"Cinavia"/Verance BluRay audio watermark protection

[SamuriHL]

That seems overly complicated and HIGHLY unnecessary for something that the player has to support. (That "technicality" as you call it). If the player has to send an AACS flag, then you're already changing the established standard again and if you're doing that, why not just leave the implementation at the player level? It's not like this solves the case of a non-Cinavia compliant player as those won't be sending any kind of AACS flag, either. It doesn't make any sense to me to have this kind of implementation. You'd be adding to the cost of all the pieces of equipment in the chain and not solving any additional problems that the current, player only version of Cinavia doesn't already solve. So, why would anyone do this?

[diogen]

If I understand correctly, a player can detect Cinavia only if it decodes the audio stream.
I don't think this is the preferred way of BD playback. Bitstream has its drawbacks but this is not the point.

I think it is a good idea to keep both audio/video in the digital domain and decode just before presentation.
Therefore, the player takes care of the DRM-wrapper: AACS and BD+ in case of Blu-ray movies.
Whatever additional protection is embedded has to be dealt with down the chain.

And it is easy to understand studios' way of thinking.
The DRM-wrappers failed miserably. Why not try something that works with DVD-Audio...

Diogen.

[SamuriHL]

The player needs to decode for detection, yes, but, that doesn't mean that it can't bitstream the audio. It's only decoding it for the purposes of detection, not output.

[diogen]

And do this continuously, every so often.

I think it would be easier to pass the AACS flag than make bitsreaming BD players check for Cinavia.
And this is why it is an option to be implemented (not yet) in the TV (read the wiki).

Diogen.

[SamuriHL]

Since it's already required that players that are profile 1.1 be able to decode the audio, I don't think it's necessarily easier. The implementation already exists.

[setarip_old]

On a slightly different tack, but still applicable to where and how "Cinavia"/Verance may rear its ugly head, I find it curious that consumers' rights groups around the world are not taking the studios to task for essentially "talking out of both sides of their mouths".

If you've recently purchased any "previously viewed" Blu-ray discs at a rental shop, you've undoubtedly noticed that some of the discs are specifically labelled as "Rental" - and are stripped down versions of the same "for sale" titles. The "Rental" versions may be missing the "Extras", or "Director's Commentary", or alternate versions of the full movie, or different endings, or PIP video/audio, or multiple language audiostreams, or access to "BD Live" - or, in the case of the recently released "Cowboys & Aliens", ALL of the above!, so that the "Rental" version contains only a stripped down menu and the theatrical version of the movie. Some of these "Rental" discs do, however, offer something as a "replacement" for the stripped away stuff - a delightful suggestion that, "if you want access to all things related to this Blu-ray title PURCHASE it" ;>}

So, what we appear to have is the studios making a distinction between the (lesser) rights of renters and the (greater) rights of purchasers/owners of Blu-ray titles. As distasteful and reprehensible as I find this, I'd suggest that the studios should be legally compelled to apply such a concept of differentiation equitably - that is to say, they should be compelled to apply their beloved "Cinavia"/Verance interference ONLY (or other annoying concepts) to "Rental" discs (and, of course, "cams").

Certainly, the studios' own advertising of various means of making backup copies of purchased discs clearly indicates that THEY perceive a difference between the ownership rights of a purchaser (the right to MAKE A BACKUP COPY without hindrance) versus the rights of a renter (the right to VIEW the disc for the period of rental), versus the "rights" of pirates to shoot "cams" (No rights whatsoever - other than the right to an attorney).

I believe that what I've proposed here should be acceptable to all parties (studios, our community, and the consumers at-large) who have a sincere interest in an equitable way to deal with everybody getting a "fair shake" for entertainment dollars...

[SamuriHL]

You got my vote. I'm all for it.

[diogen]

I believe that what I've proposed here should be acceptable to all parties...You must be kidding.
"Making a backup copy without hindrance" wasn't, isn't and never will be an option studios will agree with...

Diogen.

[setarip_old]

@diogen You must be kidding.No, I most certainly am not kidding.

"Making a backup copy without hindrance" wasn't, isn't and never will be an option studios will agree with...That's why consumer rights organizations and, more importantly, courts exist. It's legally mandated capitulation that should be sought, not agreement...

[Andy o]

For TVs/receivers to detect a watermark, it would take yet another connector standard probably, but even if that happened, we'll all be screwed anyway by the rise of DRM-ridden crappy-player-dependent low-bitrate (by comparison) streaming video. Blu-ray just keeps shooting itself on the foot with all this crap. It's too complicated to even keep updating firmware, when someone can just hit play and watch crappy but good-enough Netflix.

[varekai]

Will Cinavia be implemented in all new players, both standalone players and internal/external PC/Mac Blu-ray Disc/DVD Writers?

[Andy o]

That's not how Cinavia works.

[Ghitulescu]

If I understand correctly, a player can detect Cinavia only if it decodes the audio stream.
I don't think this is the preferred way of BD playback. Bitstream has its drawbacks but this is not the point.

Decoding of audio is mandatory in all players of profile 1.1 and above.

Otherwise they can't use PiP features and other "marketing features" that require a mix of primary with a secondary audio.

That a certain John Doe doesn't use them is irrelevant, the requirements are there and they have to be fulfilled.

How many people have a profile 1.0 player? Erh, how many?

[derbeDeus]

I completely agree with everything except number 3. How would that work? Only the player knows if it's a trusted source (AACS is present) or not. Once it leaves the player, any "down stream" device has no idea if it was a trusted source or not. So, I don't know how this could get embedded into other devices. What I mean is *I* don't understand how that could work.

You are only right when talking about DVD/Blu-ray Cinavia watermark. The one that is disabled by AACS encryption being present, trusted source, etc...

But there's also "theatre-only" Cinavia watermark, aka message 1, which is not connected to aacs (other than aacs-licensees needing to implement detection for it). So tvs/projectors that would detect Cinavia/message 1 is a possibility.

Technically, the stream comes to the Cinavia-aware device and if it sees a message 1 watermark it very well knows it's not a theatre-projector and will stop playback.

[SamuriHL]

You are only right when talking about DVD/Blu-ray Cinavia watermark. The one that is disabled by AACS encryption being present, trusted source, etc...

But there's also "theatre-only" Cinavia watermark, aka message 1, which is not connected to aacs (other than aacs-licensees needing to implement detection for it). So tvs/projectors that would detect Cinavia/message 1 is a possibility.

Technically, the stream comes to the Cinavia-aware device and if it sees a message 1 watermark it very well knows it's not a theatre-projector and will stop playback.

Yea, I suppose that's possible. I honestly have no idea how the theater message works and how it determines it's running on the proper equipment or not. Clearly running on a 60" 3D LED TV is not the right equipment so it would know in that case. I could buy that argument. But if AACS is involved in any way, then it must be done at the player level so it wouldn't work for commercial blu-ray and dvd.

[varekai]

That's not how Cinavia works.

As I understand it, if I'm bying a new standalone Blu-ray player 2012 it's mandatory it will have Cinavia implemented in it's firmware?

And if I'm bying a new internal/external PC/Mac Blu-ray reader/burner 2012 it will not have Cinavia implemented?

[SamuriHL]

Right, currently the only implementation is in a player. A drive itself has no mechanism for decrypting the disc fully, let alone decoding audio and checking it for Cinavia. ;)

[varekai]

Right, currently the only implementation is in a player. A drive itself has no mechanism for decrypting the disc fully, let alone decoding audio and checking it for Cinavia. ;)
Thanks, appreciate the straight answer. Guess that's a good thing!

[Ghitulescu]

As I understand it, if I'm bying a new standalone Blu-ray player 2012 it's mandatory it will have Cinavia implemented in it's firmware?

And if I'm bying a new internal/external PC/Mac Blu-ray reader/burner 2012 it will not have Cinavia implemented?

Right, currently the only implementation is in a player. A drive itself has no mechanism for decrypting the disc fully, let alone decoding audio and checking it for Cinavia. ;)

But it will be implemented in the SW/drivers, maybe in the CPU.

[diogen]

But there's also "theatre-only" Cinavia watermark, aka message 1, which is not connected to aacs
(other than aacs-licensees needing to implement detection for it).That's what I meant.

Considering AACS wasn't finalized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Access_Content_System)until 2 years after hidef discs hit the market, amending it shouldn't be a problem...

Diogen.

[SamuriHL]

But it will be implemented in the SW/drivers, maybe in the CPU.

It will definitely be added to the players like TMT/PDVD/WinDVD that are licensed by the AACS LA.

