Clampdown on TV 'Dodgy Boxes'

Humm, Dodgy Box, Hard to argue there is anything illegal in using ATV / Enigma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enigma_(DVB) / E2 linux box for streaming free to air content. I mean how would freestat.ie be allowed to continue trading otherwise?

Whole Dodgy thing sounds like a myth invented by the market leader to try to keep their exorbatant subscritions ! Dreamboxes etc. are nothing more than minicomouters with DVB tuner interfaces, nothing illegal in that.

In terms of sharing cards or breaking encrypted streams, well they ARE broadcast, cypherpunks would class that as a plain sight puzzle opportunity.

Media reports that paid streaming providers going to use 'special tactics' to find users [of implied illegal receivers] sounds like a breach of GDPR, onus on them to prove illegality BEFORE being able to store private personal data on the grounds of criminal activity.

Not a legal eagle, but all smells like strong arm putting the frighteners on people to protect their profits (excuse the hardware pun :) )

Lads, would the Nvidia shield (new/secondhand) be worth it in this day and age?

Gave cancellation notice to sky to get rid of the sports extra, but will be looking to get NowTv when it's gone from sky. So hope to install the Now app on it.

May also look at IPTV/vpn down the line just to have extra options for box sets, movies, etc.

stremio/kodi seems to be the way for vod, iptv can also be handy though, stremio/kodi dirt cheap also

Thanks @Wanderer78 . I have no interest in Kodi. Prefer just a simple one or two button setup to be honest.

Some providers are supplying emby accounts now. I had a test of on recently, it had TV show boxsets, movies and ppvs up within an hour of broadcast. Just had to install the app and enter the username/password. Very impressive setup. Think they were charging $20 every 3 months.

That type of payment setup would interest me. The way most providers are these days you have to pay the full 12 months up front.

I have no interest in that because it could mean you'll have it great for a few week, and possibly a **** service for the rest of your term, or you'll have just been scammed of your money.

The equipment used for dodgybox operations is not illegal. There are legal issues with the distribution of hacked or pirated services. The current legislation, from what I remember of it, is intended to prevent the piracy of services rather than penalise individual users. The reason for this, and you won't read it from the "technology" journalists, is because the thinking of the broadcasters at the time the legislation was drafted was that it was better to convert the users of a pirate device or service into paying subscribers. Broadcasters tend to be cynical realists. Those that are not typically do not survive.

The whole dodgybox thing emerged at a time when some of the smartcard based systems had not seen any major hacks on their smartcards. The Dreambox was an early version. As the security of smartcard based systems collapsed in the early to mid 1990s, the dodgybox approach faded into the background due to the availability of pirate smartcards for most of the European (Sky VideoCrypt and others) and US (DirecTV) smartcard based systems.It made a reappearance in the late 1990s as commerrcial smartcad piracy was effectively outlawed by the EEC/European Commission by a Directive. Previously, the broadcasters had to deal with a multitude of local legislation if they wanted to fight piracy.

I am rather familiar, moreso than any technology journalists in the Irish media, with the theory underlying card sharing and the first generation of dodgyboxes. It was published in 1991. One of the main developers (Adi Shamir of RSA fame) of the algorithms in the VideoCrypt system had been telling people at the launch of Sky's VideoCrypt at a tradeshow in the UK that it would take until the sun burned out before the algorithms could be cracked. That was a bit of a challenge. It took less than 10 seconds to work out a compromise.

It was helped by the fact that there was an imperfect implementation of the Fiat-Shamir Zero Knowledge Test used to authenticate smartcards in VideoCrypt decoders. That meant that a key stream could effectively be used in any decoder as long as there was a kind of synchronisation. News Datacom (the developer of VideoCrypt) and others cited the theory in various patents. It also implemented various countermeasures to stop the approach working though they had varying levels of success. Internet bandwith for ordinary users at that time (1991) was limited to dial-up speeds of around 2,400 Baud (effectively 2,400 bits per second). The small size of the shared key data was ideally suited. The bandwidth for dial-up users at the time of that tradeshow had increased to about 9,600 Baud. It was also possible to record an scrambled VideoCrypt movie or programme and download a key stream recording and use it to watch that programme by feeding the key stream to the decoder along with the scrambled progamme. The CypherPunks mailing list didn't really cover a lot of this at the time though there were other lists and groups. Don't think that I ever heard or read of it being described as a "plain sight puzzle opportunity". We don't think like that and it is often difficult for "technology" journalists to understand that. Apart from the commercial piracy issue, it was simply a challenge. When someone claims to have an "unhackable" system, that is the biggest challenge that can be made. Many systems considered "unhackable" (VideoCrypt, EuroCrypt, Enigma etc) were often weakened by flaws in their implementation.

The second generation of dodgybox took advantage of the increase in bandwidth for ordinary Internet users. This meant that it wsa possible to broadcast a decrypted service over the Internet (perhaps with some app-based security). It effectively puts the dodgybox network operator in much the same position as the broadcasters with ensuring payment and security. The problem for such operations is that as the size of the network increases, the possibility of detection also increases.

The important thing to remember about the media and its coverage is that those covering the subject rarely have any background in the field or in Technology. Conditional Access Systems is a highly specialised field. There are potential GDPR issues with the claims of how the broadcasters would go about identifying dodgybox users. There are also technological problems in that multiple ISPs are involved and that means identifying multiple IP addresses and the users behind them. Seizing the customer records of dodgybox network operators is often mentioned. This also relies on identification and legal action. It is like trying to drain the Atlantic with a teaspoon. It is much more effective to provide some press releases to journalists who are, in turn, interviewed by other journalists who know even less about dodgyboxes. Until there is encryption to the eyeballs and the user of every IP address monitored and identified, the dodgybox issue will remain a problem for broadcasters who are trying to use cutting edge 18th century legal approaches to deal with what is a 21st century technological problem.

With the large number of dodgy streams about, has there been any reports of individual dodgy streams being hacked?
Prompted by the post from jmcc I just wondered if such streams are in essence "a challenge" to some?