On Sat, 04 Apr 2020 16:29:11 -0400, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:

> On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 14:22:11 -0400, "Mayayana" 
> declaimed the following:
>
>
>>    From what I've found it sounds like ARM is not
>>considered secure enough for DRM. If I'd known it would have this
>>[apparently unfixable] problem I wouldn't have bought it.
>>
>>
>  ARM, or R-Pi?
>
>  ARM (the company) licenses processor architecture/designs, but the
> licensed company is responsible for adding in other features. The R-Pi
> SoC originated, as I recall, as a cell phone core.
>
>  There are ARM SoCs that incorporate things like hardware AES and
other
> encryption, secure boot capability
> http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.prd29-
genc-009492c/CACGCHFE.html
> and other such features... But those SoCs tend to be more expensive (and
> activating secure boot can be a one-time action, not conducive to a
> system running Linux wherein much of the boot logic can change from
> version to version, and the file system is writable).
>
>  For DRM, the lack is likely that the R-Pi does not have hardware
> encryption (software can be hacked), and may also be too slow for
> streaming data (especially as the foundation hasn't yet released a
> 64-bit OS -- while 64-bit may add some overhead for routine programs,
> software DRM/encryption may gain from having full 64-bit operations
> rather than having to split stuff into 32-bit halves).
> .

if you needs to keep your encryption method secret then it is no good

it is the keys that needs to remain secret not the algorithm



--
I haven't lost my mind; I know exactly where I left it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05