Clampdown on TV 'Dodgy Boxes'

Will Gardaí resources really be taken away from investigating more serious crime—like assaults, burglaries, or public safety threats—to chase people using dodgy TV boxes?

No.

The whole idea is that the legislation is changed so that a dodgy box user can be fined by revenue or customs for using an illegal streaming service.

No Garda resources involved.

I don't get up on my hind legs about scaremongering.I get riled up with misinformed people telling other people it will never happen.

Hows the average punter supposed to know the difference between a reputable supplier or a 20$ one. Maybe they supplied from an IPTV provider, who knows what has been added to it since it was shipped. The same with rooted firesticks. Do you go around and scan everyone's firestick\android box for them?

Apps and extensions are taken over all the time by hackers and malicious code could be added at any time.

Any VPN logs handed over is probably done is likely to down by security services and not likely to be made public,so we are not likely to find out. The famed leader in privacy Proton in Switzerland was forced to handover info https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58476983

What makes you think Ireland would be any different?

I said no such thing so stop misquoting me.

if anyone can find it on theirs please share!

Who was claiming that card sharing would never end? The provider of Sky's systems, News Datacom, filed a patent on one countermeasure in the 1990s. The problem was that the "feature" that enabled card sharing to work simply was a flaw in implementation in all early VideoCrypt decoders. The data flowing between the smartcard and the decoder was unencrypted. This meant that it was possible to analyse the commands and responses. The encrypted key was sent to the smartcard and if the card was authorised, the decrypted key was sent back to the decoder. The flaw was that the decrypted key would work in any decoder at the same time.

Fixing the flaw would have involved retrofitting every VideoCrypt decoder in the market with the faulty implementation. That was not commercially viable. However, Sky and News Datacom had bigger problems as the Sky smartcard had been compromised and pirate smartcards became available.

Some of the countermeasures outlined in the News Datacom patents made their way into the Sky Digital system. News Datacom and Sky decided to keep their Conditional Access Module (CAM) in set top boxes unique while other broadcasters naively, in my opinion, went for a shared CAM. Once CAMs could be emulated in software, some of the advantages and countermeasures were in trouble. The theory on that problem was published in 1989 and even got a mention in Der Spiegel magazine. Some of the theories underlying various hacks and countermeasures can be years old by the time they are implemented or used.

Unless there is what is known as a "general solution" to any system, all hacks have a limited lifetime from when they are outlined or implemented. It is an ongoing war of measures and countermeasures between those who compromise systems and those who design and defend them. You are probably not going to read that in the mainstream media. Journalists in the Irish mainstream will probably freely admit that they are not experts. They are not even "so-called experts".

The increase in Internet bandwidth between the late 1990s when Sky introduced its digital service, and today is vast. In the 1990s, video streaming was not viable for most people on dial-up connections. Today, streaming is viable. That changed things for the broadcasters because their programmes could be rebroadcast or streamed. Even with the favourable legislation in various EU Directives, the broadcasters are finding it increasingly more difficult to deal with streaming services because the hardware is not illegal and is encryption system independent. This is very different from when a hack would only work on one broadcaster's encryption system.

The broadcasters focus on taking out dodgybox network operators because that is the most efficient way, at the moment, of dealing with the problem. As a dodgybox network grows in size, the probability of detection increases. That can often lead to the network being shut down and coverage in the media of any subsequent prosecution.

The almost borderless Internet has turned dodgybox networks into a major problem for broadcasters because there are multiple jurisdictions involved. A dodgybox network could operate from outside Ireland, the UK or even the EU. So the broadcasters try to focus on the distributors of dodgybox services.

The existence of these dodgybox networks obviously upsets yourself and dxhound2005. You will just have to content yourselves in reading the latest Indo article because there is no simple solution to the dodgybox problem at the moment.

It is an ongoing war of measures and countermeasures between those who compromise systems and those who design and defend them. You are probably not going to read that in the mainstream media. Journalists in the Irish mainstream will probably freely admit that they are not experts. They are not even "so-called experts".

So you are saying we are not going to read in the mainstream media that it's a game of cat and mouse between rights holders and those who compromise their systems?

I'm sure I've read that sort of analysis lots of times in recent years and longer.

This imperfect understanding is the result of relying on the mainstream media for "explanations" of what is happening in Pay TV. The only thing that the mainstream media seems to cover is the battle between rights holders / broadcasters and dodgybox networks. The systems used by the broadcasters to protect their services rarely, if ever, get a mention.

The rights holders typically licence their content to the broadcasters who then broadcast it to their subscribers. The broadcasters may use systems developed by others to protect those broadcasts. The electronic war of measure and countermeasure between those who compromise and those who develop and defend the system happens in the background. Sometimes the broadcasters also produce the content.

The "cat and mouse" description is often used by people who are unaware of what is going on in the background and you haven't read this kind of analysis in the mainstream media. The reason for this is simple: most mainstream journalists covering the dodgybox issue have little expertise in Technology and probably none in Conditional Access Systems or cryptography. In addition to the technological part of the problem, there are also legislative, political and commercial aspects. It is not one that can be solved simply. See if you can work out the possible political aspect.

The only thing that the mainstream media seems to cover is the battle between rights holders / broadcasters and dodgybox networks. The systems used by the broadcasters to protect their services rarely, if ever, get a mention.

That's because that's the only part of it the general public are interested in.

Most dodgy box users don't give a hoot about the systems used.

It's very arrogant of you to think these journalist are lacking the knowledge you claim to have just because they don't write about it in main stream media.

There is a risk from malware on some of the cheaper Chinese products. Naturally, people should take the necessary precautions before using these devices. The Kimwolf botnet seems to be exploiting some of these devices.

Is this the same crowd as the "you wouldn't steal a car" adverts. They had great success for the music and movie industry 👍🏻

These infamous unsubstantiated "stats" about website visits again? Apart from that, he was OK on the technical side of things as it was aimed at a non-technical audience. He didn't seem to know that there was a piracy industry targeting Pay TV operators like Sky and other European operators hence the Napster reference. Napster was primarily music focused. The comments about legislation were a bit hand-wavy. The IP address comments are more problematic because it would be necessary to get access to the logs of the ISP. If a VPN was used, the chain would be more complicated. On ISPs, IP addresses are typically assigned to subscribers for a specific time (lease) and then change. ISPs often charge extra for a fixed IP address that does not change. That would require analysis of logs, and various legal actions.

You still have not substantiated these "stats" on website visits or how these "stats" were obtained and generated.

so rang vm, theyre looking into it,theyre surprised i dont have account settings in my app to do it myself, 24 to 48hrs to sort it, the usual shpeel!