThaed
    This is incredibly difficult -- even more so than I would have ever thought. Pilitus' description is sadly all-too accurate. Gorillas in the fucking Mist indeed. I already have to write most articles on a fifth-grade level (public schools work!), and 1337 is written on a graduate level. I'm taking a stab at it. We'll see if the higher-ups think it will work.
    I think that's teh awesome. I'll have to find your paper somewhere around here and read it.
  • AndrewAndrew
    Post your draft on here so we can read it.
  • trogdor9trogdor9
    edited May 2007
     
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    /win
    Post edited by trogdor9 on
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    Id say that probably the biggest problem by the original cock up is that now people have an approximate method and know they are looking for a key with those characteristics. One thing I dont get is how can data be decrypted by several different keys?

    Also, this is a song
  • PilitusPilitus
    Jason, as far as Gorillas in the Mist goes, I tried to give a very similar explanation of this a few weels ago.
  • NeitoNeito
    Id say that probably the biggest problem by the original cock up is that now people have an approximate method and know they are looking for a key with those characteristics. One thing I dont get is how can data be decrypted by several different keys?

    Also,this is a song
    I believe that they're encrypting the new discs with the new key, and that the old key is useless for new discs.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    I wonder how time consuming it would be for a simple program to try and brute force keys?
  • AprecheApreche
    I wonder how time consuming it would be for a simple program to try and brute force keys?I will tell you the answer, and I don't even need to look it up on Wikipedia.
    Here is an example key I pasted from above.
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    Each hex digit is four bits. 0 is 0000 and F is 1111. Two hex digits is 8 bits (one byte), that's why they are separated into pairs. There are 16 pairs. 16  bytes times 8 bits means this is a 128 bit key. That means there are 2 to the 128th power possible keys. That's 340282366920938463463374607431768211456 keys you have to brute force. Give up on any sort of brute force idea. Brute force is a method that can only break the weakest of all security. Even the simplest security measures completely eliminate the possibility of brute force being effective.
    The reason that DRM keeps getting broken is not because the encryption is weak. The problem is inherent in the idea of DRM itself. You give someone something locked in a box. You want them to be able to open the box, but you want to have control over when the box is opened or not. You can't be there personally to open and close the box every time, so you have to give them the key. However, you don't want them to realize they have the key, so you hide the key in such a way that it is only used at times when you want it to be used. No matter how strong the lock or complicated the key, this fundamental flaw in the idea of DRM will always be there. You have to give the people the key at some point, and someone will eventually find that point and take it.
    Even if you changed the fundamental design of DRM systems, there is still another flaw. At some point along the way, people will have access to the unencrypted content. If you let me listen to it, I can put a microphone there. If you let me watch it, I can use a video camera. This is what we call the analog hole. Some proponents of DRM are satisfied if the only hole is the analog hole, because the quality of your copy will not be digitally perfect. However, in most cases there is still a digital hole. There will continue to be digital holes for years to come. However, we simply don't worry about exploiting them because finding encryption keys is easier and more convenient. Don't think the DRM people don't know about digital holes, though. HDMI only exists because it plugs the digital hole between the video device and the display.
  • NeitoNeito
    edited June 2007
    I wonder how time consuming it would be for a simple program to try and brute force keys?
    32 bit key, 16 possible solutions for each position...
    so,
    32^16 = 1.20892582 × 10^24 (if i did this wrong, feel free to tell me that i'm a moron. It's been a while since i've done permutations.)
    For comparison:
    one year = 31 556 926 seconds

    EDIT: Beat me too it, and did it better, with the right math, from what i can tell. However...

    If you let me listen to it, I can put a microphone there. If you let me watch it, I can use a video camera. This is what we call the analog hole.
    They actually want to include some sort of watermarking in the DVDs that will prevent you from pointing a video camera at it. Although nothing's to prevent you from just using your current video camera, if all goes "as planned", then the software inside a video camera will refuse to record if this watermark is being shown. If i remember correctly, it's a pattern based on the brightness of a frame. Though from what i can tell, you could still take a picture of each frame, then get the audio sorted out.
    Post edited by Neito on
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    I'm not talking about cracking the software key. You can do that by having a software decoder that licenses the key.

    I'm talking about cracking the hardware key that physical players use. If you crack one of those keys you have pretty much fucked the entire industry. How do you change a hardware key? You can't!

    What are you going to do, tell 10,000+ people who purchased a player that they can't watch new movies?
Sign In or Register to comment.