Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 91

Thread: Mozilla's Route For Implementing W3C EME (HTML5 DRM)

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,309

    Default Mozilla's Route For Implementing W3C EME (HTML5 DRM)

    Phoronix: Mozilla's Route For Implementing W3C EME (HTML5 DRM)

    Due to other web browsers moving ahead with supporting W3C's EME specification, Mozilla too will begin supporting this specification for handling encrypted media (Digital Rights Management) within the web browser...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTY5MDU

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Valencia
    Posts
    9

    Default

    I don't like HTML5 DRM, but is a necessary wrong if html5 wants to continue expanding instead of third party privative plugins. And Firefox has to implement it to not stay behind.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    33

    Default

    Great,

    So we are trading in Flash/Silvershite for HTML5 plus an adobe CDM plugin which is sure to be buggy and non portable.

    I think it is a loose loose situation for Linux.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    140

    Default

    Dammit

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Cracked in 5, 4, 3...

    Since it relies on a binary blob, does that mean the DRM provider will be able to choose what platforms we can use it on? So much for an open web.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    205

    Default Fuck you, Mozilla

    Paraphrasing Linus with Nvidia: Fuck you, Mozilla.

    First they deal in an odd way with Oracle, now they deal with Adobe. What will be the next? Microsoft?

    They are getting more corrupt in each step, giving advantage to propietary software. They are traitors of open source, thanks to them the web will be more closed than ever.

    Why the hell do we need the shitty DRM to play movies? People will rip it and publish the content on torrent sites (HDDVD, Bluray, HDMI... they are all got cracked), this is a pain in the ass to the user that pays for the content. So here they have, less people will find benefit in paying for content.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Bucharest Romania
    Posts
    29

    Default

    I can understand Mozilla's need to stay in trend when it come with implementing the HTML5 support and so on.

    I can understand blob against opensource too.

    But to use Adobe's DRM technology? Goddam, I can hardly think about a less Linux friendly software supplier. Even Microshit is more approachable in Linux related matters (not necessary OSS but still Linux, see the hypervisor, linux skype and so on).

    Disgusting overall.

    P.S. A good thing Mozilla is forked on *nix (Debian's Iceweasel for instance) and i hope they wont implement this piece of crap.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    680

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hourwatch View Post
    I don't like HTML5 DRM, but is a necessary wrong if html5 wants to continue expanding instead of third party privative plugins. And Firefox has to implement it to not stay behind.
    Sad that we would still depend on Adobe, who already gave Linux the finger. What about different architectures like ARM and what not?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danwood76 View Post
    So we are trading in Flash/Silvershite for HTML5 plus an adobe CDM plugin which is sure to be buggy and non portable.
    Indeed. The whole purpose of HTML5/CSS/Javascript is to have web-site and web-browser all organized around *OPEN STANDARDS*. So anyone is free to jump in and try experimenting/innovating (even if it is as absurd as getting a web-enabled fridge).
    With a propretary CDM plugin, we are back to the whole unportable situation as before.

    I just hope that this time, the CDM will have a *VERY MINIMALISTIC* interface (encrypted data goes in, decrypted data goes out). And will access as few other functionality as possible.
    Just to reduce the amount of things that adobe will very likely manage to fuck up, and thus reduce the attack surface for future drive-by attackers.

    Quote Originally Posted by AJenbo View Post
    Sad that we would still depend on Adobe, who already gave Linux the finger. What about different architectures like ARM and what not?
    Let's hope that the interface will be simplistic enough that some other entity could provide a byte-coded (PNaCl? JVM?) alternative that could run on alternate architectures.

    Quote Originally Posted by Britoid View Post
    Cracked in 5, 4, 3...
    Indeed, given Adobe's track record regarding security, they are very much likely to fuck up enough that the thing will get reverse engineered.
    (Cf. what's already happened with the predecessor in Flash : RTMPE vs. rtpmdump )
    That's an alternative hope for those (like me) happy enough to live in a jurisdiction where such reverse engineering are authorised.

    The thing that we actually need to hope is that the CDM will be easy enough for Firefox to isolate/jail.
    Adobe is bound to write an exploitable piece of shit.
    Process isolation (as done with Flash currently) and/or running in a restricted VM (PNaCl, JVM) would help mitigiate this kind of problems.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AJenbo View Post
    Sad that we would still depend on Adobe, who already gave Linux the finger. What about different architectures like ARM and what not?
    Linux is an OS and not an architecture for hardware so I'm not sure what you're asking by bringing up ARM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •