MythTV can't meet the certification guidelines, I'll out and simple say that.
Having worked in the DOCSIS industry for a few years, I know that there's no such thing as perfect security. I also know a bit about the way that CableLabs works. Anyway... Set-top boxes will have access to the unencrypted video, they will need this to run their "trick" modes - fast forward, rewind, on screen display, etc. However, some of the processors that the set-tops run on will have encrypted memory and buses (i.e. the memory bus will be encrypted) - but that isn't really a necessity. Basically, what they (CableLabs) want is some sort of promise that the platform can't easily be compromised. So, in a typical cable modem submission, you need to do things like: 1. Remove the serial port pins 2. Remove the shell from the DOCSIS software, or make it so that it only responds to a minimal set of commands (none of which can compromise the integrity) 3. Each modem has an X.509 certificate that is chained to the DOCSIS root authority Etc., etc. In reality, cable modems have been compromised a few times. There's a few groups that devote their time to hacking modems (mainly Motorola) and writing new firmware for them and such. For the most part, although CableLabs and the modem manufacturers care about it, I haven't heard of any public lawsuits, or CableLabs revoking Motorola's DOCSIS X.509 certificate (which CL is well within their rights to do). Microsoft might be able to get away with this because they are a closed-source implementation, which might be enough for a CableLabs certification. If not, then they might have to have a special security chip put on board - surely this would not be an issue for them, I would think that there are manufacturers making PC motherboards like this (I know that there are laptop manufacturers that do this). In this case, the open nature of MythTV will preclude it from playing the game (legally). I'm not saying that MythTV should go closed source, I'm just stating facts. I also suspect that other closed-source programs running on Windows (like SageTV) might have a problem as well, since if Microsoft does get a CableCard implementation, there is no way that they will be allowed to provide a DLL that gets unencrypted data to a user application. It really becomes interesting with a "generic PC" implementation of CableCard, because of the modularity of PCs, and the open hooks in place to sniff the data out. (Also, there is some sort of strange stigma that embedded devices are so much more difficult to program for, but in general, they're not. All you need is a smart guy to write the drivers/interfaces, and everybody else can be a generic C/C++ programmer.) -- Joe --- Brad Templeton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 07:33:10PM -0400, Jay R. > Ashworth wrote: > > Just to be clear: the best we're likely to get > would be QAM compatible > > *tuner cards* with cablecard slots on them. Don't > expect mezzanine > > Can you say what you have heard? Again, purpose #2 > of the cablecard > (their purpose) just doesn't work at all if they > give us something > like this that will talk to a program like mythtv. > So it's hard to see > why they would give this, it goes against everything > they have said they > want. > > The purpose of the cablecard is to split the > decryption from other > functions of the set top box, officially. But > unofficially they have > no desire to let ordinary users get at the video > stream. > > Even if myth people could come up with the $100,000 > it costs to certify > to use the cablecard, how would myth meet the > requirements not to let the > unencrypted video be available? > > _______________________________________________ > mythtv-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
_______________________________________________ mythtv-users mailing list [email protected] http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
