Gates and Lasser on Palladium 411
A rather funny juxtaposition this morning - Bill Gates or someone with his signature stamp sent a spam-gram to pretty much everyone who receives any sort of Microsoft email: Bill only mentions Digital Rights Management in one throw-away sentence. And like most other spam, he promises it's a one-time mailing. On the other hand, Jon Lasser of Think Unix fame takes a harsher look at Microsoft's vision of a world where your computer is trusted against you.
Ahhh (Score:4, Funny)
And here I thought that was a personal note to me. I have spent the last three hours writing my personal reply. Guess I will just send it to this nice Nigerian man who just emailed me, he just suffered a personal tragedy and seems to need some support.
Chet
Palladium is E-V-I-L (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with everyone's understanding of TCPA/Palladium is that there won't be a single authority (flying Black Helicopters over your PC at night). Big companies like IBM (and especially the government) may use it for document control, but that's about it. What Palladium will do for the world is:
- End the untrusted binary problem. Viruses will be blacklisted by a remote server - no more email viruses, ever
- End the trojan horse/worm problem
These are important features that Joe sixpack the home user really wants. Nobody likes getting a virus and losing all the information on their Hard Drive.By jaundicing themselves against the IEEE's implementation of this important standard, the Linux movement is just putting itself behind the curve in computer security.
If Palladium succeeds, and Linux doesn't follow, then Linux machines will be the only computers that can get viruses. How ironic would that be?
Re:Palladium is E-V-I-L (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Palladium is E-V-I-L (Score:2)
Remember the Windows Update/Code Red fiasco?
If the fish was big enough, SOMEONE would find a way in, and r00t to every Windows box in the world is a fairly big fish.
Re:Palladium is E-V-I-L (Score:2)
That's like saying, in 1960, "If you don't like what Ma Bell is doing, just get rid of your phone line." It's not a practicable option -- and it should be the only one available.
Re:Yeah right (Score:2)
If they're given the option of "Drop support for non-palladium systems, or we stop selling windows to you"
Then YES. Read the transcripts from MS's trial. They've done things like this already, and the manufacturers have caved.
Re:Yeah right (Score:3, Interesting)
- Recently, business sales of new CPUs have fallen off. Apparently people are running word processors just about as fast as they need to, and so it makes sense to hang onto older, "obsolete" motherboards and "outdated" OSes. This of course threatens the chip makers, since their business model depends on unconstrained growth in demand.
- If Microsoft releases Windows Palladium as advertised, then businesses will feel motivated, if not outright compelled, to buy it, since security is a growing concern. But to run Palladium, you need hardware-level encryption and signing. That means to "upgrade" to Windows Palladium, you need to buy an entire new CPU. At least one more rush of hardware purchases awaits!
- Consider these quotes:
- Giants chip in for Palladium [news.com.au]
- Palladium: Safe or Security Flaw? [wired.com]
So I guess the reason that I think "hardware vendors are SO STUPID as to cripple them all in the processor" is that they've already agreed to do just that."...INDUSTRY chip giants Intel and Advanced Micro Devices have confirmed they will support Microsoft's plan to improve PC hardware and software security..."
"...Microsoft's recently announced R&D project, which includes chipmakers Intel and AMD as partners, aims to combine software and hardware extensions to traditional PC architecture..."
Re:Yeah right (Score:2)
If there's an alternative, people will buy it. I will - won't you? Then the market does its thing, and the Wintel empire loses clout because people are moving to the alternatives. Like the other guy said upthread: give them enough rope, they'll hang themselves.
This is just like SDMI. Lots of committees, lots of hype, but ultimately it won't mean shit unless users buy it, and I'll bet Euros to Krispy Kremes that they won't.
the patent... (Score:2)
If the hardware hits the market, Microsoft determines who can legally write an OS to run on it, via their control of the patent.
Re:Palladium is E-V-I-L (Score:3, Funny)
So, I guess the next question is obvious: why doesn't it matter in their products?
If my memory serves me right... (Score:2)
Re:Palladium is E-V-I-L (Score:2)
Nice FUD but ... Re:Palladium is E-V-I-L (Score:4, Informative)
- http://www.attrition.org/security/commentary/ms16
. html : Including the Windows Update site -- which I suspect they "pay attention to". - http://www.computeruser.com/news/01/01/25/news9.h
t ml - http://www.vnunet.com/News/1115617
- http://cert.uni-stuttgart.de/archive/isn/2001/05/
m sg00028.html
Indeed, that first page includes the interesting fact: So I guess for Microsoft, "never" has the same definition as "always" does for their uptimes: some short duration.Re:Nice FUD but ... Re:Palladium is E-V-I-L (Score:2)
Re:Palladium is E-V-I-L (Score:2)
This is because when it matters, Microsoft's security is tough as nails.
Was it 2000 or 2001 that Microsoft's own internal network was cracked and they were afraid the source code to Windows had been stolen. Do a google search on "windows source code stolen", you will get plenty of links. If they can't protect there own systems, what makes me think they can protect mine.
Re:Palladium is E-V-I-L (Score:2)
Never.
As far as you know.
Really, I don't think they'll advertise it.
Re:Palladium is E-V-I-L (Score:3, Funny)
I worked in construction for over 10 years, and I can tell you without hesitation that nails are not tough.
Hardened lag bolts are tough.
Glue-lams are tough.
Reinforced concrete is tough.
Nails are not tough.
Nails bend and break with surprisingly little effort, especially when pitted against things that are actually tough.
Similarly, Microsoft has been hacked a few times, and I don't mean their misconfigured products in the field -- unless that includes Windows Update and their source control servers (which were in fact hacked not too long ago and were open for some time).
Re:Palladium is E-V-I-L (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with everyone's understanding of TCPA/Palladium is that there won't be a single authority (flying Black Helicopters over your PC at night). Big companies like IBM (and especially the government) may use it for document control, but that's about it. What Palladium will do for the world is:
* End the untrusted binary problem. Viruses will be blacklisted by a remote server - no more email viruses, ever...
You are contradicting yourself in mere two sentences. No black helicopters? They don't need them. THe server you mention later is *way* better. Whoever controls that server - controls your PC.
Cheers,
D.
No home movies for Grandma? (Score:2)
I never figured out how home movies would be allowed through. If people find out that they cannot send home movies to Grandma, things are gonna fly.
Another thing, if the security is based on firmware, it is quite possible to have a bug or two that some hacker can exploit, allowing anything to be "signed". Would we have to upgrade chips to see new content because old ones have been compromized?
Re:Palladium is E-V-I-L (Score:3)
Re:Palladium is E-V-I-L (Score:3, Insightful)
I would rather be bombarded by viruses than have my hardware sign off my hardware and sanity to big corporations so they can tell me what to do, and how to use them.
Ask yourself this question: "Would you rather drive a Ferrari in a prison, or Honda Civic out in the city"
Re:Palladium is E-V-I-L (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the vulnerabilities represented in the article execute inside the already-authorized binary. Palladium will not prevent or fix that problem. Palladium can stop unsigned binaries from being run and provide a measure of content control, but not prevention of vulnerability or risk.
AFA Linux goes - more likely than not, Linux won't run at all on Palladium hardware...and besides, do you really want to start counting how many Linux viruses there've been vs. the number of Microsoft Windows ones? I didn't think so.
Palladium in the home sector is just BAD BAD BAD. I don't want any of it. None. It's too bad short-sighted people like you are so eager to adopt a fascist draconian design in the false veil of added security.
sedawkgrep
No, he's correct (Score:2)
Ever here of Microsoft Word & Excel Macro Viruses?
Trusted, signed software doesn't mean you aren't vulnerable. Just because the command reformating your hard drive was signed by Microsoft doesn't meet you're going to lose any less data.
The only way to fix these vulnerabilities is to remove the indredibly stupid "features" like having a mail reader be able to execute any program (signed or not), and remove javascript, ActiveX, and whatever other stupid 'extended scritping' nonsense IE is putting in their browser these days.
Palladium does nothing to secure the computer, all it does is insure the computer can only be used the way [insert authority figure here] deigns to allow you. Whether that authority figure is the Government, Microsoft, Apple (who would presumably be on board in a DRM world), the RIAA, the MPAA, or my local ISP makes little difference
Re:Palladium is E-V-I-L (Score:2)
That blew that benefit for Joe Sixpack
Leaves only the benefit for Big Corp Inc. No more of that commie Linux thingie
Re:Palladium is E-V-I-L (Score:2)
Ammend that to:
End the untrusted Windows binary problem.
OpenBSD users have been using trusted sources for a long time with the signed_exec kernel patch. I imagine that there are equivelents in most *nix.
So remember, just because it's a problem in Windows, doesen't mean it's nesesairly a problem with more robust operating systems.
Consumer's Choice To Opt In..Another Big Brother (Score:2)
I'll decide what I consider acceptable risk. I've been working with computers for 18 years and havn't had anything I couldn't handle. In fact every problem I have had was a issue with a security hole in a Microsoft product. Now Microsoft is pushing that the only solution is to give somone else the power to monkey with my computer and decide what I can store/run on my hard drive. Get real.
Re:Palladium is E-V-I-L (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it's the Business Plan of the beast.
* End the untrusted binary problem. Viruses will be blacklisted by a remote server - no more email viruses, ever
* End the trojan horse/worm problem
No. Sorry. I don't want Microsoft scanning or reading my mail. I trust them less than I do the virus writers.
Most of the problems with Windows arise from programs that Microsoft *trusts*.
Why not give me a Windows mail client that *cannot* run embedded code of *any* kind?
I can live without JavaScript in my email.
I don't need IFrames in my messages.
I can save attachments to disk before opening them - so can Joe Sixpack. Do that much and you probably don't need Palladium.
These are important features that Joe sixpack the home user really wants. Nobody likes getting a virus and losing all the information on their Hard Drive.
Joe Sixpack really doesn't matter to Microsoft. Business and Government users do. The thing that stops many business from switching to a real operating system is not the availability of commercial software, it's the dozens of little in-house-developed apps that companies use.
Very often these apps have been written by long-gone consultants who left neither the source code nor a forwarding address. So what does the company that uses these apps do? Can they arbitrarily sign the apps and let them run on Palladium-capable machines? If so, can anyone sign any bit of code and make it run? Sort of defeats the purpose, so I guess they won't be doing that...
By jaundicing themselves against the IEEE's implementation of this important standard, the Linux movement is just putting itself behind the curve in computer security.
You're missing a small point about Linux: If you have Linux, you also get the source code. If you make a change to the source and recompile it, it's no longer signed. Patching and recompiling is a necessity that they are not accounting for in this plan.
This attitude is dangerous and irresponsible on their part - Go read that story on the spread of Code Red from yesterday - Within hours of the attack, people were writing fixes and workarounds. What if none of these fixes ran, because they weren't properly signed by the original author?
Also consider the following: IIS at the time could have been signed and still been just as vulnerable. Code Red used 'Out of the Box' virgin copies of the programs as written by Microsoft and still wreaked havoc on the net. Palladium would have done little if anything to stop this.
Two points:
1.) Microsoft is offering a false sense of security.
2.) Microsoft is offering a false sense of security.
If Palladium succeeds, and Linux doesn't follow, then Linux machines will be the only computers that can get viruses. How ironic would that be?
Do you *really* believe that Linux gets so few viruses now merely because of its smaller user base? One big difference between Linux and Windows is the permission scheme - you can only do what you are allowed to do in Linux. You can't read/write/execute files where you don't have rights. Linux programs run as users - if you don't trust the program, run it under a user with few rights. It's not perfect, but better than what Microsoft is offering.
Now go to a Windows Machine (95/98/ME - others too?). Boot it. When the login screen pops up, hit escape. Hit 'start', 'run' and type 'regedit'. Change whatever you like. That is not good. Microsoft decided that a lack of security was what the user wanted, then later decided to fix this with a bunch of cobbed-on hokey 'enhancements' that do not correct the original problems. Maybe XP and 2000 fix this somewhat, but I wouldn't know - we have 4 XP laptops at my office that I spend LITERALLY an hour a day maintaining for the users. (Wireless networking problems.) No matter how good the OS is, if it doesn't do basic things for my users, it's less than useless - it's counterproductive.
Microsoft is again waving around their heavy hand and people are frightened that they are going to screw things up even more - I know that I am...
Cheers,
Jim in Tokyo
(Go ahead, mod me 'overrated' - I no longer care...)
Re:Palladium is E-V-I-L (Score:3, Insightful)
- I am almost tempted to initiate a "you get a virus your computer get's wiped" policy here.. maybe, just maybe it would make those morons and idiots in sales and marketing think before opening something looking for their advice.
Your elitist attitude offends me somewhat.Stop your deluded fantasies that the only intelligent people in the world are those who know how to use a computer.
100% agreement (Score:2)
Re:I smell a TROLL (Score:2)
Sure it does. SO does Outlook. Its called "turn off the preview pane" among other things. There are plenty of trojans for Linux. Whether you consider them a "virus" depends on whether you know what you are talkign about, or are a copy writer for MSNBC.
ANY amount of control over my computer is a voilation of my RIGHTS. It doesnt matter if its the computer at my house or my workstation at work. My IT department has NO BUSINNESS telling me what I can and can't run on my workstation. It's MINE.
Uhh.. really? I think you are pretty severely mistaken. As long as you are operating within the laws, yeah.. you may be right. But everyone has plenty of business telling you what you can and cannot run on your workstation. Pirated software, illegal content, running a webserver without permission on someone elses network.. these are all things you AINT SUPPOSED TO DO.
Screaming "you are violating my civil rights by not letting me break the law" is rediculous.
Your company has EVERY right to tell you waht they do or dont want you running on "your" (their) workstation. Why? Corporate licensing, lack of compatibility with their preferred software, their agreements with software manufacturers, and their liability for a few.
Linux doesnt "rule".. it does perform very well in certain situations.. Windows does too, depending on what you are looking at for a system.
dude.. rm -rf
Maeryk
The Hipocracy! (Score:4, Insightful)
When someone mentions they gave up Linux for Windows (don't feel like searching for the link, but it was a story last week), everyone on slashdot supported MS, and ran against Linux.
But, a few stories later, we find ourselves reaming MS.
Now MS tries to address subjects YOU WANT THEM TO ADDRESS, and the linux community is in an uproar.
I'd like to suggest what someone suggested in the "give up linux" article.
We need to STOP railing MS, and start boosting Linux. I don't want Linux to be successful if the success is based on dirty marketing against MS.
What's worse is this wasn't even submitted to slashdot, its an editor attempting to push MS into a story so we can all moan about it.
I think it'd be in Linux's best interest if Slashdot didn't write anything negative about MS, just tech updates or whatever. It'd be a lot more mature than the dung-flinging that goes on here.
This hypocracy is just as bad as putting restrictions on users and preaching online rights...
BTW - I'm expecting a being modded down, especially editor moderation (how do you make a broken moderation system, worse? Absolute power, of course!), I'm just venting some steam (and losing some karma).
Re:The Hipocracy! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Hipocracy! (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem comes in that the editors of slashdot *ARE* linux zealots. And because of this, anything that Microsoft does is always posted with a negative tint. Even if the original poster is trying to be objective, the editor will stick his $0.02 in, basically to rattle the cage of the other zealots on site. The icon for an MS story is Bill Gates as a borg, for crying out loud!
That was what the parent was trying to get at (I think). Editors trolling MS stories and using degrading icons aren't exactly helping improve the image of slashdot (or linux).
Re:The Hipocracy! (Score:2, Informative)
Unfortunately, this is my last post for the day (yeah, slashdot determines how many posts per day I get, and I only get 10), so I can't argue with any other points until tomorrow.
Thanks to the editors for determining how many posts it'll take to defend my position!
Re:The Hipocracy! (Score:2)
No, its not. They can still post as an anonymous coward.
Limiting posts per ip, however, is bad.
Umm, no (Score:5, Insightful)
Who here do you think wanted MicroSoft to address DRM in the operating system? I'd guess almost nobody.
Who here do you think wanted MicroSoft to address the 'problem' of users having complete control over their own machines? Again, nobody.
I see no change in attitude here at all. The Slashdot crowd has always disliked DRM and giving Bill the keys to your computer--and that's exactly why there is so much anger at Palladium.
And while I agree with you that we'd be better off boosting Linux than trashing MicroSoft all the time, you still have to point out significant dangers when you see them.
Re:The Hipocracy! (Score:3, Insightful)
Not I, but that's sort of beside the point.
But, a few stories later, we find ourselves reaming MS. Now MS tries to address subjects YOU WANT THEM TO ADDRESS, and the linux community is in an uproar.
Adressing the subjuct really doesn't do anything. We're concerned about the prospect of OS/hardware DRM and the many possible abuses thereof, not the arm-waving of a convicted market-manipulating monopoly. The simple fact is that MS cannot be trusted, just as Enron cannot be trusted, but that too is beside the point. If Red Hat and Intel were colluding on DRM I would be worried too. This is the sort of thing that could lead us down the road to hardware that does not allow us to write our own drivers or run our own operating systems. It gives large companies (like MS) the hooks to start abusing competitors (especially open source).
Personally, I just don't see this article as being anti-MS so much as anti-corporate. When has Slashdot ever flinched from that possition? What shocked you about that? Did you come to slashdot expecting Forbes?
Re:The Hipocracy! (Score:4, Insightful)
Learn how to interpret what you read.
Now MS tries to address subjects YOU WANT THEM TO ADDRESS, and the linux community is in an uproar.
No. The main gist of the responses is not that they are upset that MS has addressed the issue, but the way they have addressed the issue.
If I said, "Killing little girls is a bad thing, it should be stopped," and you responded by saying, "You are right, it is bad. I know, we'll stop it by using sex selection to make sure that only male embryos are brought to term." I would get mad at you not for addressing the issue, but for the idiotic solution. That's what is happening here.
Re:The Hipocracy! (Score:2)
I think the point of the "uproar" is that most of us don't believe that Microsoft is trying to address subjects that we want them to address. Most of us feel this is an attempt to cater to Hollywood and the music industry and possible even kill open source.
We really have no reason to trust Microsoft. This corporation is totally unrepentant of its past crimes and continues to engage in unacceptable monopolistic practices.
Bottom line: It would truly be foolish to embrace anything that Microsoft does with open arms without first carefully scrutinizing its actions. The uproar you are complaining about is part of the scrutiny. I give the Palladium scheme a big two thumbs down.
It IS more about taking control of OUR HARDWARE and limiting OUR CHOICE than it is about security.
what the fuck u talking bout? (Score:2)
Re:The Hipocracy! (Score:2)
It's a bit stupid to have blinders on. Even if you don't snag code, snagging ideas is not a bad thing. Perhaps MS will come up with some new ideas.
(BTW, when I needed new keyboard/mouse, I went STRAIGHT to the MicroSoft offerings. I don't care who invented optical mice. I just like the ones MicroSoft makes.)
Anyway, I'm surprised you have any karma left, given how often you rail against the party line.
Re:The Hipocracy! (Score:2)
I've read this kind of thing before here, and it bugs me every time.
Suppose you and I are standing next to each other on the street. You say "I don't like that car" and I say "I like that car." Are we hypocritical? No. We are two different people with two opinions.
If a week ago a bunch of people supported MS plan X and today a bunch of people asserted that it's the work of the devil, there is no hypocracy as long as they are different people.
There are some 4e5 registered users around here. Some of them are probably hypocrits. Some of the editors might be hypocrits. The only way for "Slashdot" to be hypocritical is for all of us to agree to have a single opinion on all issues.
Unless some TOS [everything2.com] agreement somewhere has changed, I haven't agreed to any such thing.
Astroturf Campaign? (Score:2)
Re:The Hipocracy! (Score:2)
Re:The Hipocracy! (Score:4, Funny)
The meat (Score:2, Informative)
It's interesting that I got this since I specifically asked Microsoft to stop sending me *anything* and they complied. At least until now. I guess they pulled out all the email addresses they've collected over the last 8 years.
-------------
As I've talked with customers over the last year - from individual consumers to big enterprise customers - it's clear that everyone recognizes that computers play an increasingly important and useful role in our lives. At the same time, many of the people I talk to are concerned about the security of the technologies they depend on. They are concerned about whether their personal data is being protected. Although they know that computers can do amazing things, they are frustrated that their technology doesn't always work consistently. And they want assurances that the high-tech industry takes these concerns seriously and is working to improve their computing experience.
Six months ago, I sent a call-to-action to Microsoft's 50,000 employees, outlining what I believe is the highest priority for the company and for our industry over the next decade: building a Trustworthy Computing environment for customers that is as reliable as the electricity that powers our homes and businesses today.
This is an important part of the evolution of the Internet, because without a Trustworthy Computing ecosystem, the full promise of technology to help people and businesses realize their potential will not be fulfilled. Ironically, it is the growth of the Internet and the advent of massive computing systems built from loose affiliations of services, machines, communications networks and application software that have helped create the potential for increased vulnerabilities.
There are already solutions that eliminate weak links such as passwords and fake email. At Microsoft we're combining passwords with "smart cards" to authenticate users. We're also working with others throughout the industry to improve Internet protocols to stop email that could propagate misleading information or malicious code that falsely appears to be from trusted senders. And we are making fundamental changes in the way we develop software, in our operational and business practices, and in our customer support efforts to make the computing experiences we provide more trustworthy.
For example, we've historically made our software and services more compelling for users primarily by adding new features and functionality. While we are continuing to invest significantly in delivering new capabilities that customers ask for, we are now making security improvements an even higher priority than adding features. For example, we made changes to Microsoft Outlook to block email attachments associated with unsafe files, prevent access to a user's address book, and give administrators the ability to manage email security settings for their organization. As a result of these changes, the number of email virus incidents has dropped dramatically. In fact, email viruses like the recent "Frethem" virus propagate only to systems that have not been updated - underscoring the importance of updating them regularly.
We are also undertaking a rigorous and exhaustive review of many Microsoft products to minimize other potential security vulnerabilities. Earlier this year, the development work of more than 8,500 Microsoft engineers was put on hold while we conducted an intensive security analysis of millions of lines of Windows source code. Every Windows engineer and several thousand engineers in other parts of the company were also given special training in writing secure software. We estimated that the stand-down would take 30 days. It took nearly twice that long, and cost Microsoft more than $100 million. We've undertaken similar code reviews and security training for Microsoft Office and Visual Studio
THE TRUSTWORTHY COMPUTING FRAMEWORK
Trustworthy Computing has four pillars: reliability, security, privacy and business integrity. "Reliability" means that a computer system is dependable, is available when needed, and performs as expected and at appropriate levels. "Security" means that a system is resilient to attack, and that the confidentiality, integrity and availability of both the system and its data are protected. "Privacy" means that individuals have the ability to control data about themselves and that those using such data faithfully adhere to fair information principles. "Business Integrity" is about companies in our industry being responsible to customers and helping them find appropriate solutions for their business issues, addressing problems with products or services, and being open in interactions with customers.
Creating a Trustworthy Computing environment requires several steps:
- Making software code more secure and reliable. Our developers have tools and methodologies that will make an order-of-magnitude improvement in their work from the standpoint of security and safety.
- Keeping ahead of security exploits. Distributing updates using the Internet so that all systems are up to date. Windows Update and Software Update Services, discussed below, provide the infrastructure for this.
- Early Recovery. In case of a problem, having the capability to restore and get systems back up and running in exactly the same state they were in before an incident, with minimal intervention.
FIRST STEPS TOWARD MORE TRUSTWORTHY COMPUTING
There is still much work that Microsoft and others in our industry must do to make computing more trustworthy. Here is a summary of some of the progress we've made, six months after my email to Microsoft employees:
- We have changed the way we design and develop software at all phases of the product development cycle. Our new processes should greatly minimize errors in software, and speed up the development process for new products and services.
- Software Update Services (SUS) is a security management tool for business customers that enables IT administrators to quickly and reliably deploy critical updates from inside their corporate firewall to Windows 2000-based servers and desktop computers running Windows 2000 Professional and Windows XP Professional.
- Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer is a new tool that customers can use to analyze Windows 2000 and Windows XP systems for common security misconfigurations, and to scan for missing security hot fixes and vulnerabilities on a variety of products, including newer versions of Internet Information Server, SQL Server and Office.
- In addition to providing customers with tools and resources to help them maximize the security of Windows 2000 Server environments, we are committed to shipping Windows
- The error-reporting features built into Office XP and Windows XP are giving us an enormous amount of feedback and a much clearer view of the kinds of problems customers have, and how we can raise the level of reliability in those products - and that of products made by other companies. As part of this effort, we recently created a secure Web site where software and hardware vendors can view error reports related to their drivers, utilities and applications that are reported through our system. This enables the vendors who work with us to identify recurring problems and address them far more quickly than in the past. All of our server software products will incorporate these error-reporting features in subsequent versions of the products.
- With Microsoft Windows Update, we are completing the customer-feedback loop based on the error-reporting features mentioned above. This globally available Web service delivers more than 300 million downloads per month of the most current versions of product fixes, updates and enhancements. When customers connect to the site, they can choose to have their computer automatically evaluated to check which updates need to be applied in order to keep their system up-to-date, as well as identify any critical updates to keep their system safe and secure.
- We are working on a new hardware/software architecture for the Windows PC platform, code-named "Palladium," which will significantly enhance users' system integrity, privacy and data security. This new technology, which will be included in a future version of Windows, will enable applications and application components to run in a protected memory space that is highly resistant to tampering and interference. This will greatly reduce the risk of viruses, other attacks, or attempts to acquire personal information or digital property with malicious or illegal intent. Our goal is for the Palladium development process to be a collaborative industry initiative.
- We've incorporated what is known as P3P (Platform for Privacy Preferences) technology in the Internet Explorer browser technology in Windows XP, which enhances a user's ability to set privacy levels to suit his or her needs. The P3P standard enables a user's browser to compare any P3P-compliant Web site's privacy practices to that user's privacy settings, and to decide whether to accept cookies from that site.
Identifying and addressing critical Trustworthy Computing issues will require significant collaboration across our industry. One example of the kind of cross-industry effort we need more of is the recent creation of the Web Services Interoperability (WS-I) Organization (http://www.ws-i.org/). Founded by IBM, Microsoft and other industry leaders including Intel, Oracle, SAP, Hewlett-Packard, BEA Systems and Accenture, WS-I's mission is to enable consistent and reliable interoperability of XML-based Web services across a variety of platforms, applications and programming languages. Among other things, WS-I will create a suite of test tools aimed at addressing errors and unconventional usage in Web services specifications implementations, which in turn will improve interoperability among applications and across platforms.
Progress indeed, and innovation (Score:2, Insightful)
- There are already solutions that eliminate weak links such as passwords and fake email. At Microsoft we're combining passwords with "smart cards" to authenticate users. We're also working with others throughout the industry to improve Internet protocols to stop email that could propagate misleading information or malicious code that falsely appears to be from trusted senders. And we are making fundamental changes in the way we develop software, in our operational and business practices, and in our customer support efforts to make the computing experiences we provide more trustworthy.
Now this is progress. From actions like these in the computer software industry we can see that they are gradually moving away from the 'hacker' mentality (as in 'hack it together and hope it works') to a more formal design process. Like, software engineering might actually live up to its title!And the closer computing gets to more comfortable real-life metaphors, such as using human-orientated media such as eyeballs and fingers, the more comfortable people will generally find the technology.
Aye man. Innit.
The Right to Read (Score:5, Insightful)
Another take on DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
If MS wants to put the interests of the large media companies ahead of the interests of its own customers, the people who actually buy the computers and the software, why not let them take it to the market? Let's let the market decide what it thinks of that. Let's give them enough rope to hang themselves.
The thing that we have to worry about is some sort of legal framework that requires all computers to respect some DRM system.
MS is way ahead on the desktop, and their systems have gotten a lot better than they used to be. The only way they're going to get dislodged from that position is by making a really catastrophic mistake.
This could be that mistake!
I think there's a lesson in the current stock market scandals. The big companies can buy legislators. They've shown that they can derail effective regulation of accounting rules. They can set things up so that a crooked CFO who bilks people out of billions and sends the markets into a spiral that wipes out the savings of millions of people gets a lighter punishment than a punk who robs a liquor store.
But in the end, there's nothing they can do against the force of the market itself. They got cocky -- they thought they could get away with anything. It turns out that they can't.
Neither can the DRM boys.
Re:Another take on DRM (Score:2)
I think they will (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Another take on DRM (Score:2)
You know, I began to think about this statement, and realized that what the corrupt corporations are doing is no better than the mob making a living by racketeering. The punk robs a few bottles and perhaps some cash, the mob takes the entire store and sells it at a loss to pad their own pockets. It's really no different at the corporate scandal level.
Re:Another take on DRM (Score:2)
The thing that we have to worry about is some sort of legal framework that requires all computers to respect some DRM system.
Bingo. That's the danger with "letting the market decide" on DRM. If it was that simple, we wouldn't have anything to worry about, because DRM-restricted technology would die a firey death so horrible it'd make Circuit City's Divx look pretty. Big Hollywood knows this, so in addition to pushing DRM to the major technology players, they're going to Congress to make any technology that doesn't do DRM illegal.
So we'll get a situation where Microsoft/AOL/Sony/etc. all get the license to provide the legal DRM systems, and anyone who wants to develop any innovative new technology will have to get the blessing from the DRM priests before they can bring that technology to market. If you thought corporate technology monopolies were bad before, wait 5-10 years.
A bona-fide technical question (Score:3, Interesting)
It wasn't a rejection of the clipper ideology that sank the proposal. It was a proof that it would be possible to build counterfeit clipper phones that would interact with the system. The NSA screwed up, they built a system that wasn't strong enough.
It seems to me that palladium would face a similar challenge. How do they differentiate between a rogue board that pretends to be palladium compliant and a real one? Especially in a world with flashable BIOS?
What's to stop people from buying boards that will be palladium switchable? If you want to run Windows, you can set the BIOS one way, if you want to run Linux, you can set the BIOS to disregard it?
Or what's to stop people from making boards that accept any signature without checking it? MSs software would think it was on a palladium compliant system, but you could run whatever you wanted.
Re:A bona-fide technical question (Score:2)
What's to stop people from buying boards that will be palladium switchable? If you want to run Windows, you can set the BIOS one way, if you want to run Linux, you can set the BIOS to disregard it?
Technologically, there's no way to enforce it (and they know this). It would all depend on how many people Big Hollywood wanted to see arrested as to how many people would try to get around their DRM stuff. Throw enough people in jail for "hacking" and "pirating", and everyone else will be too scared to try to fight.
Re:Another take on DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
t.
Mistake only from our perspective... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this shows just how far along this idea has gone. None of these people in the room cared a wit about privacy, open source, the ability to compile your own apps, etc. because the vast majority of people don't do even know what they could be missing. All they care about is a golden pill to solve all there security problems.
So we shouldn't all be thinking that somehow this idea will be MS shooting themselves in the foot. That won't happen unless we get the word out.
Re:Mistake only from our perspective... (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me start out by saying that I agree with this statement. My basis is the fact that I actively do security administration and teach security classes so I've seen my share of people that are involved in corporate/IT security.
The sad part about this is we got into a situation by people looking for the "golden pill" that will solve all of their problems. I guess its not so much a golden pill to solve security problems, but more that people just don't want to care about it. They think if they sit in the closet with their eyes closed no one will be able to see them. We've recently been finding out (over the past couple of years) that all of those people were drastically wrong. Now that we've realized that the suites realized this, they've now decided to do something about that magic subject of "security". However instead of hiring someone who knows what they're doing, they find people who look at Microsoft saying things like "I know we messed up, but we've spent 100M USD to fix it, please trust us -- with no actual proof (can't read the code can you? not like they'd know what they were reading)". Then these suites eat it up like cops with doughnuts and two years later we'll be back into the exact same situation.
The only golden pill for security is knowledge. I tell all of my students that, and I wish that the word would be passed along. I'm not saying that MS is shooting themself in the foot doing this because no one can read the future, we can only speculate. However I think that companies that blindly follow this scheme will be shooting themselves in the foot.
DRM, Part II (Score:2)
There may very well be useful "defanged" DRM (see my writings), but it's deployment could likely be far more expensive than the piracy it's intended to prevent.
Instead of speculating why not read the details (Score:5, Informative)
Hopefully these links will spread far and wide so we can have technical discussions on how and why palladium can or cannot work instead of "Microsoft's E-V-I-L Mark of the Beast" hysteria like I just saw in a highly moderated comment.
Disclaimer:The opinions expressed in this post are mine and do not reflect the opinions, thoughts, strategies or plans of my employer.
Re:Instead of speculating why not read the details (Score:2)
Maybe it's just best to leave the chicken littles be and invest in Prozac futures?
Strange quote (Score:2)
Re:Strange quote (Score:2)
Turn it off (Score:2, Insightful)
palladium is the end of hobby programmers (Score:3, Insightful)
As a hobby programmer, this will not make me happy. Not only that, what about student projects for college? Do they have to get their programs signed as well? And what if Microsoft (or whoever decides what gets 'signed' refuses to sign your binaries just because they don't like you?
Microsoft clearly wasn't thinking on the negative impacts of this(but then again, when do they, i guess?)
Re:palladium is the end of hobby programmers (Score:2)
Not that anyone would actually ever want to do such a thing.
Re:palladium is the end of hobby programmers (Score:2)
No, just rewrite them as Word or Excel macros.
Re:palladium is the end of hobby programmers (Score:5, Interesting)
Go read the consent decee again. Anything having to do with security is exempt. Thus Microsoft's sudden fascination with security.
Re:palladium is the end of hobby programmers (Score:2)
It is not up to Microsoft (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It is not up to Microsoft (Score:2)
Another response to the parent indicated that Microsoft may have patent-encumbered the use of the DRM features in the CPU, to the point that only Windows could run on the hardware.
This is equivalent to them both placing their cojones gently into Bill's outstretched hands, when they (Intel, especially) also know he has a grip of steel. I would certainly hope that they're making sure that either DRM features can be deactivated or can be used by non-Windows OS's.
It wouldn't surprise me to find Intel opening a back-channel to AMD specifically for the topic of DRM. I wonder if AMD is *stupid* enough to try and orbit Microsoft closer than Intel on this issue. I'm sure Intel is attempting to educate AMD on the long-term dangers of that policy.
Microsoft IP (Score:5, Informative)
Bob Cringley has written a couple [pbs.org] of good [pbs.org] articles on eactly this, the second related directly to Palladium. Check them out.
Cringley also has an article [pbs.org] on the consequences of Palladium not working.
Run You Fools!! (Score:2)
Maybe we should make it a Friday thing, post a note on the main page requesting all anti-M$ geeks to click on a M$ story or another Bill's email at sharp 3:00 Eastern time (which happens to be 12:00 lunch time for Seattle when all the Sysadmins at M$ happen to be beefing up on Tofu).
3:30 Eastern Time : Long live www.microsoft.com!
Not aiming very high! (Score:3, Funny)
Six months ago, I sent a call-to-action to Microsoft's 50,000 employees, outlining what I believe is the highest priority for the company and for our industry over the next decade: building a Trustworthy Computing environment for customers that is as reliable as the electricity that powers our homes and businesses today.
Well that's reassuring! I think the general population of California would like for computers to be a bit more reliable that their electric grid!
And even if you're not in CA, electric power is notoriously unreliable. Brownouts, power outages, power spikes, 120V vs. 220V, etc. Is Bill trying to tell us that Windows will never be reliable at all?
What about Palladium and Apple? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now granted the **AA's would just love to have a very tight DRM system, and Palladium underneath it all would be like a market research holy grail(knowing the marketeers behavior), but thats all at this point a Windows thing.
Setting aside OSS for the moment, what about the few other players? Apple primarily, but there are a few others. And what if someone wants to truely innovate a new OS?
This is _way_ too controlling a system. I think the barrier to entry would effectively become a steel bulkhead (for any truely new OS).
And what exactly is Apple's position on all this? Especially since OS X. And sooner or later there will be a fairly usable Darwin for x86. If the hardware begins to limit the software as is predicted, them perhaps MS should just make its own hardware for its new OS's. Open up its abandon-ware for the rest of us and strike out along the path of Apple.
Frankly I think all of this is going to fail. And no system will be secure until we can get rid of the users =P
Re:What about Palladium and Apple? (Score:2)
Apple doesn't like DRM. Their entire digital hub strategy is based on easily being able to manipulate digital content.
Re:What about Palladium and Apple? (Score:2)
Re:What about Palladium and Apple? (Score:2)
Re:What about Palladium and Apple? (Score:2)
Mad points to the virus writer... (Score:2)
Baron: Suqeeze our corporate customers, SQUEEZE! (Score:2)
Much to the delight of House Microsoft's board of directors, the Baron unleashed Steve "The Beast" Ballmer [ridiculopathy.com] to extract as much as he can from their corporate customers in the form of "upgrade plans" and other rackets.
Some talk of a vast hidden population of Lemen, yet official sources dismiss the rumors.
Trustworthy products (Score:2)
This is something that is notably lacking from MS, their trustworthy intiative seems more about making their EULA more legally binding, without delivering anything to the consumer.
Trusting my machines? Even I don't do that... (Score:2)
The consequences are too horrific.
I've been a victim of identity theft and it cost some one her LIFE, such as it was, because she chose suicide instead of a long jail term.
This is SERIOUS SHIT. It happens. It happened to some body I knew. But she ripped me off. I turned her in and she funkin' offed her stupid cowardly self. ("People Who Died" by the Jim Carroll Band is running through my head...)
There is NO FUCKIN' WAY I'd trust my Macs or my Linux PC to reveal information on my behalf.
Best of both worlds.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I would like to see Microsoft and Intel team up and go one way, while AMD and everyone else go the other.
Then Microsoft can lock down everyones PC like apple and do whatever they want to. The rest of us will then be able to enjoy our open systems.
Crazy idea? You decide.
Why you'll never get another message like this (Score:4, Funny)
RARGH! (Score:2)
Hopefully, within a year (minding, I like my gaming!) I'll be able to toss Windows and break myself of the habit completely before Palladium comes out and destroys home computing.
Open? (Score:4, Insightful)
And here we are, it's 2002, and Microsoft, the company that most benefited from having the PC architecture open, is now seeking to close it. For "security". As more restrictions are added, fewer interesting things will happen on the system, and people will start to look elsewhere to get what they want and need.
It's sad that Microsoft has forgotten what got them where they are in the first place. Look for Apple to do even better once Palladium hits.
Bill Gates(tm) (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone else notice Bills interesting capitalization at the end of the letter? Perhaps we can expect another generic trademark soon?
So, I guess it has finally happened. People don't use the word trustworthy to describe M$, so M$ just created a way for trustworthy to be used with all M$ activities! I guess that is more profitable than actually becoming trustworthy.
-Sean
Possible fix to Data Overflow bug? (Score:2)
Limit the amount of data that can be inputted from any particular source, depending on how fast the system can handle the requests. Has your system ever slowed down so much that you type something and it appears...five seconds later? Same idea. Why should the system allow gigabytes of data to be inputted when the given system can only handle -- say -- 100 MB at a time? It shouldn't. This is exactly what causes the problem -- the system gets information/data at a rate faster than it can handle it. So basically, my idea amounts to this: don't bite off more than you can chew.
A similar concept might work well to protect against password-cracker programs. Why allow user/password entries as fast as the sytem can handle it? Why not set a limit so that the program only accepts one attempt every 10 seconds, and then after 3 such times closes?
Another suggestion, on Palladium and like technologies/ideas. Basically, the criticism is that it will kill OSS / FS, either because they won't get the seal of approval from MS or because even if they do, or that will be impossible (how do you give such to source code), or that even if its given it will be broken if the user excercises his OSS / FS rights and changes the code. The solution to this problem is for whoever to create a digital approval system such that the user decides which things he approves of. For every chip sold, they will have the "universal" approval stamp on them, and one which is specific to that user: namely, that means that every piece of hardware made would have one common approval stamp (which would be delegated out by some organization) and one private unique one, which the user would control and give the "stamp" to the programs of his choice. Comments?
Re:Possible fix to Data Overflow bug? (Score:2)
IIRC, Solaris has such a feature - you can configure the delay between password entry attempts - and pretty much EVERY OS I know of has a "lockout after x number of failed attempts" feature - going back to Banyan - probably further.
Re:Possible fix to Data Overflow bug? (Score:2)
*sigh* Never Learning, Always Repeating (Score:3, Insightful)
Palladium is a bandage over the broken user/networking model and the interfaces to them. Instead of stepping back and considering the reasons why most users and processes MUST run as Administrator(locally and network wise), Microsoft wants to promise that yet more software that will sort out the issue for you without thinking. Installing software on a Win2K system can be a bear if permissions have to be setup a certain way. How hard is it going to be to install software on a Palladium system?? Don't think the new Word for Palladium. Think about the legacy software you are still required to use. That should send shivers down any IT Staff's collective spines.
And, at the worst, Palladium fails to fix a giant class of problems. IIS will no doubt in MS's mind be a trusted program to run. However monkeying with "default.ida" isn't something it should be doing. Palladium can protected from "mystery.exe" which is unsigned from running but seems to make no provision for trusted binaries suddenly behaving badly. Default settings, denial of serivce, etc. have nothing to do with signed code.
Beyond this a computer is supposed to get out of the way and let you do your tasks. A "well oiled" Linux machine can do this for tasks. Mac users rave about how its OS goes way into the background when a task is executed. MS through Palladium seeks to get more in the way to protect us from ourselves. Why does Joe Sixpack want a computer that is even more "in your face" than it is now?
As for the future of Linux with Palladium looming on the horizon. I'm not worried. In fact I forsee a great boon in virtual execution environments on Linux and BSD where you can choose to ignore Palladium rules if you the user choose to do so.
Lasser's Comments (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft is truly foolish if they expect to have people switch to Palladium. The majority of their customers were pissed with XP, just having to call Microsoft if they updated their hardware. Now, they expect people to buy new hardware so they can be told what they can't run? Personally, I think Palladium might end up being a new NT, but I seriously doubt it will ever be like Microsoft claims it will.
A question (Score:3, Interesting)
Will the computer enthusiast be able to write (and thus learn) new programming languages? I find it hard to believe that a compiler could digitally sign all code, and thus it would be impossible for the average Joe to write a "Hello World."
I remember writing my first program (a blackjack game, I believe) in 4th grade in Visual Basic. Isn't that how most (if not all) computer professionals got in the business? Will self-discovery and self-learning be possible anymore?
servers, business, hobbiests? (Score:4, Insightful)
What about internal business software? Will all businesses have to get their own internal software signed by Microsoft for use on their own machines?
What about hobbiest programmers? I don't know about you, but I got into programming at home messing around with compilers and such... Ummm... Are they trying to extend their monopoly to... programming in general?
I think it's possible that Palladium could end up being either the demise of general computing, or the demise of Microsoft's monopoly, as other competitors such as Apple, Linux, *BSD, etc, step up and offer people their COMPUTERS back to them.
I'm not going to worry. If it comes to it, I'll run Linux on PPC hardware or something. If that gets DRM infected as well, I'm sure there will be other choices, possibly from the other side of the pond. And if it's worse, I'm quitting this industry and going into construction or something. Or maybe politics, it'll get easier and easier to run on a platform of offering people their freedom back!
Reliability... (Score:3, Funny)
I live in California, need I say more? Not to mention the price of electricity here...
Solving the wrong problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Can anyone explain how having (for example) IIS signed by Microsoft is going to make it any more secure? It's not as though there's some "untrusted" version of IIS going around that the Palladium system will be able to detect and disable, is it?
All signing can do is reassure you that you are indeed running the same binary that Microsoft (or whoever) is offering. It certainly doesn't prove that the binary is competently designed, well tested, or secure against crack attempts.
Palladium is a terrific solution for a nonexistent problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Journalistic Integrity? (Score:2, Informative)
"If you don't wish to hear from us again, you do not need to do anything. We will not send you another executive email unless you choose to subscribe at the link above."
Re:didn't get it (Score:2)