×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

A Critical Look at Trusted Computing

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the long-hard-look dept.

Security 278

mod12 writes "After just attending a two-week summer program on the theoretical foundations of security (one of the speakers was from Microsoft research), I have been interested in trying to find out if the "trusted computing" initiative was still alive. I got my answer today in the New York Times from an article that was fortunately rather critical of the concept."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

278 comments

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6336281)

fp

Re:fp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6336308)

Fag.

Microsoft . . . (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6336282)

As long as Microsoft is there, there is no trust.

Re:Microsoft . . . (1)

Mark Ferguson (684950) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336521)

I offered an alternative to M$ in charge of the "Trusted" email program. M$ != Trusted IMHO.

The anti-spam community is comeing together to create a white list of companies that abide by Best Practices.

The site is up, the zone files are up.

FP? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6336284)

FP?? Could it be???

Re:FP? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6336310)

I fail it. I am teh suck.

Two terms that don't work together (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6336286)

Trusted Computing + Microsoft? AFAIK, trusted computing is NOT running Microsoft software...

Re:Two terms that don't work together (1, Funny)

alitaa (636041) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336374)

yes, they do: Trusted Computing + Microsoft = windoze

It's full of hex! (4, Interesting)

dagnabit (89294) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336317)

I love the image at the top of the article showing the "sample of the code for a more secure version of Microsoft Windows" -- just some random binary file open in a hex editor.

Gotta love the NYT - their editors are on the ball!

Re:It's full of hex! (4, Funny)

I Want GNU! (556631) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336355)

Didn't you hear? Microsoft is programming the DRM system with their patented HexCode (TM). While it may decrease productivity, programming in hex and binary turns a simple 7% profit into a 111% profit, making MicroStock more attractive to inventestors.

Re:It's full of hex! (1)

Soko (17987) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336366)

I love the image at the top of the article showing the "sample of the code for a more secure version of Microsoft Windows" -- just some random binary file open in a hex editor.

Ummmm... I believe that's a Palladium key, not machine code. Since the best encryption keys are those that are truly randomly generated, not the pseudo-random numbers most software uses at present, you see a good key (if it is indeed random).

Gotta love the NYT - their editors are on the ball!

Apparently. (Well, this time anyway.)

Soko

Re:It's full of hex! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6336404)

No, that's not a key. Have a look at the ASCII on the right, and note the hex character codes interspersed with nulls - it's UTF-16 formatted text. It's hard to make out, but near the end there's the text "Unexpected Type [%s]", so the code dump is probably from a compiled binary.

Re:It's full of hex! (1)

Randolpho (628485) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336451)

Ummmm... I believe that's a Palladium key, not machine code ... you see a good key (if it is indeed random). Um.... if it's a private key, then it's no longer good having been published...

Re:It's full of hex! (1)

frankthechicken (607647) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336532)

I think you'll find they're actually trying to reverse engineer Linux, and unless I'm very much mistaken, that's a fragment taken from the 2.4.0 version.

Re:It's full of hex! (1)

shird (566377) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336564)

Did you take a look at the text conversion (on the right)? It is a bunch of text in unicode format being displayed in the VS IDE. You can clearly make out some of the text.. ie "Description", "Unexpected Type" etc. Clearly not a 'key' of any kind or code, just a bunch of string resources probably in an EXE or DLL.

Re:It's full of hex! (3, Informative)

cperciva (102828) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336615)

The text is the following (in unicode):

[%s] & Ed[%s] values for User Name TextBox event description. \00\00\00\0A Unexpected Type[%s] & Id[%s]

Looks like a dump from an executable file.

Re:It's full of hex! (0)

citking (551907) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336405)

MicroSoft Headquarters, Slashdot Briefing Room

Guy #1: "Oh crap...quick, we need NDAs for everyone who has seen that code on Slashdot!"

Guy #2: "Greg, I wouldn't be so worried about Slashdot...we better get our moles at SCO on the ball to make sure they don't see that code we stole from them!"

Guy #1: "Oh, I guess you're right...."

Fragility (1)

deanpole (185240) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336612)

Computers with TCM/Palladium/WNGSCB/handcuffware will be fragile. Many more disk sectors will be essential for booting. A greater percentage of memory errors will cause exceptions. Maybe you thought SMP hardware showed a lot of race conditions? You will surely see them now. Call it disasterous reputation maintenance (DRM).

non DRM computers? (4, Insightful)

I Want GNU! (556631) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336321)

Does anyone know of companies planning on building processors without DRM? In a competitive marketplace there would not be DRM because consumers don't demand it and surely would prefer computers that aren't controlled by the market after the sale. But with only two major PC processor manufacturers having a duopoly over the market it isn't very competitive.

Re:non DRM computers? (3, Informative)

I Want GNU! (556631) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336337)

I misspoke--I meant that they surely would prefer computers that aren't controlled by the manufacturers after the sale.

Re:non DRM computers? (5, Insightful)

vegetablespork (575101) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336342)

You'll be able to get a non-DRM'd computer. It'll be made illegal as a "circumvention device" in short order if it actually turns out to be useful for any sort of multimedia applications.

I recommend not tossing systems when you upgrade--pre-ban PCs should be worth a tidy sum soon.

Re:non DRM computers? (1)

I Want GNU! (556631) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336371)

I don't know about computer hardware going up in value, but I'm hoping some company will start selling non DRM processors as soon as Intel and Microsoft pull out of the market. They might be as fast as Intel or AMD processors but I'm sure there would be a market for them.

And what about Macs? I haven't heard of any DRM plans for Mac computers.

Re:non DRM computers? (1)

vegetablespork (575101) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336387)

I wouldn't put much faith in Apple. Sure, they're not a member of the TCPA, but they've demonstrated DRM tendencies with the iTunes music service, but if they need to lock future Macs down to maintain a gravy train of media revenue, that's precisely what they'll do.

Re:non DRM computers? (4, Insightful)

Delphiki (646425) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336443)

I'm not so cynical about Apple. There's a big difference between the iTunes music store and what Microsoft and Disney want to happen. The iTunes music store lets you use those files on up to three computers and allows you to burn them as many times as you want and put them on your iPod, etc. Considering you can stream songs, listen to them as many times as you want on more than one computer, I see this as pretty reasonable. I imagine Apple had to really go to bat with the record companies to get that much too.

Apple is typically better to their customers, because they have to be. Microsoft has shown a lack of respect for their customers fairly consistently and get away with it because people don't see much alternative at the moment. Also, Apple's embracing the open source community, though perhaps not to the degree that some would like (though I think it's a good balance of open and closed source). Their ties to the open source community I would think make them more likely to refuse to implement TCPA.

The problem Apple is going to face though, is will Apple users be able to open TCPA encrypted documents? Apple, along with Linux, the BSD's, and any other non Microsoft platform need to oppose this so that Microsoft can't lock alternative platforms' users out of all documents created through Microsoft apps.

Re:non DRM computers? (1)

vegetablespork (575101) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336486)

I appreciate that Apple has struck a compromise, but my view is that in doing so they've let the camel's nose under the tent. They have many Mac users (and Windows users, in the future) thinking "well, maybe this DRM stuff isn't as bad as those long-haired hippy nutcases have been saying."

Once the regime is established, it's like boiling a frog. In a generation or two, anything published will be wrapped in intrusive DRM, a la "Right to Read," and history will show to those who have paid the license fee and who are cleared that Apple helped it happen in 2003.

Your point with Apple and TCPA protected documents is also good--even if Apple doesn't want to help bring the dystopian future, they can be blackmailed into it. That is, if they'd like to be able to offer thier users the dominant office suite on the planet.

Re:non DRM computers? (1)

Delphiki (646425) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336573)

Not everything is a slippery slope, and why is DRM in limited amounts bad? I don't care if someone wants offer movie rentals online that can only be watched once as long as I can still buy a copy that I can watch as many times as I want from someone else. Of course, I have a problem with some of the shadier DRM issues, but this isn't one of them.

People have been complaining incessently that the RIAA and MPAA need to update their business models to incorporate the internet. By opposing DRM in all it's forms though, you are preventing that from happening. Here's something that may be a startling fact to some people - companies don't like giving away their products for free. Creating a system of marketing digital media cheaply online will require a way of regulating the sharing of those files. You can't have it both ways, because if people can steal the media they will and if people steal the media the companies who produce that media are going to fight it.