[Andy o]

"maybe in the CPU?" How?

[rotty]

Has the penny dropped yet. There is NO easy pratical technical solution to this.

The solution is, and always has been Comercial.

[setarip_old]

@rotty

Hi!

Please explain further - I, for one, don't understand your post.

Thank you ;>}

[rotty]

Well it’s an expansion of what you have said a few posts ago.

Quote "consumers' rights groups around the world are not taking the studios to task"
Well they can and will!

Audiophiles taking them to task re corrupting good audio!

And then of course the biggest and strongest force of all, people like you and me, the paying public NOT buying into these disks, even if that means not buying ANY.
Trust me, Cinavia would quickly and silently disappear.

What everyone has to keep in mind is that there is NO other option for us than the above. If you are waiting for the usual suspects to come up with a "practical" technical solution then you are wasting your time.

P.S.
The Wiki page below has been updated today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia#List_of_Known_Releases_with_Cinavia_Watermarking

[xenex]

Are the audiophiles taking the studios to task because of the use of the Cinavia watermark in almost every movie projected and seen in every movie theater? Because it IS part of the original audio. It is how the studios prevent "cam" recordings. It is now embedded in the audio of almost EVERY SINGLE FILM SHOWN IN THEATERS. It seems odd to say that the Blu-Ray audio is corrupted when, in fact, the actual theatrical projected film contains the same Cinavia watermark in its own audio.

-xenex

[rotty]

Are the audiophiles taking the studios to task because of the use of the Cinavia watermark in almost every movie projected and seen in every movie theater? Because it IS part of the original audio. It is how the studios prevent "cam" recordings. It is now embedded in the audio of almost EVERY SINGLE FILM SHOWN IN THEATERS. It seems odd to say that the Blu-Ray audio is corrupted when, in fact, the actual theatrical projected film contains the same Cinavia watermark in its own audio.

-xenex

No, the watermaked audio in Cinema is not the same as BD, in fact the watermaking in Cinema is even more obtrusive, but this dosent really matter, as audio in Cinemas is at best nothing special anyway.

This together with sweet wrappers and other noise. Would you accept all that on your BD, no of course not, we put up with all this in Cinema, but WOULD NOT put up with it on our BD.

Corruption is corruption

[Ghitulescu]

"maybe in the CPU?" How?

http://www.eetindia.co.in/ART_8800631143_1800012_NP_8f4f945e.HTM

[SamuriHL]

http://www.eetindia.co.in/ART_8800631143_1800012_NP_8f4f945e.HTM

Unless I'm mistaken that article is talking about the equivalent of hdcp for the wireless streaming. Not cinavia or an equivalent protection?

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

[Andy o]

Yes, it has nothing to do with Cinavia or any other similar type of protection. It seems like HDCP, so people can't intercept the signal and copy it.

[Ghitulescu]

No, it talks about the implementation of DRM deep into the CPU. HDCP, PAP and other nice abreviations are just tests, they test how the public reacts, Vista was such an experiment, so was Windows Me around the millenium turn.

While now it talks about HDCP, it is just a matter of time until all the DRM features will be implemented. I am scared to death. You should be too.

Common people don't understand the messages, because they are loosing the perspective, but the people keening to implement them, well, they know, and the strategy is simple and efficient - small steps that nobody notice them until it's too late.

Since 1998 it is not possible to travel CD audio unchanged through the system (unless one uses the professional drivers named ASIO and the freeware versions thereof - but this was only AFTER the DRM was implemented, not before) irrespective of HW and SW. And this was done using a single phrase, only twice found in the PC98 specs and above, that is apparently harmless. But no PC98 and up would ever be bit-perfect for 44.1. Unless they use pro solutions.

Learn to read, people, learn to read. 1:1 copies and lossless copies do scare to death, and I mean it, the content providers. It's more than John Doe think, it's much more. It means you, the user, have the same control over the masterwork as the studios have. That is the essence.

[Andy o]

You are talking a bit like a conspiracist. You're jumping to conclusions without any evidence. Exactly what in Vista has made more difficult to copy anything? Even HDCP is useless as it was intended, it's just a nuisance. I have read some articles about this Intel DRM, but some time ago (check the date on your link). IIRC it was gonna be used for streaming content and such, probably requiring a compatible (software) player. It's probably meant to simplify DRM so you can play content from different sources with the same player, but in any case, there's nothing in sight that will implement it.

Regarding the CD thing, I'm pretty sure there are simpler explanations for the changes (like a much better mixer in Vista onwards). Again, it's trivial to get the full CD lossless output, I don't know what exactly you're talking about frankly.

[diogen]

...corrupting good audio!To start, there has to be proof - even if only theoretical at this point - that the watermark can be audible.

And that can be done either if you know the mechanic of the watermark insertion or if you try your golden ears.

Do you even know it is in the human audible freq range? Or are you afraid to scare your dog?

Diogen.

[Ghitulescu]

After 13 years, yes, it's simple to pass-through CD-audio 1:1. And if you're absolutely sure you can transfer CD-audio losslessly, try a DTS audio CD. You might be surprised.

I am a bit pro-conspiracy. Unlike you I know what I am talking about. That you and another 7 billion minus one men can copy Blu-rays, is not that you are allowed to do this, nor that you are so damn smart that you can do it by yourself, it's just because some people located somewhere outside the rach of Hollywood made a couple of software that could do it for you. The test to comply with Hollywood requirements is actually that one cannot do it in Windows on a regular PC. I can copy a CD 1:1 using a certain SW, but I cannot ever play a CD 1:1 through a PC without the aid of an ASIO (or similar) driver. Which ASIO comes only with pro or semipro cards. Oh, listening a CD in near-CD-quality no problem....

[diogen]

Learn to read, people, learn to read. ... It's more than John Doe think, it's much more.Geez...
Learn to do proper tests before you believe what you read!
Are you talking about Windows playback problems of some 10 years ago?

If yes, it was the WDM that was fixed few years later.
If not, ASIO and KS (kernel streaming) has been around for a while and the bit-identical rips using different tools have been tested.

DIogen.

[diogen]

Unlike you I know what I am talking about.No, you don't.
And if you're absolutely sure you can transfer CD-audio losslessly, try a DTS audio CD.And what is going to happen?
FYI, AC3Filter is playing most of the DTS CDs (at least of the non-14bit variety) for over 5 years.
...it's just because some people located somewhere outside the rach of Hollywood made a couple of software that could do it for you.Are you going to say that it's you that blessed the humankind with these tools? Are you DVD-Jon and muslix all-in-one?
The test to comply with Hollywood requirements is actually that one cannot do it in Windows on a regular PC.Where does this BS come from?

I think you mixed up what forum you are on.
This sh!t doesn't fly on doom9...

Diogen.

[Ghitulescu]

Sure, it was solved, but I think you need to understand what "solved" means

It means that there was already a problem that needed to be solved.

Why is Slysoft based in Antigua?


All what you say is Ok. There is no conspiracy, only Ghitulescu is "hunting for the moon". But imagine the day after Slysoft of DVDfab went out of business. Imagine the internet will be locked (like in China, Niger and other countries). And you will buy a new PC. I wonder how smart you'll be that day, realising you can't do anything. Not even expressing your legal rights because of the digital lock. You'll then understand my point. Unfortunatelly it willl be too late.

Of course, some non bit-exact solutions will still be available (sort of Digital copy of Blu-ray discs), CD-recorders will still copy CD-DAs the analog way and so on. And stupid people will still be happy because they 'll still get the crumbs from the seniors' table ... (Matthew 5:3 Blessed are those who recognize they are spiritually helpless. The kingdom of heaven belongs to them).

[diogen]

Sure, it was solved, but I think you need to understand what "solved" meansI do. Do you?
It means that there was already a problem that needed to be solved.No, it doesn't.
It was well documented on AVSForum.
Have you even been around when that happened?
Why is Slysoft based in Antigua?
Every reading soul on doom9 knows that. Just like 2+2=4.
But no one pretends to be a genius and/or prophet because of that.
I wonder how smart you'll be that day, realising you can't do anything.
Not even expressing your legal rights because of the digital lock. You'll then understand my point. Unfortunatelly it willl be too late.I think you need to visit a doctor. Or a priest.

Here is something that you might consider of interest.
As long as you talk LP vs. CD or anything analog versus digital, you will always have the option to claim to know/hear something others don't.
The moment you step into the digital domain (but don't talk cables yet) the discussion becomes binary in every respect:
it applies to the audio/video stream and logic as well. A claim - any claim - is BS until proven right.

