Hardware functionality scan: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:56, 29 May 2016

Revision as of 03:33, 11 October 2017

Line 8:

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 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>

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 they have to pay a [[Royalty payment|royalty]] to its respective [[Invention|inventor]].

==References==