Hardware functionality scan: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:42, 28 February 2012

Latest revision as of 02:21, 9 January 2020

(23 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Orphanrefimprove|date=February 20092012}}

{{Wikify|date=April 2010}}

{{references}}

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 unprotected 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==

In order to support open-source drivers, a hardware manufacturer has to reveal some details about their product, but HFS requires this information to be kept secret. The problem with generic drivers is that the HFS requires individual drivers for each variant of a product Toto make them distinguishable, drivers have to account for implementation details instead of using abstract functionality models.<ref>{{cite Aweb hardware|url= manufacturerhttp://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html has|title=A toCost have his product's HFS fingerprint listed in the databaseAnalysis of trustedWindows hardwareVista inContent orderProtection to|first=Peter make it|last=Gutman |work under newer Windows operating systems=cs. Thus, Microsoft dictates the conditions under which a device is acceptedauckland.ac.nz The|date=12 manufacturerJune may2007|accessdate=August be21, required to implement certain DRM-features for which he has to pay a royalty to its respective inventor.2012}}</ref>

A hardware manufacturer has to have their 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 they have to pay a [[Royalty payment|royalty]] to its respective [[Invention|inventor]].

==Sources==

* [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:DRM systems]]

{{reflist}}

[[Category:DRMDigital rights management systems]]

[[Category:Proprietary hardware]]

{{computer-security-stub}}