Diogen.

[rotty]

To start, there has to be proof - even if only theoretical at this point - that the watermark can be audible.

And that can be done either if you know the mechanic of the watermark insertion or if you try your golden ears.

Do you even know it is in the human audible freq range? Or are you afraid to scare your dog?

Diogen.


The Cinavia watermark isn’t a tone or tones, it is manipulation of the audio that is already there and therefore well within our range, in other words, it is audible but not necessarily noticeable.

It does therefore however add information to the sound, therefore the sound is corrupted.

I wouldn’t call myself an audiophile, but I like good audio, for me it's the principal that is wrong.

Purists will tell you quite rightly that you can hear the intermodulation between the 44.1K sample rate and certain high frequencies on a CD. Nothing is absolutely perfect eh.

I will leave the moaning to the audiophiles.

[Ghitulescu]

Yes, I am utterly wrong, and you are bringing the truth to the mankind.

I hate to say I told you (plural) so. But I told you so.

I will do it once more. I am used to it. People will never learn, thus the history repeats itself once again.

PS: Solved means by all means that something has been solved, ie a problem was there that needed to be solved. Without a problem there were no SOLVED. That is not plain English, it's 3500 years old logic (mathematics).

[Ghitulescu]

I wouldn’t call myself an audiophile, but I like good audio, it's the principal that is wrong in my opinion.

Purists will tell you quite rightly that you can hear the intermodulation between the 44.1K sample rate and certain high frequencies on a CD. Nothing is absolutely perfect eh.

I will leave the moaning to the audiophiles.

One cannot legally do nothing against cinavia. Not because the laws are favouring the content providers. Because cinavia protects ONLY the work of the others and should not interfer with your own work. Now, honestly, how many people here created their own work? Should I laugh now or what?

If one thinks cinavia is detrimental to his own work he could bring the case before a judge. Strange, no case filed up to now ....

Even worse, complaining about cinavia means automatically one has issues with the copyright ... as nobody else, except the biased audiophiles (knowing beforehand they have a cinavia-infected track), would ever discover the cinavia artefacts ... according to panellists in their applications, the cinavia tracks are auditively indistinguishable.

I am against cinavia from the principles of paying for and getting what that was paid.

[Andy o]

Of course DTS CDs can be played back bit-perfect, and in fact, Vista and 7 made this much simpler than ASIO, with WASAPI exclusive mode. It seems it's you who hasn't kept up. Redbook CDs are the easiest thing to copy anyway, it doesn't matter if you can play them bit-perfect if you can just rip them.

And whatever happened with blu-ray is the same as what happened with DVD. Did you yourself decrypt CSS, back in the day? The vast majority has always relied on people who are smart enough to provide the tools. Even Cinavia is not new, it's very similar to the watermarking used in DVD-A.

The problem with your speculations is that you're stating some truths (and some not), but are taking huge leaps into conclusions without any evidence.

[diogen]

The Cinavia watermark isn’t a tone or tones, it is manipulation of the audio that is already there and therefore well within our range, in other words, it is audible but not necessarily noticeable.

It does therefore however add information to the sound, therefore the sound is corrupted.

I wouldn’t call myself an audiophile, but I like good audio, for me it's the principal that is wrong.

Purists will tell you quite rightly that you can hear the intermodulation between the 44.1K sample rate and certain high frequencies on a CD. Nothing is absolutely perfect eh.

I will leave the moaning to the audiophiles.
I understand the theory and why purists would not be happy.
Fortunately, I'm not in the audiophile category either.

There are just two points I'm trying to make:

1. Whatever can play today BDs (discs, ISOs, derived MKVs, etc.) will be able to do this in the future.
Regardless of the watermark! As long as as the DRM wrappers - AACS and BD+ - are removed.

2. The watermark is around for a year or so and I haven't heard about consumers/audiophiles have bleeding ears
because of the mutilated soundtrack. Hence, it is hardly worth paying attention at the moment.
When they manage to incorporate the watermark checking in the TV/projector, it would be worth to look into.

History is not on the studios' side.
Felten & Co. won the SDMI challenge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Felten).
And that comes from the same people as the BD watermark.

Every Sony attempt to prevent DVD ripping after DVD-Jon, has failed.
Despite being able to C&D some developers.

Hence if there is a perfect DRM it will take time. Something optical media business doesn't have.
And in the end, I'm not sure they actually want a 100% tight DRM...

Diogen.

[Ghitulescu]

The problem with your speculations is that you're stating some truths (and some not), but are taking huge leaps into conclusions without any evidence.

True, I can't provide any evidence for things that will occur in the future :)

[diogen]

Solved means by all means that something has been solved, ie a problem was there...You have no clue what you are talking about.
I'll let you in on the secret: it was one of many Microsoft screw-ups.
And that was the problem.

Not PC98 specs.

Take care.

Diogen.

[Andy o]

2. The watermark is around for a year or so and I haven't heard about consumers/audiophiles have bleeding ears
because of the mutilated soundtrack. Hence, it is hardly worth paying attention at the moment.
And the thing is history is repeating itself with audiophiles and their hypothetically bleeding golden-ears, with the DVD-A watermark. As far as I know, no one could prove they could identify it, and now that it can be ripped, I don't see people complaining about it anymore.

When they manage to incorporate the watermark checking in the TV/projector, it would be worth to look into.That's an if though, and a big IF at that.

Every Sony attempt to prevent DVD ripping after DVD-Jon, has failed.
Despite being able to C&D some developers.
Even better, they taught the word "rootkit" to millions of people in just a few days!

[Andy o]

True, I can't provide any evidence for things that will occur in the future :)

Somehow I think you're being serious despite the smiley.

[diogen]

That's an if though, and a big IF at that.

Even better, they taught the word "rootkit" to millions of people in just a few days!Exactly.
You made my point!

The best chance to implement an unbreakable DRM system is leaving the option open to update it daily.
And that means no hardware players or media. Hence - streaming with Win/OSX/Android/iOS/etc. software players.

And we are getting there...

Diogen.

[Ghitulescu]

Exactly.
You made my point!

The best chance to implement an unbreakable DRM system is leaving the option open to update it daily.
And that means no hardware players or media. Hence - streaming with Win/OSX/Android/iOS/etc. software players.

And we are getting there...

Diogen.

Therefore the need to implement the protections deep into things beyond the reach of even the hardest hacker. The HDCP solutions must be one-chip-ones with no "entry-points" (so one cannot short 2 pins to disable some functionality or enable others, testing must be done with special tools only, samples of the LSI chips must be sent physically to specialised labs for approval, etc etc), the DRM wil be integrated into the CPU, etc. Remember the concept of trusting computing? You're dealing with it now. Everyone told me It's for online banking only. Really?

If one reads the GEMA (the equivalent of RIAA/MPAA) web page, learns that one is indulged to copy for private use the copyrighted works (one must also understand that copyrighted refers exclusively to the works affiliated to GEMA, not to the works made by the unhappier customer), you know, the studios close an eye pretending they don't see you're copying something. This is a blatant lie, as the Copyright law in Germany specifically say "Recht auf Privatkopie" (the right to a private copy), but many people, including newspapers and magazines, happily quote GEMA, instead of reading the law. But a well-promoted lie ends up becoming a truth, right?

So, how can a greedy body avoid the law? Well, one method is to bribe the officials to issue some favourable laws. Hmm, one of them is in Europe the equivalent of DMCA of USA. So, the copyright law says you may copy a work under certain conditions (and definitively after a certain period, which was almost doubled to 95 years), but hey, stop, you are not allowed to circumvent the copyprotections. Not even after 95 years, or 295 years or 1395 years. The ancillary rights will expire eventually, but the interdiction remains.
You have a free ticket to a museum, but you are not allowed to touch the door to open it.

Welcome to the digital age.

[kalehrl]

Therefore the need to implement the protections deep into things beyond the reach of even the hardest hacker.

All this reminds me of recent developments in satellite scrambling systems, especially the ones made by Nagravision and NDS Videogurad. Some packages such as TotalTv (encrypted in NDS) and Max Tv Croatia (encrypted in Nagravision) have employed hardware pairing of cards with the receivers to prevent card sharing. Basically, the last phase of control word descrambling is done somewhere deep in hardware, probably in the processor itself or some other chip. Hackers are at a loss and have no idea how to hack it. Jtaging and other methods are useless. I think Ghitulescu is right to be a bit paranoid.