Hardware functionality scan: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:55, 30 January 2007

Latest revision as of 02:21, 9 January 2020

(34 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{refimprove|date=February 2012}}

{{Wikify|January 2007}}

A '''hardware functionality scan''' ('''HFS''') is conducted in order to verify that a certain device is really what it claims to be. It is patented by [[Microsoft]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.freshpatents.com/Hardware-functionality-scan-for-device-authentication-dt20061026ptan20060242430.php?type=description |title=Patent: Hardware Functionality Scan For Device Authentication |first= |last= |work=freshpatents.com |year=2012 |accessdate=August 21, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120204165348/http://www.freshpatents.com/Hardware-functionality-scan-for-device-authentication-dt20061026ptan20060242430.php?type=description |archive-date=February 4, 2012 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

A '''Hardware Functionality Scan''' (HFS) is conducted in order to verify that a certain device is really what it claims to be. It's patented by [[Microsoft]].

Some [[operating system]]s only send copy protected content, such as [[Film|movies]], to an output device, such as the screen, if that device is able to protect the content from being tapped in an unprotecedunprotected format. This mechanism can be circumvented by letting fake hardware claiming to be a trusted device. HFS prevents this by letting the device perform certain tasks which are hard to emulate.

==Problems==

* '''open-source drivers''': In order to support open-source drivers, a hardware manufacturer has to reveal some details about their product, but HFS requires thesethis information to be kept secret. The problem with generic drivers is that the HFS requires individual drivers for each variant of a product to make them distinguishable, drivers have to account for implementation details instead of using abstract functionality models.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html |title=A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection |first=Peter |last=Gutman |work=cs.auckland.ac.nz |date=12 June 2007|accessdate=August 21, 2012}}</ref>

* '''generic drivers''': The HFS requires indiviudal drivers for each variant of a product, to make them distinguishable: drivers have to account for implementation details instead of using abstract functionality models.

* '''trusted hardware''': A hardware manufacturer has to have his product's HFS fingerprint listed in the database of trusted hardware, in order to make it work under newer Windows operating systems. Thus, Microsoft dictates the conditions under which a device is accepted. The manufacturer may be required to implement certain DRM-features for which he has to pay a royalty to its respective inventor.

* '''trusted hardware''': A hardware manufacturer has to have histheir product's HFS fingerprint listed in the database of trusted hardware, in order to make it work under newer Windows operating systems. Thus, Microsoft dictates the conditions under which a device is accepted. The manufacturer may be required to implement certain [[Digital rights management|DRM]]-features, for which hethey hashave to pay a [[Royalty payment|royalty]] to its respective [[Invention|inventor]].

==External links==

* [http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection]

* [http://www.freshpatents.com/Hardware-functionality-scan-for-device-authentication-dt20061026ptan20060242430.php?type=description patent description]

==References==

[[Category:Digital rights management]]

{{reflist}}

[[Category:Digital rights management systems]]

[[Category:Proprietary hardware]]

{{computer-security-stub}}