On-line Opinion Magazine…OK, it's a blog
Random header image... Refresh for more!

Don’t Post This?

This series of hexidecimal numbers should not posted according to some people:

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

So, why are they there?

See rootkit to understand why.

The creator of that sequence has authorized its publication.

8 comments

1 Steve Bates { 05.02.07 at 9:10 pm }

OK, Bryan, you’ve out-geeked me on this one. I know vaguely about rootkits, and the wiki filled in my general understanding of how they hide themselves, but I have no idea about that sequence, and you’ll forgive me if I’m too much of a coward to google it. I’m sure I’m not the only ignorant one out here; enlighten us, please.

2 Bryan { 05.02.07 at 9:45 pm }

That is the code needed to unlock one of the encryption methods used on DVDs that makes the DVD you just bought unusable in your DVD player. This is just another copyright protection scheme that doesn’t work as planned because it was apparently designed to only accommodate people who use DVD players set for specific regions, rather than non-specific players that are used on computers.

You actually need a lot more information for this to be useful, but this is what the “industry” has been complaining about at Digg. They apparently are too stupid to understand that the relatively small number of people to whom this would be useful, can derive it themselves.

Elayne has it up, as does Cannablog.

If they would create a workable system, no one would care. There were systems back in the bad old days that didn’t screw things up, and worked, while protecting copyrights. It can be done, but the “industry” doesn’t want to spend the money to do it right.

3 Alice { 05.02.07 at 10:32 pm }

damn .. and here I thought it was the code to unlock the universe, not my HD-DVD.

4 Bryan { 05.02.07 at 10:54 pm }

If the idiots in the industry had left it alone, it would have faded with the piano playing cat.

5 Michael { 05.02.07 at 11:04 pm }

If I may indulge myself in an off-topic rant here, another thing I’d love “the industry” to stop doing is (a) putting trailers on DVDs (if I wanted to sit through 10 minutes of advertisements for other movies put out by the same or related companies, I wouldn’t be sitting in my recliner at home with my feet up) and (b) trying to outdo themselves (and each other) with the fancy-schmancy menu-cum-video-game-esque thingies at the start. All I want or need out of a menu at the start of a DVD is a list of my options. I don’t need fancy graphics, “cool” wording, branding, or special music.

Then again, I’m thinking of a DVD primarily as a media device for delivering content that I’ve bought and paid for. That was my first mistake; I’m sure to the studios and marketing companies, it’s all about making sure they maximize their profits and minimize my ability to do anything with their product of which they don’t approve.

6 The CultureGhost { 05.02.07 at 11:08 pm }
7 Steve Bates { 05.02.07 at 11:37 pm }

Thanks, Bryan.

I broke my first and only copy protection scheme back in the days of the IBM AT, used the results to do something that was legitimate under the software license as I read it, and immediately lost interest in hacking of all sorts. I didn’t really break the scheme; I found a blind spot in it. Ho-hum.

I no longer buy media with burdensome DRM schemes. I play DVDs only in a DVD player and CDs only in a CD player, never, ever in my computers. Some online vendors of music have begun to realize the folly of DRM; they have begun to understand that most of us would much rather pay 30 cents more for a song that we can use pretty much anywhere, as copyright laws allowed us to do for decades before the RIAA co-opted Fritz Hollings, than put up with media-specific crap while supporting people who sue the socks off of college students. Reasonable people can support the notion of copyright without tolerating the unreasonable behavior of the content industry.

8 Bryan { 05.03.07 at 12:27 am }

It isn’t really OT, Michael, as this is really about arrogance. I remember when car dealers would drill holes in the trunk lids of new cars to install their advertising. I remember it because my Mother refused to take delivery of a car she ordered when they did it after she had specifically told them not to, and had those instructions written on the order. You don’t buy something to read or watch advertising.

That’s a hoot, CG, and the note in comments is correct – this is more about censorship by intimidation, than copy protection.

With the IBM-XT and the AT you almost always had to remove the copy protection schemes to get the software to work, as most of the “name” programs weren’t designed to work from a hard drive, much less a network.

If you want to sell to consumers, it has to be transparent. End users don’t want to screw around, they want to drop it in the drawer and have it work.