Windows Security GM Talks NGSCB (Palladium) 281
An article at IT Manager's Journal (along with Slashdot, part of OSDN) reports on John Manferdelli's recent talk at Stanford on what Microsoft is calling for now its "Next Generation Secure Computing Base," or NGSCB (formerly Palladium). Manferdelli is the general manager for Windows security at Microsoft, and his presentation was mostly about the technical, not ethical or other considerations involved in this system. His position is understandably different from those of privacy and free software advocates who assert that Microsoft's elaborate security is designed to lock users into Microsoft software at the expense of privacy and choice.
What it's about: (Score:5, Insightful)
A great victory for consumers everywhere.
Re:What it's about: (Score:5, Insightful)
"People who don't trust you can trust your computer to control you."
Re:What it's about: (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually it means that people who do not trust your computer configuration can pass data to you and be confident at some level that it is not exposed.
Palladium is no better for DRM copyright enforcement applications than any other hardware technology. The problem with DRM is that it is break once run anywhere. Palladium like any other hardware enforcement system is breakable, the catch is that you have to break a system that is trusted by the sender of the data.
For copyright control you cannot be any more selective about the destination machine than requiring it to be a palladium machine. So it only taks one palladium machine ever to be broken and you are toast.
For control of sensitive company documents the issue is very different. I can configure my systems so that they only deliver sensitive data to specific palladium pcs that I have designated as trusted and to obtain my documents you have to break those specific machines.
There are still people who complain about this sort of thing. Where would the world be without corporate whistleblowers? Pretty much where we are today, there were no shortage of whistleblowers on Enron, Krugman reported repeatedly in the New York Times, few took notice until Enron collapsed and suddenly it was open season, everyone acknowledged that Enron and co had ben ripping off California...
Security is security, you can't expect technology to enforce your particular set of ethical constraints. Palladium turns out to be very useful for meeting a real business need which in most cases is completely legitimate. I do not want communications with my lawyers to be disclosed. Confidentiality is in general a good thing, it is occasionally a bad thing.
But one thing to consider is that the greater the confidence that people have that their communications are secret the greater the probability they will say something in a permenant form that later compromises them. Nixon discovered this. I don't think that security will prevent disclosure of information about criminal activities and frauds.
Take Diebold for example, if they were cluefull enough to have used DRM to control their internal documents they might have been cluefull enough to secure their Web site to stop an attacker from compromiseing their software to rig the vote. What we need in the Diebold case is not internal company memos with incriminating information. What we need is a reliable security audit.
Re:What it's about: (Score:5, Insightful)
That is one element of what it is about.
If they can trust the programs on your computer to do what they want, then those programs can also be trusted to control your behavior and actions.
Palladium turns out to be very useful for meeting a real business need which in most cases is completely legitimate. I do not want communications with my lawyers to be disclosed. Confidentiality is in general a good thing, it is occasionally a bad thing.
There is this thing called cryptography that meets the business need you speak of.
The "business need" that Palladium meets is the need to control users behavior, what software they can run, and perhaps most importantly, what software they can NOT run.
But one thing to consider is that the greater the confidence that people have that their communications are secret the greater the probability they will say something in a permenant form that later compromises them.
If you can't stand up for what you say, then don't say it. And please do not run for public office. Let your "yes" mean yes and your "no" mean no. Say what you mean and mean what you say.
Yeah, wonderful thing here. The ability to say something, and then later take it back, knowing that one can trust other users computers to obey.
Where would the world be without corporate whistleblowers?
This is an interesting issue. What whistleblowers are about is someone who is involved or exposed on some level to wrongdoing and then decides to blow the whistle. Palladium will never stop this. Whistleblowing is about one of a bunch of thieves developing a momentary feeling of guilt. I am not aware of any whistleblowers who obtained their information by snooping in information they were not supposed to have access to. Palladium won't stop whistleblowers. It will just stop you from doing things with your computer that Microsoft does not like.
Re:What it's about: (Score:2)
Wrong - cryptography doesn't keep your employees from forwarding your internal memos to whoever they want. Granted DRM doesn't keep someone from just retyping something, but it definitely raises the bar to casual copying.
If you can't stand up for what you say, then don't say it. And please do not run for public office. Let your "yes" mean yes and your "no" mean no. Say what you mean and mean what you say.
What a silly se
Re:What it's about: (Score:5, Interesting)
TO YOU. That it is not exposed _to you_.
Why do the MS apologists always leave out those little important words that make all the difference!
Re:What it's about: (Score:2, Interesting)
For control of sensitive company documents the issue is very different. I can configure my systems so that they only deliver sensitive data to specific palladium pcs that I have designated as trusted and to obtain my documents you have to break those specific machines.
Really, the internal p
Re:What it's about: (Score:2)
Confident about all of the network elements beetween those machines, then?
Re:What it's about: (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What it's REALLY about: (Score:5, Insightful)
Will we keep our right of free use of our Net?
ehm... i think it's grotesque that someone would even think of asking these questions.
i also think that the whole 'Next Generation Secure Computing Base' thing is about who will be pimping who.
some time before we'll get the final version of longhorn stuffed down our throats, msft will probably have decided that it's in everyone's (*) interest to expand the trusted compiting base to the full operating system, and we'll be able to forget about using any software that wasn't okay'ed by msft to run on the system. (= signed code?)
maybe we'll see modchips for regular computers in the future too?
better start stroking the penguin sooner than later!
h357 - paranoia est. 1977
(*) everyone = riaa/mpaa members, msft themselves, anyone who pays premium prices to develop software using msft tool
Re:What it's about: (Score:5, Insightful)
*"Working with us" is defined as not competing with any of our products and offering appropriate compensation by not working with our competitors and agreeing to only develop only for our latest products, helping us enforce the upgrade cycle.
Re:What it's about: (Score:5, Insightful)
See more here [slashdot.org].
(Please note that this comment mentions that we have to trust them and they don't trust us.)
Re:What it's about: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What it's about: (Score:2, Insightful)
Proprietary software means, fundamentally, t
Re:What it's about: (Score:5, Informative)
Incidentally, the original article included a few footnotes, and is available on GNU's site [gnu.org].
Re:What it's about: (Score:2)
Hint: it isn't the millions of idiots who click 'yes' when that annoying Gator applet pops up. Trusted Computing will be the best thing since sliced bread for 99.999 percent of the computer-using population.
If the open-source community wants to sit and watch DRM and Trusted Computing take the industry by storm, at least they should try and develop an alternate solution to the problem. A keystroke logger is easily embedded in a midget bowling application tha
Re:What it's about: (Score:2)
There's no duplicate in the free software world for the actual motives behind Trusted Computing(tm), and therefore no need to duplicate the technology.
Trust doesn't enter into it at all... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What it's about: (Score:2)
I am sure if they are truely working on a secure os.. all of the features will not be added into thier next OS... It will surely span 2-3 OS releases
Re:What it's about: (Score:2)
Re:What it's about: (Score:2)
"In the US Department of Defense, a `trusted system or component' is defined as `one which can break the security policy'. This might seem counter-intuitive at first, but just stop to think about it."
No one seems scared by this! I'm terrified. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's like everyone has their heads in the sand. When the major BIOS makers are going to trusted only computing, where are we going to run our Linux?
Some people say "just buy a Mac". I'm sorry, if I could afford a Mac I would. But since I can't build a brand new Mac for $475 like I did the machine I'm using now, it's going to be a while. And the only reason I built this so cheaply is because I didn't have to pay a Microsoft tax.
I want a machine I can build myself. An OS that I build myself. When I do that, I'M THE ONE WITH CONTROL! Not MS or Dell or Gateway or Pheonix.
Re:What it's about: (Score:2)
Similar to today, where some less risk-averse lenders will loan those with poor credit history money a
Security? (Score:5, Funny)
Rumour has it, he only works one day a week :o)
Re:Security? (Score:5, Funny)
i would think the opposite: his beeper must be going all the time!
Re:Security? (Score:3, Funny)
You are both right... (Score:2)
Heh (Score:3, Funny)
The title is also called 'The guy who sits round doing nothing' at Microsoft HQ.
This is a test, right? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is a test, right? (Score:2)
Somebody set us up the bomb (Score:4, Funny)
Link to article (Score:5, Informative)
The link above appears to be to /.
Here [itmanagersjournal.com] is the article on the IT Manager's Journal site.
Re:You learn something new everyday (Score:2)
If you don't start an HREF (or any other URL I believe) with a protocol specifier (is that what it's really called?) like "http:","ftp:","aim:","news:" or for you oldskoolers "gopher:", the URL is thought instead to be relevant to the current URL.
For example, HREF="" is "http://www.slashdot.org/comments.pl?whateverthef s ckelse"+""
If it had been HREF="/fark?" we would have gotten "http://www.slashdot.org/comments.pl?whateverthefs ckelse"+"/fark" = "http://www.slashdot.org/comments.pl?whateverthefs ckelse
Another MS ploy. (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft is equiping all its people and MCSEs with early version of this stuff along with glossy brochures to hand out to the dumb suits that sign the checks. They won't sell this on technical merit, they're selling it to the PHBs. As always.
If you're forced to install this crap, break it, make sure it doesn't work. That's how we got rid of Exchange and had free software come into our company with just over 4500 people.
One day . . . (Score:2, Funny)
Re:One day . . . (Score:2)
or at least be using jds...
Re:One day . . . (Score:2)
Perfect article! (Score:4, Insightful)
Upgrade or "Surreptitiously Copy"? (Score:5, Insightful)
My concern with this would be what happens when you upgrade? How do they differenciate between new hardware and "surreptitiously" copying files to a different system? I remember all of the Office XP Activiation nightmares, and I can't help but think this will turn into a complete fiasco, too.
Re:Upgrade or "Surreptitiously Copy"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Upgrade or "Surreptitiously Copy"? (Score:2)
The potential exists, but that's not necessarily what would happen. (I imagine your music collection could end up irretrievable tho..)
Guys, you all are forgetting something rather important. Apple and Linux. If Microsoft uses DRM in such a way that it pisses ppl off like that, do you really think ppl will just take it and not switch to alternativ
Re:Upgrade or "Surreptitiously Copy"? (Score:2)
Sadly enough, I do. Admittedly Win 2000/XP doesn't crash that much, but remember pretty much everything before that. I have little experiece with Apple, but I personally have never seen one crash (I heard stories, though). I've been using Linux on all of my personal computers for many years now and I've never had it crash on me (hardware failures aside).
This
Re:Upgrade or "Surreptitiously Copy"? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Upgrade or "Surreptitiously Copy"? (Score:2)
I'm not a proponent of DRM. I think it's silly. I'm not defending Microsoft. I have the same fears everybody else does. However, I'm not having a panic attack about it because Microsoft is still dependent on people giving them money. They have to have smiles on their faces to give them money. Microsoft only has so far they can go.
Re:Upgrade or "Surreptitiously Copy"? (Score:2)
A presentation was given on this last month. (Score:2, Redundant)
huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
At least some people do understand what's at stake (Score:5, Informative)
repeat after me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Every attempt to lock down ID's, every attempt at DRM, every attempt at hardware ID (remeber Intel's great Proc Id idea?) has failed.
Not only has it failed, but the backlash they have caused has made the problem they were to solve worse. True, this is a real threat to peace, love and freedom, but in the end, the consumer decides, and while the unwashed are unwashed, if you piss them off enough, they will find something else, and the tend to find it with a speed that is previsouly to be unthought of (remember Napster?).
Does that preclude us fighting these type of initiatives? No, but at the same time announcing the End Of The World is a bit rash...
What's Next - Scheduled Meetings
Thursdays 2600 GMT
Re:repeat after me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure if you would consider this as DRM but CD-key which are verified online such as HalfLife or Quake3 are pretty succesful.
Also Windows XP activation would also be considered "succesful enough".
Re:repeat after me... (Score:4, Interesting)
They were successful? Oddly, I seem to remember licence keys to corporate/enterprise versions of Windows XP before I could even try and purchase a copy.
This didn't change much with SP1, despite the fact that said master keys were removed.
If you only look at Windows XP Home, it isn't pirated much (due to Windows XP Professional being freely available anywhere). Everyone I knows hate it due to the fact that one has to call Microsoft Support every once in a while.
HalfLife didn't check keys in LAN. And I never had problems with Quake3 servers.
So, I'd have to say they aren't in the very least successful.
Re:repeat after me... (Score:2)
My girlfriend's PC has been running a (pre-installed) copy of XP Home for a little over a year now, and we've not had to call MS Support once. My PC has been running XP Pro since January, and despite futzing around with hardware, I've not had to call MS Support either, although I did have to reactive it once. That was fine, though - I did it electronically with no hassles at all.
Re:repeat after me... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's true that LAN gaming is still there but for many people it has really decreased in significance after internet gaming really took off. I haven't bothered to take my computer to a friend's place in *years* and I believe a lot of people are the same. LAN gaming is really insignificant and with more and more people getting faster connections it will probably become a thing in the past except for huge LAN parties (that will
WindowsXP success (Score:2)
Re:repeat after me... (Score:3, Interesting)
Not that I share the grandparents optimism, but this isn't DRM. What it has done is basically changed from charging for a copy of the game, to charging for being able to connect to online game servers (you don't need DRM to charge for accounts).
Of course, it only works because the server operators play along. If I were a server operator, I would think if I'm controlling that pla
Re:repeat after me... (Score:2)
I was thinking something along the same lines ...
Everyone seems to be running around with their heads cut off as if DRM is the next doom-a-thon, but at the same time, how is it ever going to be widely implemented if no-one chooses to buy it and use it?
I think the idea has merit within obvious realms - such as inter-business documents or what-not, but I really don't see the point of using anything than just PGP to sign/decrypt and secure your files.
Acroynm miscommunication (Score:5, Funny)
Was I the only one who initially read GM as Game Master?
Re:Acroynm miscommunication (Score:2)
Hey, Windows security is often a crap shoot...
Rimshot
Re:Acroynm miscommunication (Score:2)
That put a different very spin on the headline...
--RJ
Re:Acroynm miscommunication (Score:2)
So now I read this article and wonder why Microsoft's security guy has had his genes modified. I figure he is bio-paladiumed so MS can be certian the information he knows is secure
optional is good.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:optional is good.... (Score:2)
Re:Optional needs to be properly understood (Score:2)
Sealed storage (Score:5, Insightful)
How can you install Linux, BSD or WinXP if the device itself requires the OS to authenticate? You can't. Sure you may be able to crack a work around, but what company will run software that is in place via crack?
This brings up the next issue, what happens when you replace your box? We have heard of all the fun people have had with XP licensing and system upgrades. Do you get to keep all those MP3s or do they not belong to the box. If you can authenticate on a second box, then you really don't have a secure system using the box.
While MS likes to dismiss these as "we are working on it" they will again be in a position to dictate their use. By the time grandma learns all here files are now secure and she must pay to move them to her new box, it will be too late. This idea that we can somehow wait for MS to figure out a solution in secret that we can all live with is crazed.
If we are going to take a secure machine approach it will need to be a standardized one, open for all to use. I don't think we will see MS jumping to support that concept.
Actual example. (Score:3, Interesting)
This has already happened. About 4 years ago, my college was re-imaging a bunch of Compaq servers with Windows NT when half of them suddenly died.
Turns out, the servers were sold when Compaq still sold a version of Windows NT, at prices considerably more expensive that Microsoft. To keep people from buying the machines without an OS and installing their own, the BIOS detected the OS, and if it was not a signed, Compaq-built copy of Windows NT, it refused to load it.
Fortunately, we had a support con
Absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
The obvious solution for secure computing -- better quality control on their code.
The Microsoft solution -- anything but better quality control. Limit the user's control of the machine. Enact a code-signing scheme. But, whatever you do, don't make us audit millions of lines of our own code.
Re:Absurd (Score:2)
Re:Absurd (Score:2)
Re:Absurd (Score:4, Informative)
Palladium, however, is about extending this security at both ends. The internet is great but it suffers from being based around the notion of naive trust instead of verifiable, secure trust. While this worked in the eary days of the internet, it simply does not work now. With computers being connected via broadband and always connected to the internet, OSes and the way they communicate internally and externally have to begin to build a system whereby they can verify, and thus trust, those communicating with the system, whether it be via IM, e-mail or through VPN.
Simply put, the internet is no longer a hobby. It is quickly becoming as important a part of our infrastructure as electricity and roads, to name a few. To this end, there must be a way to ensure that communication via the internet is secure and can be trusted. Palladium is only one method to obtain this trust.
Re:Absurd (Score:5, Interesting)
"Simply put, the internet is no longer a hobby. It is quickly becoming as important a part of our infrastructure as electricity and roads, to name a few."
Indeed. That's why my telephone will not allow me to dial someone while it registers that I'm playing music in the background. It's also why all my mail is opened by the post office to ensure I'm not shipping any copyrighted material in it, and why my electricity shuts off when I try to use it to play a CD I've borrowed from a friend. And why my car will shut down if I go over the speed limit.
Oh, wait, that's not at all how it works, is it?
Secure, verifiable trust has never been part of our infrastructure, and the internet does not increase the need for it.
Communication over the internet is not secure, but then neither is any other form of communication wether by mail, fax, phone or physical delivery, unless you take certain steps to ensure it is.
Re:Absurd (Score:2)
the BSD family is susceptible, so is Linux and MacOS. Hell, even Gameboy Advance or PalmOS are just as likely to be vulnerable.
The problem with Microsoft OS's is their security model. The OS allows scripts in any email or webpage to run on by default, things like that. Of course, they promise that this Palladium stuff will fix that, but really it won't, because Microsoft doesn't see random emails and webpages as untrustworthy -- they see use
Re:Absurd (Score:2)
Jedidiah.
Not about trusting Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't understand what it is about these technologies and their evangelists that makes it so easy for them to wooll over listeners and analysts eyes. I mean, the author of the article quotes Stallman's and Sulzberger's comments, but they seem to go in one ear and out the rest.
This isn't about whether one trusts Microsoft. People who dislike Palladium and TC are not tinfoil hatters who think that once it is deployed Microsoft will use it to take over the world, or whatever. The bottom line is exactly what Sulzberger says: How much control should users have over their own systems.
Microsoft's representative covers this up in invented technical terms, and talks about "security" and "trust" because those words sound good to the uninitiated, but that is just a smokescreen for the true neature (not a lie - they are upfront about what the system includes, they just spin it so people Chris Preimesberger will miss the point).
The point is this: every piece of "security" and "trust" that can be gained from Palladium is gained by palladium taking away from the user control of his own computer. Once that control is removed, ISPs can "secure" and "trust" that the user has his system configured as they mandate (see the Cisco router story). Microsoft can "secure" and "trust" that their software is licensed and registered. The record companies can "secure" and "trust" that their songs cannot be copied, ALL BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THE COMPUTER, NOT THE USER, IS IN CONTROL!
The question he asked "Does Microsoft have a back door" is stupid. Nobody serious believes that Palladium contains a backdoor so that MS can take over the computer. They believe the point with Palladium's design is that software can be installed with restrictions that the user cannot circumvent, and that people will be forced into installing such software, hostile to themselves, on their own PCs, in order to exchange data and connect to the Internet.
The reported responses from the MS representative give us absolutely no reason to answer "no" to either of Sulzberger's questions, even though the article claims so. In fact, when MS say things like, "We are building a scalable, distributed credential-based security model here," and list features of "attestations with authenticated code that is affiliated with only that particular process" - that is exactly what Sulzberger and Stallman are talking about. The Palladium computer will attest - BEYOND THE USERS CONTROL - whether the computer is running software that is "trusted" by the counterpart and hostile to the user, exactly so that the counterpart can mandate the use of such software (read DRM).
The fact that Microsoft tell us that the code will be open for review gives absolutely no confort. It is not the code, but the very concept of Palladium that is frightening beyond belief. Apparently Microsoft have nothing to fear regarding being open about it, as for some reason so many people cannot seem the grasp the point that Stallman, Sulzberger, and myself scream into the void!
Re:Not about trusting Microsoft (Score:2, Interesting)
As far as I see it, Palladium has two goals:
(1) Make subscription-based software a viable buisness model. This one is obvious. Microsoft has been trying to do this for years. Their solution is typical for a monopoly. It over-reaches. If you want people to subscribe to your OS, don't force them to. Offer the subcription as a service. It comes with technical support and free upgrades as long as you pay. The other poor users will have to do the best they can with your "patches" and upgrade-editions.
Re:Not about trusting Microsoft (Score:2)
I'm not sure where you grew up. Where I
Re:Not about trusting Microsoft (Score:2)
If you DON'T trust Microsoft, you shouldn't have a single byte of MS software on your computer.
It's a deceptively simple philosophy.
Re:Not about trusting Microsoft (Score:2)
The more computers under Microsoft's control the better, IMO. Maybe I'll be getting less traffic from viruses and worms. Maybe I'll be getting fewer questions about how things work since I won't ever be working with that technology
Re:DRM = Data Restriction Machine (Score:2)
Otherwise, I thought that using the term "User Hostile Software" was a pretty good term for the whole thing. This describes exactly what seperates DRM, Palladium, TC, FairPlay etc from previous software. Or maybe FUCKware (where FUCK stands for "Futile Unnecessary Control Keeping").
An interesting propagana technique (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a classic example of a propaganda technique. An organization with an goal that is unpopular casts a spokesman as an authority on that goal, but only on a narrowly defined scope. This serves to limit the terms of the debate, as well as to get people to accept tenets of the organizations goals.
In this case, Manferdelli is only an expert on the technical aspects of secure computing. The concept of secure computing is something that a lot of people opposed to Palladium actually accept. It's possible to win converts or at least marshall good PR by getting people to "agree" with Microsoft's technical goals, even when they disagree with the larger implementation and motivation.
This technique is common in totalitarian countries. For example, you may be opposed to Nazi eugenics, but Dr. X, who is only an expert on the medical problems associated with poor breeding, can quickly have you agreeing that birth defects and disease are bad. Once you're that far, why, the overall issues and conclusions of eugenics are much more reasonable and less objectionable.
Overall, this technique works great, and you might even find it in use in your place of work. You limit the scope of debate, removing the things that people really object to, and then get them to agree to things "on their own merits", which makes the overall plan more palatable.
Doomed from the start (Score:2, Interesting)
The term is pure genius, it implies security/safety but doesn't address who is protected from what.
In fact the whole thing seems to be founded on the dubious premise that information (programs/data) can be transferred without transferring complete freedom as to it's use (physically if not legally).
This is patently nonsense.
A case in point is the remarkable lack of electronic money on the planet (like Mondex).
Banks/governments do not trust that real but virtual "cash" can be transacte
Re:Doomed from the start (Score:5, Insightful)
I see no reason why human ingenuity is supposed to freeze at the point this technology is released...
I see a reason: DMCA. It won't stop people, but it will chill public disclosure and freedom of speech, as we know from experience. It can stop the knowledge from reaching a critical mass. People who would circumvent DRM and Trusted Computing are a minority, and if the DMCA can keep it that way, we will never reach critical mass and stop DRM and TC.
another business model (Score:2, Insightful)
SMTP (Score:2)
I wonder if Trusted Computing could be applied to SMTP to help stop spammers. The problem with spam is the internet's email system has no accountability and, often enough, little or no SMTP authentication (some ISPs filter by IP, but there is no login).
The Slashdot community always says we need digital signing of all emails. While I trust Trusted Computing about as much as I trust John Ashcroft, it just might be a step toward stopping spam.
Dream on (Score:2)
Am I supposed to trust this answer ?
Ya, right.
DRM and open source (Score:2)
The grand plan of MS (Score:2)
Then they introduce Palladium, and any user who agrees to run only MS-signed code is safe, and any user who at least enables Palladium is safe from running non-signed code at any time (such as a virus trying to start automatically when the computer boots) without being prompted.
And it'll even work as long as they m
We'll have to open source the BIOS too (Score:2)
If ASUS and A-BIT start putting out motherboards that only support the NGSCB BIOS (is it more than BIOS? is there hardware too?), you can bet I'll be supporting the underdog motherboard manufacturer that uses verifiable code built from open source.
save us linuxbios [linuxbios.org]! What other open source BIOS projects are out there?
Is he serious? (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's take this apart:
do not really completely control their computer. They run a Microsoft OS...
Quite true - those who run an MS OS have very little control over what their machine does. They don't have the source, so they can't fix the bugs, and their machine is constantly prone to virus infection.
In general, it is hard to get any Microsoft system to do what you want.
Nothing new, this has been the case for quite some time...
But some folk actually have pretty good control of their computers.
Translation: some folks use Linux.
Palladium is designed to ensure the continuation of the situation for most users, and to prevent the sale and use of computers which can be controlled by the user.
Translation: Party's over folks. We're going to make it so that you can't install Linux, because we don't like it. I really can't say enough about how evil this is: they want to take control of a person's PC away from the owner?! Consider what kind of mindset would want complete control over someone else...
Some features Microsoft will introduce in the future:
This is evil, pure and simple. It's not merely designed to stop copyright infringement - this is designed to force anyone who uses a PC to pay annual or monthly subscription fees to Microsoft.
Yeah, I know. But what should we expect from a convicted felon?
I guarantee I will not buy a Palladium equipped PC. I'm serious - I'll start building my own from processor and circuit board if I have to.
Windows Security GM ... ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Windows Server 2003 [microsoft.com] is a small step in the right direction, except it's 10 years late. [by the way - I LOVE the caption [microsoft.com] on the Windows 2003 page - I initially misread it as "do less with more".
I like to tell users the reason they are paying me $xxx to repair their computer is because Microsoft was busy working on Clippy [newshax.com] instead of f
NGSCB? Oh Great... Another Acronym (Score:2)
Microsoft's agenda (Score:4, Interesting)
If you don't read that closely, it might look like he's talking about how viruses and worms reduce many people's control over their computer. But he's really saying that Microsoft wants to ensure that everyone doesn't really control their computer.
What's not clear? He all but says that Microsoft wants to control your computer to stop you from copying songs - and, I assume, software.
Really, I was expecting something at least a little subtle.
Unforeseen Consequences (Score:2)
Humans perform technical work in various ways, and all this security blather break, breaks, and breaks those modes of behavior. Version 1.0 of whate
Glimpse of the future (Score:2)
Perhaps it's working as designed -- in which case you're only permitted access to this information if you have a Trusted Computing(tm) BIOS+OS. Otherwise, you get nothing.
Isn't this essentially what the Trusted Computing alliance is promoting; control over information?
Re:Glimpse of the future (Score:4, Informative)
Doctorow's story calls it "Honorable Computing", and perhaps stretches the capabilities a little further (writer's hyperbole?), but in essence what he's talking about is DRM and piracy: Not 100% on-topic, to be sure, but I like Doctorow's story a hell of a lot better than Microsoft's. Go read it, and see where the future might be headed!
Yes, and No (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes, and No (Score:2)
Re:Something Creepy & Point (Score:2)
Yup, explains all the Code Reds attacking Apache these days.
Illegal Citizen Activity (Score:5, Funny)
I'm getting the message
"Citizen 6767323#2 you do not have sufficient security clearance to access this page, your local Police have been automatically informed of this infraction. Have a nice day"So I don't think it's Slashdotted.
Re:System requirements (Score:2)
Or maybe Steam would say "your hardware configuration appears to be inadequate to provide you with a satisfying gameplay experience."
Games already have this ability. DirectX and OpenGL both provide an application (setup program and the game itself) a list of hardware and its capabilities. Neverwinter Nights, for example, now requires (as of the second expansion) a certain level of hardware T&L. DirectX reports if the hardware supports it, and I hear (i.e. I haven't seen for myself) that it will not
Re:This makes me think (Score:2)
If people think the whole thing with usernames/passwords for every damn web site on the net is bad, I'd say that the level of annoyance and frustration associated with this is only the tip of the iceberg. Just wait until you can't use your own computer or access your own documents because you can't be authenticated for some reason.