Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Widevine not detected even though Widevine is Enabled in settings #357

Open
shakeelansari63 opened this issue May 21, 2023 · 9 comments
Open

Comments

@shakeelansari63
Copy link

I have widevine enabled in setting, still Netflix and other video streaming sites complain for DRM.

Widevine is Enabled -
image

I have tried to Update widevine from brave://components
image

But still getting Protected Content error on Netflix
image

This is version of Brave installed from Flathub
image

Let me know if you need any more detail

@shakeelansari63
Copy link
Author

Ran Brave from terminal and I see this error -
image

May help you debugging the issue.

@rany2
Copy link
Collaborator

rany2 commented May 24, 2023

This seems like a Zypak issue to me, does it work if you run with --disable-sandbox?

@shakeelansari63
Copy link
Author

Nope, --disable-sandbox option does not help. Same error

@archerallstars
Copy link

This issue is still happening on Brave v1.65.126, with Widevine Content Decryption Module v4.10.2710.0.

@rany2
Copy link
Collaborator

rany2 commented May 3, 2024

BTW, I was mistaken; the flag is now --no-sandbox. Please try that instead

@archerallstars
Copy link

@rany2 Widevine works with --no-sandbox flag. I tested with Prime Video.

@rany2
Copy link
Collaborator

rany2 commented May 3, 2024

@refi64 can you take a look, it seems like Zypak is broken with Widevine again. I'm setting ExposeWidevine to true in cobalt so I think it should be working?

@archerallstars
Copy link

What I found as a workaround is to allow filesystem=host-os, as shown in the screenshot below:

ss

But I don't know what's the security impact of allowing this. Does this make it less secure than the non-Flatpak version? But this should be more secure than the --no-sandbox flag, right?

@rany2
Copy link
Collaborator

rany2 commented May 6, 2024

@archerallstars It's for sure more secure than --no-sandbox

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants