Two Week Warning

[Cats4U]

Don't the content providers have to re-encode their entire video libraries to use the new Widevine DRM? Or are the videos encoded on the fly as they are streamed? I'm asking because one can still download old videos on HBOMAX at 1080p.

I thought about that myself. I don't know. The way it was presented in the initial news article and followed up in all the later ones was that all the previous encrypting keys would become invalid and only this new DRM will work. If they are hard coded into the video, that's a lot of work, in a short time, for the providers. More than likely it is on the fly but why did they keep the old keys in the past. I just don't know. Maybe the news articles are wrong and they will keep using the old keys along with the new. Well, we don't have long until we find out. I'm totally prepared for this to be the worst disaster ever for us downloaders or it could be a total dud. Whatever happens is going to happen.

[jpp72]

I thought about that myself. I don't know. The way it was presented in the initial news article and followed up in all the later ones was that all the previous encrypting keys would become invalid and only this new DRM will work. If they are hard coded into the video, that's a lot of work, in a short time, for the providers. More than likely it is on the fly but why did they keep the old keys in the past. I just don't know. Maybe the news articles are wrong and they will keep using the old keys along with the new. Well, we don't have long until we find out. I'm totally prepared for this to be the worst disaster ever for us downloaders or it could be a total dud. Whatever happens is going to happen.

My basic and maybe wrong understanding is that keys are keys. Getting the keys is the hard part. You can get the keys from a third party like getwvkeys.cc or using your own CDM by inputting data available in your browser's developer tools. Once you input that data and submit, that third party site/CDM will give you the keys that can then be used by Bento4's mp4decrypt.

Once the new CDM is active, you won't be able to get keys unless they update their method of getting the keys for that new CDM. It's usually figuring out how to generate the proper signature so the CDM thinks it's Chrome and the site's player that is asking for the keys and not a program to download.

All the "experts" that do this don't seem too concerned because of the famed "analog hole" but we never know. The thing that may throw a spanner in the works is making the old CDMs obsolete...

We can speculate till the cows come home but we will know tomorrow i guess...

[jimc115]

Wrong, Google completely invalidates all old CDMs when new ones are listed. I worked for Google while in schools last year and we went over this in depth. Do your homework. It will however work for a short time when the new one is rolled out then it's
restricted. The CDM is the secure closed-box environment that handles digital rights management (DRM) restrictions and decryption of the content. Before denying access to the current CDM, Google will start rolling out the new version of it, with Google’s Chrome browser leading the way.

You don't know everything...quit pretending you do.

[Chameleon]

We will see, and I am not pretending, I go to school to learn, maybe others should try that. The CDM will be revoked. Maybe a new L3 or L1 is on the way, you do not know.

[Dog]

You don't know everything...quit pretending you do.

I'm curious what knowledge *you* have that contradicts what Chameleon said, since you didn't share anything to support your gaslighting. Considering Chameleon claims to have worked at Google (and I have no reason not to believe that - plenty of people either currently work for Google or have worked for Google in the past - I even know some and one of them told me basically the same thing recently). I'll admit that I don't always agree with Chameleon, and even find some of his/her comments more curt or seemingly abrasive than I like, but at least he typically talks out of the correct hole. You seem to be talking out of the wrong hole - you might want to check that.

[jimc115]

I'm curious what knowledge *you* have that contradicts what Chameleon said, since you didn't share anything to support your gaslighting. Considering Chameleon claims to have worked at Google (and I have no reason not to believe that - plenty of people either currently work for Google or have worked for Google in the past - I even know some and one of them told me basically the same thing recently). I'll admit that I don't always agree with Chameleon, and even find some of his/her comments more curt or seemingly abrasive than I like, but at least he typically talks out of the correct hole. You seem to be talking out of the wrong hole - you might want to check that.

So claiming to have worked for Google is proof...grow up.

Google released a schedule of dates and times when updates are released and when CDM's are invalidated. CDM's are not commonly deactivated which is why OLD CONTENT continues to work.
New content encrypted with the NEW CDM does not get decrypted by old CDM's.

Did you ever take a minute to think of why OLDER CONTENT still works and new content stops when a new CDM is added?

Providers are not normally required to upgrade and can continue using older CDM's as long as Google allows it.....meaning they don't have to re-encrypt all content.
NOW, once a year, ALL CDM's for browsers are killed and only new CDM's work. Be thankful for the pushback....Google wanted this to happen every three months.

Think before you attack someone else.Oh wait...that might require a functioning brain.

If in fact as Chameleon stated that only ONE CDM exists at a time, StreamFab would not be able to decrypt any content PERIOD when a new one was released until it was cracked.

If you actually took the time to look in the Streamfab directory, you'd see THREE different CDM's listed and in use.

[Chameleon]

Only the bottom one is functional, they didn't clean up the new versions. The other two are revoked.

[Dog]

So claiming to have worked for Google is proof...grow up.

I said or implied no such thing. I only said it's not an unbelievable claim. You're statement that Chameleon was pretending to know everything when, again, no such claim was made however, was pretty childish. Maybe you should consider your own advice. It was this, and not any particular claim about the CDMs or switchover that prompted my comment.

Google released a schedule of dates and times when updates are released and when CDM's are invalidated. CDM's are not commonly deactivated which is why OLD CONTENT continues to work.
New content encrypted with the NEW CDM does not get decrypted by old CDM's.

Did you ever take a minute to think of why OLDER CONTENT still works and new content stops when a new CDM is added?

I want to reiterate that my comment wasn't based on any of this, but I want to answer rather than dismiss your comments and questions.

I don't have knowledge of the chain of events that starts with an unencrypted media file and leads to an encrypted media file being delivered to the endpoint. Storage level encryption would be useful to prevent, or at least slow, the dissemination of the source (read: on-storage) media in a viewable form through non-official means, but it would be a grossly inefficient way to deal with things like StreamFab. I did a quick search, and I must admit I am rather surprised - storage level encryption seems to be the way the file is handled end-to-end. Considering how decryption keys are typically handled in DRM systems, I did not expect the actual DRM key to be implemented at the point in the chain that would require the highest energy and time expense to change the CDM or even just the encryption key for any particular file. I admittedly had thoughts about why older and/or lower res. content still worked, but I resisted the idea that any system used for such a thing would be designed to make changing CDMs (or even keys) so resource consuming.

Providers are not normally required to upgrade and can continue using older CDM's as long as Google allows it.....meaning they don't have to re-encrypt all content.
NOW, once a year, ALL CDM's for browsers are killed and only new CDM's work. Be thankful for the pushback....Google wanted this to happen every three months.

Think before you attack someone else.Oh wait...that might require a functioning brain.

If in fact as Chameleon stated that only ONE CDM exists at a time, StreamFab would not be able to decrypt any content PERIOD when a new one was released until it was cracked.

If you actually took the time to look in the Streamfab directory, you'd see THREE different CDM's listed and in use.

I've gone back to re-read each of your posts in this thread. At each point your comments specifically about the CDMs make sense to me. At the same time, Chameleon's statements leave me wondering about how TVs deal with new CDMs if they aren't receiving an update each time a new CDM is rolled out. However, Chameleon, while not offering any kind of verifiable evidence, has stated that he has first-hand knowledge for why he believes what he has posted. While the claim doesn't have the same weight as verifiable evidence, he has been an active part of the community for longer than I have, and I have never seen any of his posts that were dishonest or intentionally misleading. Weighing between what seems to make sense to me (with me being someone with little to no knowledge of the subject matter) vs. what someone that is willing to put their community reputation on the line says when claiming first-hand knowledge isn't easy. But, unless Chameleon's claim of first-hand knowledge is debunked, or his honesty is shown to be questionable, I find what doesn't make sense to me more believable. Having studied law, medicine, business admin., and sign language at the college level I have learned that the way things really work aren't always the way that makes sense to any particular person. If you've got knowledge, experience, or anything else to support what you are suggesting, please throw it out there. Again, my original comment to you was not about any of this - just your specific response to Chameleon. Either way, if you've got something, I am always willing to reconsider things (for whatever value that may or may not hold for you) - I'd rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.

[jimc115]

I said or implied no such thing. I only said it's not an unbelievable claim. You're statement that Chameleon was pretending to know everything when, again, no such claim was made however, was pretty childish. Maybe you should consider your own advice. It was this, and not any particular claim about the CDMs or switchover that prompted my comment.




