Notable critics
Peter Gutmann, a computer security expert from the University of Auckland, New Zealand, has released a whitepaper[23] in which he raises the following concerns against these mechanisms:
Adding encryption facilities to devices makes them more expensive, a cost that is passed on to the user.
If outputs are not deemed sufficiently protected by the media industry, then even very expensive equipment can be required to be switched off (for example, S/PDIF-based, high-end audio cards).
Some newer high-definition monitors are not HDCP-enabled, even though the manufacturer may claim otherwise.
The added complexity makes systems less reliable.
Since non-protected media are not subject to the new restrictions, users may be encouraged to remove the protection in order to view them without restrictions, thus defeating the content protection scheme's initial purpose.
Protection mechanisms, such as disabling or degrading outputs, may be triggered erroneously or maliciously, motivating denial-of-service attacks.
Revoking the driver of a device that is in wide use is such a drastic measure that Gutmann doubts Microsoft will ever actually do so. On the other hand, they may be forced to because of their legal obligations to the movie studios.
Steve Gibson of Gibson Research Corporation has stated during his Security Now! show that he agrees with Peter Gutmann in principle and that what he proposes is a factually accurate description of what is found in the specification from Microsoft.[24]
The Free Software Foundation is conducting a campaign called "BadVista" against Vista on these grounds.
Apple Inc, Microsoft's major competitor, frequently made Vista a target of its "Get a Mac" advertising campaign.
[edit] Reaction to criticism
Ed Bott, author of Windows Vista Inside Out, has published a 3 part blog which rebuts many of Gutmann's claims.[25]
Ed Bott's criticisms can be summarized as follows:
Gutmann allegedly based his paper on outdated documentation from Microsoft and second-hand web sources.
Gutmann allegedly quotes selectively from the Microsoft specifications.
Gutmann allegedly did no experimental work with Vista to prove his theories. Rather, he makes mistaken assumptions and then speculates wildly on their implications.
Gutmann's paper, while presented as serious research, is really just an opinion piece.
Technology writer George Ou claims that Gutmann's paper relies on unreliable sources and that Gutmann has never used Windows Vista to test his theories.[26]
Gutmann has responded to both Bott and Ou in a further article.,[27] which states that the central thesis of Gutmann's article has not been refuted and the response of Bott is "disinformation"
Microsoft has published a blog entry with "Twenty Questions (and Answers)" on Windows Vista Content Protection, intending to refute some of Gutmann's arguments.[28]
Paul Smith, a Microsoft MVP, has written a response to Gutmann's paper in which he counters some of his arguments.[29] Specifically, he says:
Microsoft is not to blame for these measures. The company has been forced to do this by the movie studios.
The Protected Video Path will not be used for quite a while. There is said to be an agreement between Microsoft and Sony that Blu-Ray discs will not mandate protection until at least 2010, possibly even 2012.[30]
Vista does not degrade or refuse to play any existing media, CDs or DVDs. The protected data paths are only activated if protected content requires it.
Users of other operating systems such as Linux or Mac OS X will not have official access to this premium content.
Facebook
Twitter