Virgin media possibly getting serious on dodgy boxes? - Page 18

100meg · 20-04-2009, 04:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirius

I heard they are like rocking horse do do to get hold off.

no there not there all over the place and there very easy to do

tweetiepooh · 20-04-2009, 10:00

I guess one reason why satellite companies spend more on encrypting their service than cable is that to steal cable you do need to be attached whereas with satellite you just need to see the satellite to receive something. Hence a thinking that lead down the line of cable companies doing less on security since there is already a physical layer present.

Note that this is simply my musings and no way implies that this is the true history for any company.

100meg · 21-04-2009, 04:55

well partly right

murdoc was always paranoid about encryption from the start.

cable in early days never gave a monkeys about it and used all the cracked crap from the usa

it was all cracked before they even switched the cable network on
the disadvantage of catv being hardwired It makes upgrading everything far more expensive

I must say my heart bleeds for em lol

Raistlin · 21-04-2009, 07:05

Well I for one look forward to the day that VM get this sorted once and for all.

Would be nice to see the look on these theives faces when all their dodgy kit stops working for good.

My prejudice against them has nothing at all to do with the fact that most of them are lowlife *******s obviously

100meg · 21-04-2009, 07:39

they wont

a wise man once said that there is not a lock made buy man that cant be manipulated or picked. with enough determination skill and time

security is not about stopping something that is impossible Its about making it take longer.

Its a never ending game.
incidentally sky is hacked at the moment. Why do you think there advertising that there sending out new smart cards to all subscribers

tweetiepooh · 21-04-2009, 10:55

Picking a lock requires skill and the better the lock the more skill required.

Make it hard enough and then only the most skilled will break in. Make it different enough so that a single "pick" will only work on a single lock.

You're right though that someone will always find a way around. Having the equivalent of a large alsatian behind the locked door also helps.

Raistlin · 21-04-2009, 11:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by 100meg

they wont

With a bit of work VM could easily put a stop to this nonsense once and for all, the problem is that the work they would need to do costs more money than they're currently spending on dealing these thieves as they discover them.

When we see the cost/benefit values start to converge a little we will hopefully see some action from Virgin.

As you say, it's probably impossible to absolutely 100% stop the modems from being 'hacked' (oh how I hate the use of that word in this context) - it shouldn't take too much time to make the act of doing so either cryptographically/mathematically unfeasible though.

---------- Post added at 11:07 ---------- Previous post was at 11:03 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

Make it hard enough and then only the most skilled will break in.

The problem is that it only takes one person, and frequently you'll find that these sorts of 'hacks' are the result of either one person or an extremely limited group of people.

What happens then is that they make their work available to the moronic masses with sufficient intelligence (just) to follow the written instructions provided for them and ask for help if they get stuck, who then start calling themselves l33t hax0rs and bragging about how great it is to be thieving ****.

**Chris** · 21-04-2009, 11:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by 100meg

incidentally sky is hacked at the moment. Why do you think there advertising that there sending out new smart cards to all subscribers

I think Sky are sending out new smart cards because contractually they are obliged to do so every five years and they have already overshot the deadline by 12 months.

100meg · 21-04-2009, 12:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob M

The problem is that it only takes one person, and frequently you'll find that these sorts of 'hacks' are the result of either one person or an extremely limited group of people.

What happens then is that they make their work available to the moronic masses with sufficient intelligence (just) to follow the written instructions provided for them and ask for help if they get stuck, who then start calling themselves l33t hax0rs and bragging about how great it is to be thieving ****.

yes the cable hacks are done by small gropes it is a very what world when it comes to it

Turkey Machine · 21-04-2009, 15:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by 100meg

yes the cable hacks are done by small gropes it is a very what world when it comes to it

If Sky can send out new smart cards to all their subscribers, which far outnumber Virgin Media's (Sky have 8 millionish), and they can also do a complete upgrade of their boxes (late 90s, the move to digital), surely Virgin can do the same thing, right? I mean, it's only 3, 4 million TV subscribers? (total guestimate) The boxes need to be standardised, as there are too many box versions knocking about from the C+W, Telewest and ntl days. The move to a standard VBox was a good one, but that model is out of date by at least a couple of years, and they probably need something that could either handle MPEG4 + much a beefier encryption "out of the box" should VM migrate the network from MPEG-2 to MPEG4 AVC, or with a future firmware upgrade will be able to handle it. Either way, they need to sort their encryption problems out, and ease their capacity issues.

Stuart · 21-04-2009, 15:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turkey Machine

If Sky can send out new smart cards to all their subscribers, which far outnumber Virgin Media's (Sky have 8 millionish), and they can also do a complete upgrade of their boxes (late 90s, the move to digital), surely Virgin can do the same thing, right? I mean, it's only 3, 4 million TV subscribers? (total guestimate) The boxes need to be standardised, as there are too many box versions knocking about from the C+W, Telewest and ntl days. The move to a standard VBox was a good one, but that model is out of date by at least a couple of years, and they probably need something that could either handle MPEG4 + much a beefier encryption "out of the box" should VM migrate the network from MPEG-2 to MPEG4 AVC, or with a future firmware upgrade will be able to handle it. Either way, they need to sort their encryption problems out, and ease their capacity issues.

One MAJOR difference between Sky and Virgin. Sky do not own (and therefore would not have had to pay to replace) their boxes. You say that VM only have 3-4 million customers. They do. However, each box would cost at least Â£20-Â£30 (I don't know the actual cost, so I am speculating conseveratively) to replace, so the hardware would cost at least Â£60 million. That is without factoring engineering or delivery costs, which could easily push the cost over Â£100 million.

Simply put, VM cannot afford to spend that much.

The encryption, well, IIRC, Sky have an advantage there too. They bought the company who provided theirs.

100meg · 21-04-2009, 16:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

One MAJOR difference between Sky and Virgin. Sky do not own (and therefore would not have had to pay to replace) their boxes. You say that VM only have 3-4 million customers. They do. However, each box would cost at least Â£20-Â£30 (I don't know the actual cost, so I am speculating conseveratively) to replace, so the hardware would cost at least Â£60 million. That is without factoring engineering or delivery costs, which could easily push the cost over Â£100 million.

Simply put, VM cannot afford to spend that much.

The encryption, well, IIRC, Sky have an advantage there too. They bought the company who provided theirs.

at least we agree that stb`s dont cost 250 like they try and say

Stuart · 21-04-2009, 16:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by 100meg

at least we agree that stb`s dont cost 250 like they try and say

I didn't say I knew how much they actually cost. I said that price was me trying to speculate conservatively..

Turkey Machine · 21-04-2009, 16:58

So Virgin would essentially have to disown their boxes after 12 months or more, like Sky do, in order to attempt to afford this?

And people wonder why bad business occurs.

Horace · 21-04-2009, 18:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turkey Machine

If Sky can send out new smart cards to all their subscribers, which far outnumber Virgin Media's (Sky have 8 millionish), and they can also do a complete upgrade of their boxes (late 90s, the move to digital), surely Virgin can do the same thing, right? I mean, it's only 3, 4 million TV subscribers? (total guestimate) The boxes need to be standardised, as there are too many box versions knocking about from the C+W, Telewest and ntl days. The move to a standard VBox was a good one, but that model is out of date by at least a couple of years, and they probably need something that could either handle MPEG4 + much a beefier encryption "out of the box" should VM migrate the network from MPEG-2 to MPEG4 AVC, or with a future firmware upgrade will be able to handle it. Either way, they need to sort their encryption problems out, and ease their capacity issues.

Sky effectively own their own encryption system (NDS). VM would have to pay Kudelski, not only for a card-swap out but box updates too which is very expensive by all accounts.