I want to reiterate that my comment wasn't based on any of this, but I want to answer rather than dismiss your comments and questions.

I don't have knowledge of the chain of events that starts with an unencrypted media file and leads to an encrypted media file being delivered to the endpoint. Storage level encryption would be useful to prevent, or at least slow, the dissemination of the source (read: on-storage) media in a viewable form through non-official means, but it would be a grossly inefficient way to deal with things like StreamFab. I did a quick search, and I must admit I am rather surprised - storage level encryption seems to be the way the file is handled end-to-end. Considering how decryption keys are typically handled in DRM systems, I did not expect the actual DRM key to be implemented at the point in the chain that would require the highest energy and time expense to change the CDM or even just the encryption key for any particular file. I admittedly had thoughts about why older and/or lower res. content still worked, but I resisted the idea that any system used for such a thing would be designed to make changing CDMs (or even keys) so resource consuming.



I've gone back to re-read each of your posts in this thread. At each point your comments specifically about the CDMs make sense to me. At the same time, Chameleon's statements leave me wondering about how TVs deal with new CDMs if they aren't receiving an update each time a new CDM is rolled out. However, Chameleon, while not offering any kind of verifiable evidence, has stated that he has first-hand knowledge for why he believes what he has posted. While the claim doesn't have the same weight as verifiable evidence, he has been an active part of the community for longer than I have, and I have never seen any of his posts that were dishonest or intentionally misleading. Weighing between what seems to make sense to me (with me being someone with little to no knowledge of the subject matter) vs. what someone that is willing to put their community reputation on the line says when claiming first-hand knowledge isn't easy. But, unless Chameleon's claim of first-hand knowledge is debunked, or his honesty is shown to be questionable, I find what doesn't make sense to me more believable. Having studied law, medicine, business admin., and sign language at the college level I have learned that the way things really work aren't always the way that makes sense to any particular person. If you've got knowledge, experience, or anything else to support what you are suggesting, please throw it out there. Again, my original comment to you was not about any of this - just your specific response to Chameleon. Either way, if you've got something, I am always willing to reconsider things (for whatever value that may or may not hold for you) - I'd rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.

If your TV does not receive the newest update and all other cdms were revoked, it would stop decrypting until an update is received.
It is NOT normal for a TV to be sent an updated CDM.

Android devices are rarely updated also. If they suspect a problem, they will revoke that individual CDM.

I don't care who you are or what you think....I'm under no obligation to prove anything to you or anyone else.
In other words...mind your own ASDG$%W^ business.

[jimc115]

From Google...

September 29th, 2022
– Google initiated the updated CDM rollout by releasing it on Chrome’s experimental Canary channel

October 25th, 2022
– Chrome 107 will be released in the stable channel and will include the new CDM

November 15th, 2022
– The new CDM will be released on all other Chromium-based browsers like Edge or Opera for M95 and above

December 6th, 2022
– Older CDM versions will be revoked and deactivated and cannot be used any longer

NOW...DO YOU SEE THE LAST LINE?
IT SPECIFICALLY STATES OLDER CDM VERSIONS...MEANING MORE THAN ONE.....NOT THE OLD CDM.

[Chameleon]

This program uses an L3 CDM. The Android browser CDM is the one that will not get revoked. Mona said it here. DVDFab Forum - question for Mona or other DVDFab staff, re SF for Android. L3 is incapable of getting 1080p through any browser that the program itself doesn't have the key in its database. Therefore, you can figure it out I hope. When is the next 2-week warning? LOL.

[jimc115]

An Android CDM can be revoked at will by Google or ANY of the Content Providers.

[AGuyWithAComputer]

From Google...

November 15th, 2022
– The new CDM will be released on all other Chromium-based browsers like Edge or Opera for M95 and above

hrmmm... this date seems familiar...

Oh wait a bunch of new stuff stopped working on that date. The providers most likely already have all the content they are keeping past the date using the new CDM.

As some one that has to install new certificates and reject old ones. We always make sure to roll out the new one completely before rejecting the old one. So it makes sense that the new CDM has been out in the wild for a while and almost everything is on it already.

[Justin]

All good so far downloaded latest episode on peacock

[IceT]

Still Working!