Am I looking forward to Palladium? Certainly not. I am in favor of limited DRM though. Honestly, as long as it doesn't start limiting my rights to use and share documents which aren't protected by DRM or invading my privacy (neither of which necessarily follows from the definition of DRM), I don't really see it as a bad thing.

Re:non DRM computers? (1)

vegetablespork (575101) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336602)

Your reply illustrates what I'm trying to say--that implementing "kind and gentle" DRM, Apple has provided the mindshare needed to help it get critical mass. Not everything is a slppery slope, but this is, unfortunately.

The only business model of members of the RIAA and MPAA absent DRM and control of the distribution channels is bankruptcy. I imagine they'll choose DRM.

Re:non DRM computers? (1)

Delphiki (646425) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336633)

"Not everything is a slppery slope, but this is, unfortunately."

Back this up please, because despite a lot of ranting people having done on /., I'm not seeing it, unless you define DRM as the MPAA's, the RIAA's and Microsoft's optimal vision of DRM. Evaluating a whole idea based on only the most extreme possible cases limits progress, among other things.

Re:non DRM computers? (4, Interesting)

WCMI92 (592436) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336474)

"I don't know about computer hardware going up in value, but I'm hoping some company will start selling non DRM processors as soon as Intel and Microsoft pull out of the market. They might be as fast as Intel or AMD processors but I'm sure there would be a market for them."

What's wrong with current processors? I mean, do we REALLY need 3GHz machines? No, I've a couple that are below 1GHz and unless I wanted to play some insane game at high resolution, it's perfectly fine.

Besides, even if Digital Restrictions Management is in the processors, it likely can be ignored or disabled by the BIOS. For AMD or Intel to come out with a processor that REQUIRED DRM to operate would be to commit corporate suicide.

Look for crafty motherboard makers like Abit, etc (who cater to the geeks) to add DRM disabling as a feature just as they do with overclocking. Abit doesn't exactly care what Intel or AMD thinks of them, they care about what their CUSTOMERS want.

Which is why they make easily overclockable boards, the infamous (I had one) BP6 dual celeron board, etc.

There WILL be a market for a board that locks out DRM. If only among the tinfoil hat crowd, but given the OUTRAGE over the P3 serial number, I can't imagine there not being a lot of noise over DRM in the processor... At least enough to get the option to turn it off.

Re:non DRM computers? (3, Informative)

jeffy124 (453342) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336406)

IBM. They already build them into some ThinkPad laptops under Win2k, and have a driver for their TCPA chip available for Linux somewhere on their website. There was a story on /. some months ago about that driver.

Re:non DRM computers? (1)

PetWolverine (638111) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336417)

IBM makes the PPC 970. You always have the option of getting a Mac if you don't want to put up with MS's games.

Re:non DRM computers? (1)

femto (459605) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336438)

OpenCores [opencores.org] is designing non DRM processors [opencores.org] under BSD and GPL licenses. The processors [opencores.org] are not yet being manufactured as standalone systems, but they have been used in a number of embedded products [opencores.org] so far.

OpenCores isn't a company. The best comparison is probably an immature version of the Debian Project [debian.org] .

actually (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6336565)

I believe this [embedded.com] is the link you're looking for, not open cores.

Re:non DRM computers? (1)

Chalst (57653) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336445)

The entertainment industry is *not* going to succeed in making non-DRM PCs illegal. The size of the entertainment industry is miniscule compared to the size of the computer industry, and even if they have influence beyond their economic weight, they are really outclassed here. I recall a fun quote by an IBM lobbyist who called the RIAA "the pimple on the elephant's ass".

Listen up, jizzmop (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6336473)

Calm down now, even Bill Gates himself was quoted saying that DRM will always be an optional feature. So even if you had a computer with DRM built in, you'd never be forced to actually use it, kind of like having cable TV without the premium channels.

If you think of it in that manner, you'd see that DRM isn't a bad thing. No one will be preventing you from doing in the future what you do freely today, DRM or no DRM. Look AT premium cable TV. Your HBO subscription is a form of DRM, even more clearly so if you subscribe to a "digital" cable service. Now if all you're complaining about is "ridding yourself of that eeeevil DRM," you're just being silly, and have my cordial invitation to suck on a cock.

That is all.

