Chrome 57 Will Permanently Enable DRM

[Lucian Armasu]

The next version of Chrome, Chrome 57, will permanently enable the browser's DRM plugin and will not allow users to disable it. Users won't be able to disable the PDF viewer and the Native Client plugin either.

Chrome 57 Will Permanently Enable DRM : Read more

 

[Elysian890]

If people asks me why I use Firefox, i'll show them this.

 

[aquielisunari]

And these content providers/owners wonder why people torrent instead of using these services,,,, this one of the main reasons besides money.

And this user shows why content is so expensive. Justifying theft(digital or otherwise) isn't possible.

oligopoly is your word of the day.

 

[bo cephas]

Time to switch browsers.

 

[cat1092]

I don't have a problem with the change, nor to I intend to switch back to Firefox full time again. Was a loyal user for nearly 4 years after IE8 crippled my XP Pro notebook that had only 2GB of DDR2 RAM, yet after a couple of Full buggy versions (to include several sub-versions), hopped on the Google Train & have never looked back.

Google Chrome, if not burdened down with extensions (what many terms 'add-ons') is a very fast browser, much more so than Firefox, and if one needs resources while performing non-Chrome activities, there's a setting to fix that. Go to Settings, to the bottom of the page click 'Show Advanced Settings', close to the bottom that a pre-checked box that says 'Continue running background apps while Google Chrome is closed' and uncheck that option, then restart the browser. This is the same for all Chromium based browsers, to include Opera, the up & rising Vivaldi, Flash Peak Slimjet (a fast ad-free browser) & others.

Once that's done, then Chrome will no longer hog the RAM on systems that has 4GB or less, or 8GB if one is performing other intensive work, because it won't auto start with the computer. With 16 to 32GB RAM installed, this is a non-issue & nothing to fret over.

As far as being on the legit side of the table, it's those who are stealing digital media who are driving up pricing for honest, paying customers like myself. Viewing pirated media is no different than running a non-genuine OS, as far as personal morals goes, both are wrong. There's plenty of free & legit sites to watch movies, as well as 'trailers', which some believes are better than viewing the final product.

So if enforcing DRM helps consumers to have fewer price increases due to theft, I'm all for it.

As far as it being as opportunity for Firefox, I don't believe so. For starters, Mozilla is in a transition period, and over time, Firefox will become more & more Chrome-like. Some of the extensions have already been removed, and word has it that perhaps the most powerful security extension of any browser in NoScript, as well as their powerful download manager in Down Them All (the latter developer has been very vocal about this) are going away, and the lead developer for DTA stated that he wouldn't make an effort to rework the extension for the upcoming changes. Of which more will be on the way in the next few release cycles.

So I see this in a positive light, that major browsers will have no choice at some point other than follow Google's lead.

Cat

 

[KaiserPhantasma]

Can someone sum this up for me? me being one of the "average users"? I don't really know what to take from this.

 

[alextheblue]

And these content providers/owners wonder why people torrent instead of using these services,,,, this one of the main reasons besides money.

Fearmongering AND ignorance, impressive! Explain how this DRM extension hinders you? It's used for paid content access... like Netflix, Hulu, etc. If you don't have a subscription, you can't watch their content. If you do and you have a compatible browser (or DRM-enabled app), you can watch their content. There are many reasons people torrent... some are legit reasons. But DRM protected pay services are not a legit gripe since you have access to apps and browsers that can play the content with ease.

Can someone sum this up for me? me being one of the "average users"? I don't really know what to take from this.

It's really about encryption. They're getting away from proprietary solutions like Silverlight and Flash to secure their subscription content. So the browsers will have a built-in DRM plug-in that is used when required by a secured (encrypted) stream (like Netflix). Despite what some pants-soiling fanatics would have you believe, it won't affect regular users at all, unless they insist on doing something silly like using an outdated browser. Even irregular users will be fine in most cases.

 

[JackBurton]

@KAISERPHANTASMA

This is much ado about nothing. They've locked out third party PDF viewers to likely prevent security issues (do NOT install extensions unless you know what you're doing), and the DRM setting is irrelevant as if you disabled it, you wouldn't of been able to Netflix.

To the average user this means nothing. To internet kleptos, they'll whine but won't switch.

 

[Raymond_92]

Shame, I suppose Vivaldi (Being based on google's chromium) will also be affected.

I will be swapping to firefox as my default browser.

 

[matmat9v]

And these content providers/owners wonder why people torrent instead of using these services,,,, this one of the main reasons besides money.

Fearmongering AND ignorance, impressive! Explain how this DRM extension hinders you? It's used for paid content access... like Netflix, Hulu, etc. If you don't have a subscription, you can't watch their content. If you do and you have a compatible browser (or DRM-enabled app), you can watch their content. There are many reasons people torrent... some are legit reasons. But DRM protected pay services are not a legit gripe since you have access to apps and browsers that can play the content with ease.

Can someone sum this up for me? me being one of the "average users"? I don't really know what to take from this.

It's really about encryption. They're getting away from proprietary solutions like Silverlight and Flash to secure their subscription content. So the browsers will have a built-in DRM plug-in that is used when required by a secured (encrypted) stream (like Netflix). Despite what some pants-soiling fanatics would have you believe, it won't affect regular users at all, unless they insist on doing something silly like using an outdated browser. Even irregular users will be fine in most cases.

1. Except that DRM plugin is a surface attack that is by law blocked from any testing by anyone except developer. So much easier attack target.
2. The more sites use DRM (which is not free in terms of performance by the way), the less chance other browsers and/or operating systems have of providing full user experience because content will not be displayed in this new browser/system - it's of course because there is no standard, open source and free DRM alternative that content providers are likely to use.

DRM is not created to protect from users stealing content but to wage war between content providers, to lock users to their services.

Contrary to what the article states users can disable opening PDF documents in inbuilt plugin, they can (in settings) choose to use external program to do so.

 

[razor512]

Can someone sum this up for me? me being one of the "average users"? I don't really know what to take from this.

The takeaway is that the DRM plugin will be permanently enabled, thus you now have a larger attack surface, consisting of code that security researchers can not legally attempt to exploit, thus instead of this code being proactively attacked and responsibly disclosed to the company, we will now have to wait until a malicious person exploits it before work can be done to patch the issue.

It is overall bad for the user as for the sake of DRM, you are being made objectively less safe if using that browser.
There is no perfect code, thus one of the best ways to remain secure, is to reduce your attack surface.

Think how often flash, shockwave, silverlight, and java gets exploited. Normally when these plugins get exploited, if you do not have them installed, then you are safe. If you do not install java, then you are secured against all current and future java exploits.

Now imagine if you were forced to keep java installed even though you are not using it, and you could not even disable it. then all of a sudden, you are now open to exploits that can take advantage of code running that you personally have no use for.

This applies to the DRM plugin. It is extra code running whether you need it or not, and it can likely be exploited by malicious people since no perfect code exists.

 

[wbingham]

RAZOR512 hit the nail on the head for why this is NOT a "much to do about nothing" issue. For many of us, we disable any and all software that we do not use for multiple reasons. The two biggest being performance and security. If I do not wish to view DRM content through my web browser, I can currently disable this addon and increase the performance and security of my workstations. I accept the fact that this "limits" what I can do with my browser, but I willfully accept that limitation in the interest in security and my computer running faster for the things that I choose to do.

Making this add-on "always on" takes away my ability to do this and forces me to be more vulnerable to hackers as well as being forced to run a plugin that I have no use for and it affecting the overall performance of my workstations. Sure you may say that the performance hit is very minor.....but minor performance issues all add together very quickly and the compounded results can end up being a significant difference.

If the purpose of DRM is to protect digital media, then there is nothing wrong with the current implementation. Require the DRM plug-ins to be enabled to view DRM enabled content, but allow users to disable the content at the expense of not being able to view DRM content. Content is protected....users are not forced into additional exposure...everyone wins. There are ulterior motives behind this change and that is ultimately bad for the end-users.

 

[Abyss1992]

And this can be gotten around by torrents or by CMD rippers.

 

[bigpinkdragon286]

And these content providers/owners wonder why people torrent instead of using these services,,,, this one of the main reasons besides money.

And this user shows why content is so expensive. Justifying theft(digital or otherwise) isn't possible.

oligopoly is your word of the day.

DRM is a means of controlling a free and open market. One consequence of this is price manipulation. Good for content providers wanting the highest return for anything provided and good for manufacturers who pony up for the licensing, as there are fewer competitors. The cost of DRM is paid by the consumer, not all of which is monetary.

 

[alidan]

Just to everyone saying 'media is so expensive because of pirates' remember, it was piracy that dragged movie studios into selling movies, up to that point they wanted you to pay every single time you watched it.

the reason that media ever goes down in price is because they are up against piracy, its the reason why on pc you see games that are AAA go down to 5$, where as on consoles 5 years later the cheapest you get is used 20$ with no way to buy new for under 40.

 

[a41202813gmailcom]

Glad The XP Compatible Versions Are No Longer **Upgraded**.

XPOCALYPSE FOREVER !

 

[eldakka]

They're getting away from proprietary solutions like Silverlight and Flash to secure their subscription content.

The replacements are still proprietary. Google's Wildevine and Apples and Adobes plugins are proprietary.

 

[eldakka]

A point of clarification from the original article:

but unlike with the Flash vulnerabilities, security researchers are banned from looking for them, due to Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

That should read:

"but unlike with the Flash vulnerabilities, US-based security researchers are..."

The rest of the world is not subject to the DMCA.

 

[alidan]

A point of clarification from the original article:

but unlike with the Flash vulnerabilities, security researchers are banned from looking for them, due to Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

That should read:

"but unlike with the Flash vulnerabilities, US-based security researchers are..."

The rest of the world is not subject to the DMCA.

pretty sure the us demands extradition on many people who violated the dmca

 

[Jonny_wisconsin]

I downloaded the latest version of chrome 57 and there is an option to enable open PDFs in the default pdf application.

 

[WebReflection]

What a "bogeyman is coming" like article!
To start with, Chromium is an Open Source project and its Widevine plugin is widely used in many Linux distros already: nothing to fear, really!
Also it's 2017, please drop this "Linux might suffer more" line already, thanks.
Moreover, Netflix streams 4K content only on Edge and Kaby Lake CPU enabled for PlayReady 3.0 DRM content and 10-bit HEVC encoding.
Once other browsers will be capable of enabling same (or similar) copy-prevention feature, accordingly to 10-bit HEVC encoding capable HardWare, every OS and browser will be able to play Netflix at full quality too.
Last, but not least, I don't understand why this article is messing up things talking about PDF and Flash when this Chrome 57 feature is not even closely related to those technologies.
Regards

 

[animere]

This is false. The relevant bug is fixed; there will be an option to disable DRM.
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=686430

 

[somestuff]

Oh well I guess I'll be uninstalling Chrome from all my computers now and never using it again. DRM offers me nothing as a customer.

 

[tabarjack]

That's kinda funny. More people will get hacked, someone will log in with a computer having access to sensitive data, data will get leaked, lulz will be got and it will be illegal to help defend against it for free. Yet some people still think that Anonymous has lost.

 

[Paul NZ]

Glad I dont use it