Re: MS responds to Gutmann's Vista paper
=?UTF-8?B?SXZhbiBLcnN0acSH?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Aside from admitting to increased CPU utilization, which seemed pretty incontestable anyway, they're disputing [0] many of the points made in the original paper [1]. Their response is a mixture of technical content and PR handwaving, I've responded to the latter as part of the Vista writeup at http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html#response, and will be integrating the technical clarifications into the body of the writeup when I get time Peter. - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MS responds to Gutmann's Vista paper
Aside from admitting to increased CPU utilization, which seemed pretty incontestable anyway, they're disputing [0] many of the points made in the original paper [1]. Ignoring the hand-wavy arguments, I find most interesting their claims that a) there will be no move away from unified drivers, b) that HFS doesn't depend on, and therefore won't impact, open source drivers, and c) that video quality is degraded only for specific premium content rather than globally. Assuming all three are true, this would downgrade the Vista content protection system from cataclysmically braindead to merely extremely braindead -- a welcome downgrade, given all of Peter's other points. [0] http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx [1] http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html -- Ivan Krstić [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG: 0x147C722D - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MS responds to Gutmann's Vista paper
[Perry -- had a clause in there that made no sense; I shouldn't send mail minutes after waking up. Please discard previous mail and send along this one.] [Moderator's note: Too late, sorry. --Perry] Aside from admitting to increased CPU utilization, which seemed pretty incontestable anyway, they're disputing [0] many of the points made in the original paper [1]. Ignoring the hand-wavy arguments, I find most interesting their claims that a) there will be no move away from unified drivers, b) that HFS doesn't depend on driver-related video chip features, and therefore won't impact (the creation of) open source drivers, and c) that video quality is degraded only for specific premium content rather than globally. Assuming all three are true, this would downgrade the Vista content protection system from cataclysmically braindead to merely extremely braindead -- a welcome downgrade, given all of Peter's other points. [0] http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx [1] http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html -- Ivan Krstić [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG: 0x147C722D - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
