Vista's DRM cracked!

Quinton McLeod

Senior member
Jan 17, 2006
375
0
0
Link: http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=24

Well, that's interesting. One person claims to have already cracked the DRM in Vista... Well, I'd say by-passed.

When are these corporations going to realize? DRM will not stop piracy! BlueRay CRACKED! HDDVD CRACKED! Now Vista CRACKED! And it got cracked relatively quickly and easily. Now the common consumer pays a premium for their computers to get locked by DRM. These same people are the ones that BUY their stuff. Meanwhile, the money they claim they're losing on pirates goes even further down the drain while pirates continue to by-pass their protection schemes. In the end, WE THE CONSUMERS lose!
 

Chocolate Pi

Senior member
Jan 11, 2005
245
0
0
Since when does Vista have DRM? Vista nerely supports DRM, which is something implemented on MEDIA FILES to restrict content. Vista only supplies a secured path so that content does not shut itself out completely...

And this guy is only talking about getting past the requirement for signed driver... not bypassing some DRM that doesn't exist...
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,283
134
106
Nothing is Unbreakable, just a matter of time. I agree with you though, DRM is a bad idea that is all about milking the most money out of the consumer. I think that the big corporations know this as well, since the bigging of software protection and anti-piracy cracks have been released in extremely short time spans compared to when a product is released. And it is not like the design team does not know this and are thinking "Hum, maybe we will make the unbreakable this time". Not that they are trying to make it easy, on the contrary they make it hard. However it is not for the pirate that they make it hard, but the average Joe consumer. The truly sad thing is they have passed it off to the federal courts as "We want to stop piracy so thats why we are using this protection" When they know full well that what they are doing will not stop piracy, only boost revenue.

Something that is scary as well, is when more protection schemes fail, they will probably through something like this out there "Well, software protection will not work, so now we have no choice but to make all protection go through the hardware without software interaction" Then is the day we will see our computer usability drop to, surfing the internet and playing games. Then is also the time we will see media prices take a hike upwards, because really the only thing that keeps media prices semi low is the fact that they don't want people to say "Screw that, Im just going to download it off the internet"

Anyways, while the crack is good, the sad thing is a vicious cycle is beginning to form that will only end in us loosing more media rights and getting screwed even further on things we have to buy.
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,283
134
106
Originally posted by: Chocolate Pi
Since when does Vista have DRM? Vista nerely supports DRM, which is something implemented on MEDIA FILES to restrict content. Vista only supplies a secured path so that content does not shut itself out completely...

And this guy is only talking about getting past the requirement for signed driver... not bypassing some DRM that doesn't exist...

Sorry, but your wrong about this, Vista does preform a DRM check (which the guy states in his article) through some sort of driver check as far as I can tell.
 

wanderer27

Platinum Member
Aug 6, 2005
2,173
15
81
Actually, some guy cracked/by-passed it about a week or so ago.

Must have had a Corporate Edition/account or something.

 

drag

Elite Member
Jul 4, 2002
8,708
0
0
Since when does Vista have DRM? Vista nerely supports DRM, which is something implemented on MEDIA FILES to restrict content. Vista only supplies a secured path so that content does not shut itself out completely...

secured path == the DRM.

And this guy is only talking about getting past the requirement for signed driver... not bypassing some DRM that doesn't exist...

The signed driver is nessicary for DRM to work.

Software running on the operating system is dependent on that operating system to work correctly. The operating system is utterly dependant on the OS kernel to function properly.

If you are able to control the OS kernel then any sort of software-based DRM can easily (relatively) be subverted.

For example if you write a virtual video card driver then play DRM media on that OS then you can have that video card driver output everything to a file. In that file it will have a full quality digital copy of whatever video was playing on it.

64bit Vista attempts to solve this problem by only allowing signed drivers into the kernel. Presumably nobody will be able to sign a driver that will subvert DRM/protected path like that. By controlling what drivers signed then they can prevent all sorts of stuff.

However your still dependant on the kernel to detect signed drivers.

If you can get a malicious driver into the kernel then it becomes a simple thing to flip a few bits in memory so that the kernel automaticly thinks that ALL drivers are signed. Once you get into kernel memory space you can make the kernel do anything you want. Thus you can run your virtual video card and virtual audio card to capture perfect digital copies of the DRM'd media.


