• Taleya@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 day ago

    Mate, digital cinema uses this encryption /decryption method for KDMs.

    The keys are tied into multiple physical hardware ids, many of which (such as player/.projector ) are also married cryptographically. Any deviation along a massive chain and you get no content.

    Those playback keys are produced from DKDMs that are insanely tightly controlled. The DKDM production itself even more so.

    And that’s just to play a movie. This is proven tech, decades old. You’re not gonna break it with premiere.

    • tweeks@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      19 hours ago

      But how would one simple member of the audience easily determine if this whole chain of events is valid, when they don’t even get how it works or what to look out for?

      You’d have to have a public key of trusted sources that people automatically check with their browser, but all the steps in between need to be trusted too. I can imagine it is too much of a hassle for most.

      But then again, that has always been the case for most.

      • Rossphorus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        This is just standard public key cryptography, we already do this for website certificates. Your browser puts a little lock icon next to the URL if it’s legit, or provides you with a big, full-page warning if something’s wrong with the cert.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      This is for restricting use, not proving authenticity of the videos recording. Anyone can spin up keys and sign videos, so in a legal battle it would be worthless.

      • Taleya@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        The technology would be extremely easy to adapt, with the certs being tied to the original recording equipment hardware. Given i don’t see a $60 ip cam having a dolphin board it would probably be relegated to much higer end equipment, but any modification with a new key would break the chain of veracity

        • Valmond@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          16 hours ago

          This is blatantly not true, it would be extremely simple to circumvent. How do you “tie” the cert to a specific hardware without trusting manufacturers? You just can’t, it’s like putting a padlock on a pizzabox.

          • Rossphorus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            As with everything, trust is required eventually. It’s more about reducing the amount of trust required than removing it entirely. It’s the same with HTTPS - website certificates only work if you trust the root certificate authorities, for example. Root manufacturer keys may only be certified if they have passed some level of trust with the root authority/authorities. Proving that trust is well-founded is more a physical issue than an algorithmic one. As it is with root CAs it may involve physical cybersecurity audits, etc.

          • Taleya@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            14 hours ago

            I literally explained earlier how this exact technology is used in digital cinema dude c’mon.

            • Valmond@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              12 hours ago

              That doesn’t mean it’s useful for forensics, IMO.

              Edit: not saying it wont be though, just that it’s not as bullet proof as you’d think, IMO.