Talk:BD+

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Commercial Discs have two versions of BD+, only one is compromised[edit]

Here's something that most people don't realize: Richard Doherty's statement that BD+ will take 10+ years to crack is absolutely 100% true.

What happened is that the industry decided that they wanted to make BD+ titles playable on PC software players. The PC platform isn't secure, so it only took a matter of months for savvy developers like SlySoft to "spy" on the software players, figure out what they were doing to decrypt BD+, and basically incorporate some form of that into their decryption program. Richard Doherty's statement does not apply to software players as they are not secure.

Here's the thing that most people aren't aware of: the industry never gave the software player developers the same keys they use for BD+ on hardware players. They gave them different keys. Blu-Ray discs with BD+ actually contain two versions of BD+. One used by hardware and other secure players (like the PS3), and one used by software players. Think about it... how is it that a much more elaborate version of BD+ (like that used on Avatar) still works in older 1st generation hardware players? Those players are using the hardware player version of BD+ which is much more straightforward and doesn't require as much computing power to decrypt... but is still secure. It is this code that Richard Doherty is talking about in his "10+ years to crack" statement.

What this basically means is that any time the industry wants, they can release a BD+ title without the software player code. It will play on the PS3; it will play on hardware players; it will not play on PC software players. And, this title will not be able to be cracked by SlySoft or anyone else for at least the likely projected 10+ year timeframe. Obviously SlySoft doesn't like to say much about this.

Here's some proof of this: There was a mastering error on the Blu-Ray disc release of The Day the Earth Stood Still remake for the Norwegian locality. The hardware version of BD+ was correct, however, the software version of BD+ contains some errors (it was not intentional). As a result, the disc plays fine in hardware players and the PS3. But, it does not play on PC software players. It also is not able to be cracked by AnyDVD. When Slysoft was asked if they could fix this, the key BD+ developer (known by the public nickname "Peer") replied that it was impossible. Here's the thread: [1]

I'm not sure how to even start working this into the main article. But, there it is. - Artificial Silence (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the information above (harware keys vs software keys) is absolutely incorrect. For the fact, MakeMKV could always decrypt The Day the Earth Stood Still, guess how... Mike Chen @makemkv.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.28.172.49 (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The example above is very specific only to the Norwegian locality of The Day the Earth Stood Still. All other versions of that disc don't have the mastering problem mentioned.
Here is another example of a disc that is not able to be patched by AnyDVD until the PC software players are updated to be able to play the disc: [2] (Refer to post # 7 by the developer.) Not playable in PC software player = not patchable by AnyDVD. - Artificial Silence (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify that above statement, it's not that the PC environment is insecure and that hardware is 100%, it is just easier to run a debugger on a PC if the encryption is done on a PC player. If it was limited to hardware players then that would require dumping the firmware of the players and trying to hack it, the only way to do it via hardware would be to patch the firmware so you can run a debugger via the hardware player. I would not say that would take 10+ years or is impossible, that is what hackers did for PS3 games to run native code. It sounds like some BD+ discs have an mastering error that is why they are so-called "uncracked". Not sure if there is any RS to support there are actually 2 versions? I'm not an expert in BD+ as every time I used it all I get is stupid movie previews or bonus stuff that isn't that good. Tyros1972 (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Output of the BD+ code[edit]

One thing that isn't very clear from the article is why the BD+ code has to be run.

Does the BD+ code output the key needed to decrypt the movie data? Does the BD+ code actually perform the decryption of the movie?

62.244.190.66 (talk) 10:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of the actual content (encrypted with the aacs) have been corrupted during the mastering process. The BD+ code will return the actual content for those parts if it thinks the player is legit. --91.47.124.134 (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Effectiveness[edit]

I'd like to remove the following paragraph from the article:

BD+ has proven effective at re-establishing security for new titles, and forcing adversaries to reinvest resources to break each new version of security code.[8] On 1 December 2008 Slysoft announced it would for the first time begin charging its new customers for updates to AnyDVD HD.[9]

There are three things I don't like about it: 1. I'd say that BD+ has NOT proven effective, since every new version has been cracked within a few days. 2. Whether Slysoft announced how it is charging new customers is completely irrelevant to the topic. 3. The whole paragraph sounds biased and like an ad for BD+

Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.144.48 (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there were no objections, I've removed it. --91.115.18.228 (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I restored this paragraph. BD+ clearly is effective at re-establishing security. Twice now there have been periods measured in months during which nobody, not even SlySoft, has been able to break the discs. This contradicts your point (1) above. Check the timelines. As to point (2), it is relevant - if Slysoft didn't have to keep rebreaking BD+ they'd have no reason to move to a subscription model. As to point (3) that is your opinion. To me it reads like two verifiable facts. 77.56.180.32 (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also removed the paragraph about DumpHD. It was misleading, suggesting that it could break BD+. At one time it could however this has not been true for many months. Currently only SlySoft know how to do that, and as of June 09 even they cannot handle the latest generation of BD+ programs. -- 77.56.180.32 (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that it has been "proven effective" is biased and misleading. Where have the creators of BD+/Blu Ray stated that their goal is to "force adversaries to reinvest resources" at cracking BD+? In fact, their stated goal is to secure their copyright, and the DMCA makes it illegal to try and break these kinds of measures. Therefore, what BD+ has "proven effective" at is making people do an illegal activity. My point is that it does not matter how many months it takes to crack each iteration - once it is cracked, every disc up to that point is compromised, and the "adversaries" win. BD+ has been totally ineffective at stopping piracy; it has, in fact, made piracy very profitable as SlySoft can now charge for their software. The statement is totally POV and bogus, I'm rewording it.--DreamsReign (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bricking[edit]

Is it true that a BD player can intentionally brick itself if it thinks a disc is a pirate copy? Giantrobotbrawl (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BD+ is a virtual machine which is in the player and which runs code on the disk. When the disk is removed, the player reverts to its previous state. If the disk does not have any BD+ code on it, then there is nothing to run, and an unencrypted disk with no DRM on it would be treated in the same way as a home movie etc. 82.29.215.250 (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, there is a small persistent storage allocated to BD+ VM, and in theory BD+ code could write there a flag that would be checked by all later discs with BD+, and stop playback if flag is there. Also, BD+ code can launch a native application on a player (that could erase flash memory for example). So yes, technically, BD+ code CAN brick the player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.28.172.49 (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verification[edit]

The article references a forum... any other sources of the verification that BD+ decryption from slysoft actually works? I have heard from several sources that it doesn't actually decrypt BD+ sucessfully. Anybody can verify? 152.133.6.197 (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the proliferation of HD movies stripped of DRM that abound the torrents which are only legitimately available on BD+ protected Blu-Ray disks, I would say that either (a) Slysoft's product does wortk, (b) there is some other product that works but which has not been publicised, or (c) the movie studios are releasing drm-free versions of their own products on the file sharing networks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.215.181 (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decryption of BD+ discs[edit]

Surely AnyDVD HD 6.4.0.0 cannot decrypt all BluRay discs. The film publishers are constantly updating their protection, så AnyDVD HD has to be updated too. I think the article is a bit misleading about this. For example Slysoft has recently released AnyDVD HD 6.4.7.9. This release adds support for a "new version of the BD+ copy protection". Surely AnyDVD HD cannot decrypt this new version of protection before AnyDVD HD is updated, or? --80.63.213.182 (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where it says "all titles released to date" it is obvious that "to date" means when the software was released and not when a person is reading this article.82.29.215.181 (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BD+ protected = BD+ damaged[edit]

The m2ts files of a BD+ protected disc have been intentionally damaged and only the content code knows how to repair them. The repair instruction are given to the player in form of a conversion table if the content code "believes" it is executed in a trustworthy environment. The content code doesn't do any decryption of the video/audio stream. It's main purpose is to validate the execution environment and only generate the repair instructions (conversion table) if the environment is trustworthy (licensed player without modifications) according to the test results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.25.151.22 (talk • contribs)

BD+ cannot be circumvented[edit]

The media files (*.m2ts) have been partly overwritten with random data (5 byte long blocks). It's generally not possible to restore the original state of the media files without the conversion table because these files don't contain enough redundancy. You have to execution the content code and pass all/most of it's tests successfully. There is no way around that (circumvention). Both SlySoft and the Doom9 researchers are emulating licensed players and thereby trick the content code into "thinking" it runs in a safe environment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.25.151.22 (talk • contribs)

What do you think "circumvented" means? 69.115.150.3 (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is hilarious I just have to say it. The first poster described perfectly how the circumvention works but labelled the post "BD+ cannot be circumvented". Just have to laugh. --119.225.64.161 (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the right word would be "emulated" or "tricked". If you write that BD+ can be "circumvented" people may think that SlySoft or Doom9 devs just bypass the BD+ code at all and access directly to the stream, you know that will not work because you need BD+ to repair the movie. It makes sense to me. pascalbrax 84.55.203.252 (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point here. If these products are used to make a copy of a BD+ protected Blu-ray disc, then the resultant disc will not have the BD+ code on it, yet it plays flawlessly. Thus the BD+ protection has been circumvented. 86.182.66.217 (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to cover every cycle of the cat and mouse game?[edit]

"Reverse engineering and emulation of BD+ implementations" basically reads like this: -[date] BD+ broken -[date] BD+ updated -[date] BD+ broken -[date] BD+ updated -[date] BD+ broken

and recent broken/updated cycles are not even covered (http://forum.slysoft.com/showthread.php?t=29820). --78.49.110.163 (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So every cycle is not covered. Your point? 86.182.66.217 (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say we "need" to, and indeed the section should be trimmed of repetitive info. However, I think most readers will find it fascinating to see the cat and mouse game that has been, and continues to be, played out. They should make a movie about it, and then release it on Blu Ray!--119.225.64.161 (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Play back on first player only[edit]

The article claims that BD+ can be used to: 

"limit playback of a Blu-Ray disc to the first device in which the disc is played"

So how can that work then? It would require the player to be able to write to the Blu-ray disk the identity of the machine on which it is being played. Or it would require the player to somehow communicate with every other player on the planet. The former is not possible as players do not contain the abililty to write to BD discs and besides, pre-mastered discs are not writeable anyway. The latter would require Blu-ray players to be universally networked - something which they are not. 86.178.11.185 (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would also require each disc to be uniquely identifiable (and therefore not mass-produced). I don't think the claim makes sense. --Mpj (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would require, like Mpj said, each disc to have an ID. Then, the player would, if possible, connect to the internet and update a database of ID'd discs. I dont think they actually do it. 70.113.223.43 (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on BD+. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on BD+. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BD%2B&oldid=1199693585"