In reality the DRM you play on files is as dependant on the software and hardware your using as the operating system your playing them on. Without Microsoft's cooperation then DRM on Windows would be impossible.

So, hence, Vista's drm has been cracked.

This is a good thing and a bad thing. It helps to show that DRM is a waste of effort.. but it also pretty much destroys the majority of true security benifits of having signed drivers. Presumably Microsoft will not allow rootkits drivers to be signed (although they will probably allow it if your a big enough company.. like Starforce, makers of DRM for video games) Now rootkit makers just have to figure a excuse for you to reboot.

That is, of course, if this guy isn't full of ******.
 

stash

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2000
5,468
0
0
I'm not sure I fully understand how he accomplishes this, but to me it sounds like he isn't doing anything you can't already do with respect to bypassing PatchGuard. His method requires a reboot, which (by his own admission) can be accomplished by setting a boot flag.

I guess the difference is that he can make the system think that there isn't an unsigned driver? Seems to me that you could do that with the boot flag as well.
 

drag

Elite Member
Jul 4, 2002
8,708
0
0
Ya he is very light on the details.

The whole point of it, it seems, is that he has simply gotten his own code running in the kernel without it being signed. That's it.

He hasn't done anything with it to actually violate the protected media path, but if you can get your own code running in a kernel then your just a few steps away from having the kernel load up your own unsigned drivers while the kernel thinks they are signed and tells any sort of software that it has a protected media path, when it realy doesn't.

In other words all he has claimed to have done is violated the integrity of Microsoft's signed driver sceme.
 

Quinton McLeod

Senior member
Jan 17, 2006
375
0
0
Originally posted by: drag
Ya he is very light on the details.

The whole point of it, it seems, is that he has simply gotten his own code running in the kernel without it being signed. That's it.

He hasn't done anything with it to actually violate the protected media path, but if you can get your own code running in a kernel then your just a few steps away from having the kernel load up your own unsigned drivers while the kernel thinks they are signed and tells any sort of software that it has a protected media path, when it realy doesn't.

In other words all he has claimed to have done is violated the integrity of Microsoft's signed driver sceme.

But that's a big deal. Once you get passed the signed driver scheme, you can by-pass DRM. Thus DRM has been cracked.
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Originally posted by: drag
Ya he is very light on the details.

The whole point of it, it seems, is that he has simply gotten his own code running in the kernel without it being signed. That's it.

He hasn't done anything with it to actually violate the protected media path, but if you can get your own code running in a kernel then your just a few steps away from having the kernel load up your own unsigned drivers while the kernel thinks they are signed and tells any sort of software that it has a protected media path, when it realy doesn't.

In other words all he has claimed to have done is violated the integrity of Microsoft's signed driver sceme.

But that's a big deal. Once you get passed the signed driver scheme, you can by-pass DRM. Thus DRM has been cracked.

Has there ever been a DRM scheme that *hasnt* been cracked shortly after release? You would think companies would get it by now, and just not even bother.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
This has deeper implications if he was able to get his own code running in the kernal.
Sounds to me like he broke their entire security of the OS.
 

Quinton McLeod

Senior member
Jan 17, 2006
375
0
0
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Originally posted by: drag
Ya he is very light on the details.

The whole point of it, it seems, is that he has simply gotten his own code running in the kernel without it being signed. That's it.

He hasn't done anything with it to actually violate the protected media path, but if you can get your own code running in a kernel then your just a few steps away from having the kernel load up your own unsigned drivers while the kernel thinks they are signed and tells any sort of software that it has a protected media path, when it realy doesn't.

In other words all he has claimed to have done is violated the integrity of Microsoft's signed driver sceme.

But that's a big deal. Once you get passed the signed driver scheme, you can by-pass DRM. Thus DRM has been cracked.

Has there ever been a DRM scheme that *hasnt* been cracked shortly after release? You would think companies would get it by now, and just not even bother.

I whole heartedly agree!

 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
This has deeper implications if he was able to get his own code running in the kernal.
Sounds to me like he broke their entire security of the OS.

Lets not get carried away now.
 

Quinton McLeod

Senior member
Jan 17, 2006
375
0
0
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: Genx87
This has deeper implications if he was able to get his own code running in the kernal.
Sounds to me like he broke their entire security of the OS.

Lets not get carried away now.

If you have access to the kernel, then you have unrestricted access to the rest of the system. This breaks a lot of security in Vista. So, Genx87 isn't too far off.
 

Shawn

Lifer
Apr 20, 2003
32,236
53
91
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: Genx87
This has deeper implications if he was able to get his own code running in the kernal.
Sounds to me like he broke their entire security of the OS.

Lets not get carried away now.

If you have access to the kernel, then you have unrestricted access to the rest of the system. This breaks a lot of security in Vista. So, Genx87 isn't too far off.

Sure if you install unverified drivers you could potentially screw something up. That's not something that can be done without admin permission though.
 
Oct 19, 2000
17,860
4
81
Originally posted by: Cogman
I agree with you though, DRM is a bad idea that is all about milking the most money out of the consumer.
Wow, we all just witnessed your knowledge of the business world. I never knew corporate America was out to get all of my money!!!

If people weren't such fvcking thieves, DRM wouldn't be necessary. But we know that thieves/pirates will never cease to be, so companies have to protect their property, otherwise they'll go out of business. I can't understand why people who hate DRM blame the companies, it makes no sense. Sure, they can be considered evil for trying to get our money, but don't you hate it when people steal lemonade from your stand?
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: Genx87
This has deeper implications if he was able to get his own code running in the kernal.
Sounds to me like he broke their entire security of the OS.

Lets not get carried away now.

If you have access to the kernel, then you have unrestricted access to the rest of the system. This breaks a lot of security in Vista. So, Genx87 isn't too far off.

That requires an act of absolute stupidity by the user, to install malicious unsigned drivers, and is no different than XP or older systems. We can argue night and day about whether drivers should have kernel access, but thats off the topic. You can take the most secure system in the world, and if an idiot is running it, then it's insecure.

At the end of the day, vista is still more secure than XP.
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
Originally posted by: blurredvision
Originally posted by: Cogman
I agree with you though, DRM is a bad idea that is all about milking the most money out of the consumer.
Wow, we all just witnessed your knowledge of the business world. I never knew corporate America was out to get all of my money!!!

If people weren't such fvcking thieves, DRM wouldn't be necessary. But we know that thieves/pirates will never cease to be, so companies have to protect their property, otherwise they'll go out of business. I can't understand why people who hate DRM blame the companies, it makes no sense. Sure, they can be considered evil for trying to get our money, but don't you hate it when people steal lemonade from your stand?

What I'd really hate, is if the owner of the lemonade stand chained a 20lb mug to my arm in order to buy some damn lemonade.
 
Oct 19, 2000
17,860
4
81
Originally posted by: BD2003
What I'd really hate, is if the owner of the lemonade stand chained a 20lb mug to my arm in order to buy some damn lemonade.
Well, if so, you should blame it on everyone stealing the lemonade that invoked such actions, not the owner of the stand. If the stand owner lets people continue to steal lemonade, one thing and one thing only will happen. He/she soon won't have enough money for any more lemons and sugar, then there is no more product.
 

stash

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2000
5,468
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
This has deeper implications if he was able to get his own code running in the kernal.
Sounds to me like he broke their entire security of the OS.
Well he bypassed PatchGuard, which is nothing new. There's a flag you can set to do it yourself.

The question is, can he do it without anyone knowing. Right now, the answer to that question seems to be no.
 

networkman

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
10,436
1
0
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: Genx87
This has deeper implications if he was able to get his own code running in the kernal.
Sounds to me like he broke their entire security of the OS.

Lets not get carried away now.

If you have access to the kernel, then you have unrestricted access to the rest of the system. This breaks a lot of security in Vista. So, Genx87 isn't too far off.

That requires an act of absolute stupidity by the user, to install malicious unsigned drivers, and is no different than XP or older systems. We can argue night and day about whether drivers should have kernel access, but thats off the topic. You can take the most secure system in the world, and if an idiot is running it, then it's insecure.

At the end of the day, vista is still more secure than XP.

Got news for you: There's alot of stupid people out there.

 

drag

Elite Member
Jul 4, 2002
8,708
0
0
If your running your system as a user that has the ability to install drivers or affect changes in system files then your not going to be much better off running Vista vs XP security-wise. You have to be running Vista from a restricted account to see any truly substantial benifits for running Vista, security-wise.



The main thing that it proves though is that all that business with AACS encryption, protected media path, signed drivers, and whole ten yards is going to do _ABSOLUTELY_NOTHING_ to prevent piracy as long as a person can inject code into Vista's kernel and break the signed drivers.

What you would require now is to have this sort of signing-drivers sceme work is have the proccessor or other mechanism in the hardware running continious checksums on in-memory kernel code and validating it before executing. A hypervisor backed by TPM may work.
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
Originally posted by: networkman
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: Genx87
This has deeper implications if he was able to get his own code running in the kernal.
Sounds to me like he broke their entire security of the OS.

Lets not get carried away now.

If you have access to the kernel, then you have unrestricted access to the rest of the system. This breaks a lot of security in Vista. So, Genx87 isn't too far off.

That requires an act of absolute stupidity by the user, to install malicious unsigned drivers, and is no different than XP or older systems. We can argue night and day about whether drivers should have kernel access, but thats off the topic. You can take the most secure system in the world, and if an idiot is running it, then it's insecure.

At the end of the day, vista is still more secure than XP.

Got news for you: There's alot of stupid people out there.

You've got that right. But what isn't news, is this topic.
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,283
134
106
Originally posted by: blurredvision
Originally posted by: Cogman
I agree with you though, DRM is a bad idea that is all about milking the most money out of the consumer.
Wow, we all just witnessed your knowledge of the business world. I never knew corporate America was out to get all of my money!!!

If people weren't such fvcking thieves, DRM wouldn't be necessary. But we know that thieves/pirates will never cease to be, so companies have to protect their property, otherwise they'll go out of business. I can't understand why people who hate DRM blame the companies, it makes no sense. Sure, they can be considered evil for trying to get our money, but don't you hate it when people steal lemonade from your stand?

Wow, we all just witnessed your lack of knowledge of corporate piracy. I never knew that Americans where out to get screwed!

The fact of the matter is, DRM was not created to stop piracy, end of story. If companies truly believe that they could stop piracy with some new encryption scheme then they must be idiots uneducated in computer history and technology. I however do not believe that to be the case.

Is it too much to ask that corporate America a some small amount of morals? I guess by your stand point, yes, that is too much to ask. If anything, the introduction of DRM and such has only fulled the desire for people to pirate things. Honest people will get fed up with reduced quality and the inability to play music on the devices that they own, something they have grown accustom to with cd and records. When they do that, they start thinking "Hey there must be a better way" And if they are computer literate at all, they find a piracy website and make the copy.

On the other hand, the place that the corporate makes up is with the honest joe that Doesn't know how to make a copy of his product, then he is screwed and has to go out and buy 10 editions of whatever media HE ALREADY OWNS just to get it to work on a single device. The Pirates are not stopped, or even slowed for that matter. They have been breaking software encryption and protection since it was introduce, new methods only take a little longer for them to figure out.

Now, I do agree with you. If people weren't thieves, the DRM and copyright laws would have never been created, or would have taken a lot longer to come out. But the only reason that is, is because they would not have as big an excuse to try and implement such protection methods. However, they would still love to have them because it would directly translate into a larger profit for them.

Now seriously, what was the last company or industry that you know of that went out of business solely due to piracy or their products? Not many if any, because as long as there are computer illiterate people out there, their product will have a customer to sell to. And protection implemented by them will do little to get more customers to come buy their products, they are more likely to never look at the product again rather then try and buy it.
 

rajasekharan

Junior Member
Jan 7, 2007
16
0
0
The whole concept of making profit of softwares is crap . Cause its not a PHYSICAL commodity . You dont write it for every individual every time . Just ask them to pay for support is ENOUGH. The company makes millions these days and gets greedy all time . In old times softwares cost was for support . Later it became business thats when things started to suc*.Linux is atleast doing it right . So are few applications under windows .
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |