[ EEPI-Discuss ] Reply from Intel re Embedded Digital Rights Management (DRM)

[Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com>]

------- Forwarded Message

From: David Farber <dave@farber.net>
Subject: [IP] more on  FROM Intel REPLY  Intel quietly embeds DRM in it's 945 chips firmware
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 08:24:22 -0400
To: Ip ip <ip@v2.listbox.com>


Begin forwarded message:

From: "Whiteside, Donald M" <donald.m.whiteside@intel.com>
Date: May 30, 2005 7:51:14 PM EDT
To: dave@farber.net
Subject: RE: [IP] Intel quietly embeds DRM in it's 945 chips firmware


The article grossly misrepresents the discussion that occurred.  The
rights management technology referred to in the article was not a secret
DRM from Intel, but the DTCP-IP technology publicly offered by the 5C
Entity; which Intel is a Founder.  Intel believes that the DTCP-IP
technology is an important element in enabling protected transport of
compressed content within the home network, and we continue to promote
DTCP-IP for this application which enables greater consumer flexibility
& use of premium entertainment content.

Don Whiteside
VP Technical Policy & Standards
Intel Corporation



Begin forwarded message:

From: David Wagner <daw@cs.berkeley.edu>
Date: May 30, 2005 3:58:52 PM EDT
To: dave@farber.net
Subject: [IP] Intel quietly embeds DRM in it's 945 chips firmware


Intel is refusing to say how their DRM scheme will work?  This is a
remarkably ignorant stance, one which could get them in trouble.

The article says:
    ``[Intel's Australian technical manager] Tucker ducked questions
    regarding technical details of how embedded DRM would work saying it
    was not in the interests of his company to spell out how the
technology
    in the interests of security.''
      http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,121027,00.asp

So, which was it?  "Not in the interests of his company", or not "in
the interests of security"?  Either way, it is a bad sign.

If Intel is refusing to disclose how their DRM works because that
would not be "in the interests of [the] company", that's troubling.
That's going to leave the impression of a company which has embedded
a Trojan horse feature that they know will be unpopular among many of
their customers, a feature that is being hushed up by marketing folks to
avoid criticism.  If so, Intel had better to expect continued calls to
"come clean" on this one.

Alternatively, if Intel's representative is refusing to disclose how
their DRM works "in the interests of security", that reflects serious
ignorance of the field of computer security.  Anyone with experience
in this area knows that 'security through obscurity' rarely works.
If Intel's engineers really believe in some kind of 'security through
obscurity' hocus-pocus, then they haven't studied history, and I
wouldn't hold out too much hope for their technology to remain
secure.

I would have thought Intel would know better, given their past
experience with the Intel ID.  It's a shame to see the subject of
"trusted computing" be approached this with, because I believe that
the technology might find some takers if only it were approached
with sufficient openness.  I hope Intel will take the opportunity to
clarify their position in the near future.


EEkid@aol.com writes:


> Intel quietly embeds DRM in it's 945 chips firmware
> http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/11878
>
> [...] Intel is now embedding digital rights management in the new
> dual-core processor Pentium D and the 945 chipset [...]
>
> However, Tucker ducked questions regarding technical details of how
> embedded DRM would work saying it was not in the interests of his
> company to spell out how the technology in the interests of
> security. [...]
>

Archives at:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/

------- End of Forwarded Message
_______________________________________________
EEPI-Discuss mailing list information:
http://lists.eepi.org/mailman/listinfo/eepi-discuss