77 pointsby picklepixel6 hours ago13 comments
  • dfajgljsldkjag3 hours ago
    Hello HN, I have an important thing to point out:

    THIS EXTENSION DOES NOT WORK!

    let me put it another way:

    THIS EXTENSION DOES NOTHING USEFUL!

    The author did not reverse engineer anything. He simply asked Claude Code to make this without testing or verifying any of the outputs.

    The author did not check if the extension actually works. He simply asked Claude Code to make this without testing or verifying any of the outputs.

    Other commenters in this thread have noted that this extension cannot do what it claims. [1] The author simply asked Claude Code to make this without testing or verifying any of the outputs.

    Thanks for listening to my ted talk.

    1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46803836

    • Retr0id3 hours ago
      Have you tested it? I have no doubt that it was vibecoded, and there's a lot of bogus stuff in the readme, but there's also a good chance it's at least slightly functional.
  • hermanzegerman5 hours ago
    I never get why those idiots make it harder for paying customers to watch content, than for those just torrenting it. It's the same with Amazon Prime Video which will get me a black screen on Linux or force me to SD Quality, while the torrented Movie runs just fine in 4K
    • Cyph0n5 hours ago
      For Netflix specifically; it’s because the groups that rip 4K content from Netflix burn a device (i.e. a Widevine L1 key). This is why they typically release 4K Netflix shows in batches.

      Here is a good thread on the topic: https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/17ez7mi/how_come_it...

      • karim795 hours ago
        What I've noticed about Netflix's supposedly 4k content is that it looks like crap compared to the same show downloaded through illicit means (and viewed on Plex or something else).

        What's the deal with Netflix's not-very-good 4k streams? Colour quantization or something? It's not just a one-off, why do 4k netflix shows look like rubbish compared to a moderately encoded whatever from bittorrent?

        • Cyph0n5 hours ago
          It depends. The most common reason is bitrate - the non-Netflix could have been ripped from another source (BD), or even from another service that has rights to the show in a different market (with higher bitrate).

          The other trick some groups use is so-called hybrid releases. This involves combining video and audio from multiple sources to achieve the best possible quality. These are usually explicitly tagged as HYBRID, and afaik mostly applies to 4K remuxes.

        • Saris5 hours ago
          Probably extreme compression, their 4K streams are very low bandwidth.
          • moepstaran hour ago
            Must be that way - watching "an evening" (yes, i just made up a time unit) of Netflix consumes 1/4 to 1/3 of the bandwidth "an evening" of consuming content on AppleTV+.

            So, about 10GB or less on Netflix to 30GB or more on AppleTV+, dissected by DPI on my TP-Link Omada Gateway.

            And indeed, i think it shows - i can't notice any banding or moire effect on pretty much any AppleTV+ content, while it is as clear as night and day that Netflix compresses the hell out of their content.

      • bigwheels5 hours ago
        Thank you for sharing the breadcrumb~

        How does Netflix detect "suspicious" activity? Does $NFLX allow 4k streaming over GrapheneOS? If so, could you pin a different certificate and do some HTTP proxy traffic manipulation to obfuscate the device (presumably an Android phone) identity or otherwise work around the DRM?

        I want to understand more about this but unfortunately the reddit thread is bits and pieces scattered amongst clueless commentary, making it challenging to wade through.

        • coppsilgold5 hours ago
          They can trace a torrented 4K piece of content to the device (or private key) that ripped it using A/B watermarking.

          See AWS offering: (and probably what they use for Prime Video, Netflix has their own)

            For large-scale per-viewer, implement a content identification strategy that allows you to trace back to specific clients, such as per-user session-based watermarking. With this approach, media is conditioned during transcoding and the origin serves a uniquely identifiable pattern of media segments to the end user. A session to a user-mapping service receives encrypted user ID information in the header or cookies of the request context and uses this information to determine the uniquely identifiable pattern of media segments to serve to the viewer. This approach requires multiple distinctly watermarked copies of content to be transcoded, with a minimum of two sets of content for A/B watermarking. Forensic watermarking also requires YUV decompression, so encoding time for 4K feature length content can take upwards of 20 hours. DRM service providers in the AWS Partner Network (APN) are available to aid in the deployment of per-viewer content forensics.
          
          <https://docs.aws.amazon.com/wellarchitected/latest/streaming...>

          They also use a traitor tracing scheme (Tardos codes) such that if multiple pirates get together to try and remove the watermark they will fail, you would need an unreasonably large number of pirates to succeed for some length of time.

          • JCattheATM4 hours ago
            To what extent does this watermarking survive transcoding? Would not transcoding multiple times possibly affect it?

            > They also use a traitor tracing scheme (Tardos codes) such that if multiple pirates get together to try and remove the watermark they will fail, you would need an unreasonably large number of pirates to succeed for some length of time.

            Why?

            • coppsilgold4 hours ago
              > To what extent does this watermarking survive transcoding? Would not transcoding multiple times possibly affect it?

              They are designed to survive being recorded by a phone at an angle. The embedding is only 1-bit per segment which can be multiple megabytes.

              > Why?

              Tardos codes scale as the square of the number of traitors times a constant. For example, a movie would typically have 2000 segments -> 2000 bits of encoding. By my calculation, at around 7 traitors some start to skate by detection. And there are ways to make detection additive across leaked content, so with another 2000 all 7 will get caught. This is because while they may not score highly enough to be reliably accused, they will be under suspicion, and that suspicion can later be enhanced.

              To be clear, what the traitors are doing is pooling all the segment versions they have available to them, and adversarially choose a segment at random. This is the best strategy they have, a close second is to choose the segment that the majority have.

              Trying to remove the actual 1-bit watermark from the segment isn't typically feasible. Every segment will have a unique adjustment to encode it. The embedding algorithm will take a secret key.

              • sparklysoupan hour ago
                > They are designed to survive being recorded by a phone at an angle.

                Any idea what this looks like? I assume it's not visible to the human eye, but being able to survive this level of degradation is quite impressive.

              • JCattheATM3 hours ago
                That's fascinating, thank you.
          • Retr0id4 hours ago
            Netflix does not encode content per-user, it's all static content on CDNs
            • coppsilgold3 hours ago
              A/B watermarking is about static content on CDNs...

              For every segment in a video there will be two versions. Every user will get a unique sequence of segments served to them.

              • Cyph0n3 hours ago
                Wait, that’s a brilliant way of encoding a watermark without having to embed it within a stream per user.

                If a single video has say 100 segments, you get more than enough unique combinations to guarantee uniqueness. There would of course have to be a mapping between user/device ID and segment order.

              • Retr0id3 hours ago
                Netflix puts flat MP4s on the CDN, the segments all reference different offsets within the MP4.
                • coppsilgold3 hours ago
                  Have you inspected the contents of their CDN servers? Because assembling an mp4 on the fly from segments is not difficult. Especially if they condition them to have identical sizes.
                  • Retr0id3 hours ago
                    I have indeed inspected the contents of their CDN servers. The URLs have an auth token in them but you can edit the range parameters to grab the whole mp4 in one go without invalidating the auth.
                    • coppsilgold3 hours ago
                      Then this is either an exploit or more likely the mp4 file is virtual. You can find out if you are so inclined by grabbing it from two separate accounts using two separate devices (or keys) and then compare how many of the segments are identical.

                      Also, I assume the file in question is 4K content. Don't know about how they treat other types.

        • Retr0id5 hours ago
          A DRM system is, abstractly, a black box that contains some initial static key material, which is used to identify+authenticate the device and load in more keys at runtime, typically over some network protocol. The DRM uses those dynamically provisioned keys to decrypt the content.

          For hardware DRM schemes, the initial key material is typically provisioned during manufacturing.

          Since the server-side is able to identify the client device, they can in theory fingerprint the content if they want to. That way if someone cracks and shares the content, they can look at the fingerprint and figure out which device (and which account) leaked it - and then ban them.

          I've never seen direct evidence that Netflix fingerprints their 4K content (although I've never properly looked), so I suspect the device-burning thing might be a bit of an urban legend. But it is technically plausible.

        • Cyph0n5 hours ago
          I honestly have no clue! This is just a tidbit I randomly learned about haha.
    • michaelt5 hours ago
      Most users can't tell, and if you deliver the $18/month service while charging $25/month that's $7/month pure profit - money for nothing.
    • aljgz5 hours ago
      It's simple: Lawyers creating market for themselves and other lawyers. A head of legal department at Netflix would have a better job and pay if ge has 50x more employees. Hence, the incentive to find ways to get involved in everything, even if it arguably hurts the company's revenue, let alone the rest of the market.
    • Retr0id5 hours ago
      I've spent a long time wondering the same thing. The standard answer is that it's fallout from the anti-anti-piracy cat and mouse game. The more conspiratorial answer is that bandwidth is expensive and streaming sites will take any excuse to serve you a lower resolution than what you actually paid for, while still being able to say that they technically support 4K.

      There are sensible-ish technical reasons why they can't deliver DRM'd 4K on linux, but when browser extensions can upgrade you to 4K there are no excuses on the technical level.

      • hermanzegerman5 hours ago
        The point is, people usually pay because it is more convenient for them than getting it illegally.

        But when I have to fiddle around for 30 Minutes to see a picture (it worked before until it suddenly didn't work anymore), pirating the movie is suddenly the better option. Because I certainly don't see a point in paying and wasting more of my time.

        And the piracy cat and mouse game is stupid, as in the End it's always Available illegaly, except for the people developing and selling DRM

      • nitwit0055 hours ago
        Netflix does charge more for 4k, so they simply pass along the cost: https://help.netflix.com/en/node/24926
        • Retr0id4 hours ago
          Netflix still saves money when someone watches in a lower resolution.
          • nitwit0052 hours ago
            Yes, but what they care about is profits. People aren't going to pay for the expensive plan if they can't actually use the features of it.
            • Retr0id2 hours ago
              Most people who aren't getting proper 4K don't even notice.
      • TacoCommander5 hours ago
        We need to divorce "corporate" from "tech"
        • reactordev5 hours ago
          Never going to happen. Tech came from corporate.
      • stavros5 hours ago
        Bandwidth is only expensive if you're getting it from Amazon or Google. Cloudflare gives it away for free.
        • Retr0id5 hours ago
          Netflix is responsible for 15% of global internet traffic. That's expensive no matter how you slice it, and dropping that by a mere 1% is a huge saving.
          • stavros5 hours ago
            Hm, true. Then again, I don't know if that's worth the reputational hit. These subscribers are paying for 4K.
  • TacoCommander5 hours ago
    • JoshTriplett5 hours ago
      I would pay a non-trivial amount for a service that 1) bought a blu-ray on my behalf, 2) ripped it to a file, 3) gave me that file to download, once, and 4) after confirming I had it, shredded the blu-ray.

      I don't want to copy things and distribute them to others. I want to have one copy that keeps working indefinitely and doesn't go away or fail to follow me across systems.

  • Retr0id5 hours ago
    Awesome. As someone who has spent some time researching DRM systems, figuring out these "soft" restrictions before you can achieve playback in the first place is often more challenging than breaking the DRM itself.

    Does Edge currently ship Widevine L1? Last time I checked it was Playready SL3000, but that was a while ago now.

  • daft_pink5 hours ago
    Is anyone else reading this like WTF I pay for 4K and I dont actually get and I didn’t realize it!?!?!
    • ctippett5 hours ago
      If you're paying for 4K and you never notice whether what you're watching is actually in 4K, then I have a suggestion for how you can save some $
    • stavros5 hours ago
      I'm reading this like "if I don't realize I'm not getting 4k, I don't need 4k".
    • Kenji5 hours ago
      [dead]
  • asyncadventure5 hours ago
    Great reverse-engineering work! This perfectly illustrates why DRM often fails at its intended goal - pirates eventually get perfect copies anyway, but paying customers end up with degraded experiences. The fact that you had to bypass multiple capability checks just to access content you're already paying for shows how backwards this approach is.
  • cadamsdotcom2 hours ago
    Why is this flagged ? Can HN force people who flag to provide a reason, even if only the mods see it?
  • picklepixel6 hours ago
    I pay for Netflix Premium but was stuck at 1080p. Turns out Netflix layers multiple capability checks before serving 4K: user agent, screen resolution, Media Capabilities API, codec support, DRM robustness negotiation, and their Cadmium player's internal bitrate caps.

    Built an extension that spoofs all of these. The interesting discovery: you have to intercept every layer. Miss one and you're back to 1080p.

    Here's the catch though. Even with all the JavaScript spoofs working, Chrome still won't get 4K. Netflix requires Widevine L1 (hardware DRM), and Chrome only has L3 (software). The browser literally can't negotiate the security level Netflix wants. Edge on Windows has L1, so the extension actually delivers 4K there.

    So what's the point on Chrome? Honestly, not much for 4K specifically. But the reverse-engineering was the interesting part. Understanding how Netflix fingerprints devices and decides what quality to serve. The codebase documents all the APIs they check.

    On Edge: works reliably, getting 3840x2160 at 15000+ kbps. On Chrome: spoofs work, DRM negotiation fails, stuck at 1080p.

    The repo has detailed documentation on what each spoof does and why. Happy to discuss the technical approach or answer questions.

    • michaelt5 hours ago
      > Happy to discuss the technical approach or answer questions.

      Netflix says "Ultra HD (2160p)" requires Microsoft Edge on Windows [1].

      This is a "Netflix 4K Enabler" extension that spoofs being Microsoft Edge on Windows - but unless I'm misunderstanding, the extension only works on Microsoft Edge, on Windows.

      Under what circumstances would a user want this extension?

      [1] https://help.netflix.com/en/node/30081

    • stevemk14ebr5 hours ago
      So your extension does a bunch of hooks to spoof edge, but then only works on edge? And edge using Netflix normally already supports 4k. So this does nothing and does not solve the stated problem of chrome and Firefox 4k Netflix streaming.

      Am I missing something?

      • arjie5 hours ago
        I would imagine it's less a product to use and more documentation of the various techniques that are involved. It seems pretty reasonable to share that with others.
    • andrewmcwatters5 hours ago
      [dead]
    • doctorpangloss5 hours ago
      i can understand the enthusiasm around LLM authored code bases.

      but i cannot understand why someone would write comments on hacker news with an LLM. how could you say something was interesting, if you didn't even do it?

  • nalekberov5 hours ago
    This is why piracy is gaining more and more traction lately.
  • hug5 hours ago
    I may be an idiot, but: What does this actually, y'know, achieve? It seems the answer to me is probably nothing?

    It doesn't work on Firefox. It appears not to work on Chrome. The suggestion is to use Edge, which on Windows already gets 4K support in Netflix anyway.

    • apt-apt-apt-apt5 hours ago
      Fellow idiot here, and the gist seems to be:

      Here's a 4K enabler that only enables 4K where it's already enabled.

    • ctippett5 hours ago
      You misread the README. Although it suggests using Edge at the very bottom, the extension doesn't require it and actually spoofs Netflix into thinking it is Edge via changing the user-agent.
      • 5 hours ago
        undefined
      • hug5 hours ago
        Did I, though?

        I understand it spoofs all of the checks it can, but the only Chromium browser that supports Widevine L1 (a requirement for 4K) is Edge, so even if all of the check spoofing works, it still won't do 4K.

        There's even a table in the README that describes this exact scenario.

        • ctippett5 hours ago
          I'm putting a lot of weight on this part from the README:

            > If you're paying for 4K but using Chrome, Firefox, or a setup Netflix doesn't "approve," you're stuck at 1080p or lower. This extension fixes that.
          
          But I get the confusion though. I'm now second-guessing if I misread the README.
    • 5 hours ago
      undefined
    • Moto74515 hours ago
      I believe the benefit for Edge is faking HDCP 2.2.
      • duskwuff5 hours ago
        Then why does the extension try to fake a bunch of other properties, like the user agent and decoding capabilities, which should be redundant?
    • doctorpangloss5 hours ago
      i don't think it works! there's no mystery here...
      • Retr0id5 hours ago
        I can't vouch for this extension in particular (because I haven't tested it), but I've used and written similar extensions myself and can confirm that the concept is legit.
        • hug4 hours ago
          Spoofing the user agent and decoding capabilities and [...] is a useful way to unblock things that are crippled on various browsers, indeed.

          The problem here is requiring hardware-attested DRM: Widevine L1 on Edge on Windows, and Apple FairPlay on Safari on MacOS. The only way to get hardware attested DRM is via browser specific (i.e.: native code) support that interfaces with the OS & GPU drivers. You can't get there through an extension.

          • Retr0id4 hours ago
            Right, but the point is that Netflix still refuses to play 4K on some browsers with hardware DRM support. Even getting it to work in Edge was a challenge last time I tried - iirc I got it working via https://github.com/lkmvip/netflix-4K-DDplus
  • llsf5 hours ago
    Disappointed to learn that it requires Edge, BUT very grateful for the investigation and write up ! That is why this is called Hacker News.
    • TacoCommander5 hours ago
      What is Edge? Is that something on the Microsoft?
  • zb35 hours ago
    Edge on Windows supports L1? I thought L1 requires secure hardware support.. is it about SGX or newer Windows devices have some anti-user crap builtin already?
    • zb35 hours ago
      UPDATE: Apparently newer Intel CPUs have builtin support for PlayReady 3.0. What a beautiful anti-feature of the CPU..
  • picklepixel6 hours ago
    TLDR; I made an extension to force 4K on Netflix.