Markoff!!!!!! (5, Interesting)

sixdotoh (584811) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336329)

yeah, and check out who wrote the article.

for those of you who don't know, Markoff is the journalist who wrote several articles about kevin mitnick in which he "created the myth of kevin mitnick" (in kevin's words). many untrue allegations were presented as supposed facts.

but don't let that discourage you from reading the article.

Mitnick!!!! (2, Interesting)

fm6 (162816) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336475)

And of course everything Mitnick says about Markoff is true. Everybody knows Mitnick is an innocent victim! But despite his innocence, he bears no malice to any of his accusers!

Weasel wording (4, Insightful)

Atario (673917) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336338)

"We think this is a huge innovation story," said Mario Juarez, Microsoft's group product manager for the company's security business unit. "This is just an extension of the way the current version of Windows has provided innovation for players up and down the broad landscape of computing."
And that "way" would be: to the highest bidder.

Re:Weasel wording (5, Funny)

letxa2000 (215841) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336346)

My favorite line in the article was:

  • For example, Mr. Juarez, the Microsoft executive, said that if the company created a more secure side to its operating system software, customers might draw the conclusion that its current software is not as safe to use.

NO!! Y'think? :)

Re:Weasel wording (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6336409)

Mr. Juarez is secretly a software pirate. Juarez, Warez, don't you see?

Article Text (For those who don't want to reg.) (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6336343)

SAN FRANCISCO, June 29 -- Your next personal computer may well come with its own digital chaperon.

As PC makers prepare a new generation of desktop computers with built-in hardware controls to protect data and digital entertainment from illegal copying, the industry is also promising to keep information safe from tampering and help users avoid troublemakers in cyberspace.

Silicon Valley -- led by Microsoft and Intel -- calls the concept "trusted computing." The companies, joined by I.B.M., Hewlett-Packard, Advanced Micro Devices and others, argue that the new systems are necessary to protect entertainment content as well as safeguard corporate data and personal privacy against identity theft. Without such built-in controls, they say, Hollywood and the music business will refuse to make their products available online.

But by entwining PC software and data in an impenetrable layer of encryption, critics argue, the companies may be destroying the very openness that has been at the heart of computing in the three decades since the PC was introduced. There are simpler, less intrusive ways to prevent illicit file swapping over the Internet, they say, than girding software in so much armor that new types of programs from upstart companies may have trouble working with it.

"This will kill innovation," said Ross Anderson, a computer security expert at Cambridge University, who is organizing opposition to the industry plans. "They're doing this to increase customer lock-in. It will mean that fewer software businesses succeed and those who do succeed will be large companies."

Critics complain that the mainstream computer hardware and software designers, under pressure from Hollywood, are turning the PC into something that would resemble video game players, cable TV and cellphones, with manufacturers or service providers in control of which applications run on their systems.

In the new encrypted computing world, even the most mundane word-processing document or e-mail message would be accompanied by a software security guard controlling who can view it, where it can be sent and even when it will be erased. Also, the secure PC is specifically intended to protect digital movies and music from online piracy.

But while beneficial to the entertainment industry and corporate operations, the new systems will not necessarily be immune to computer viruses or unwanted spam e-mail messages, the two most severe irritants to PC users.

"Microsoft's use of the term `trusted computing' is a great piece of doublespeak," said Dan Sokol, a computer engineer based in San Jose, Calif., who was one of the original members of the Homebrew Computing Club, the pioneering PC group. "What they're really saying is, `We don't trust you, the user of this computer.' "

The advocates of trusted computing argue that the new technology is absolutely necessary to protect the privacy of users and to prevent the theft of valuable intellectual property, a reaction to the fact that making a perfect digital copy is almost as easy as clicking a mouse button.

"It's like having a little safe inside your computer," said Bob Meinschein, an Intel security architect. "On the corporate side the value is much clearer," he added, "but over time the consumer value of this technology will become clear as well" as more people shop and do other business transactions online.

Industry leaders also contend that none of this will stifle innovation. Instead, they say, it will help preserve and expand general-purpose computing in the Internet age.

"We think this is a huge innovation story," said Mario Juarez, Microsoft's group product manager for the company's security business unit. "This is just an extension of the way the current version of Windows has provided innovation for players up and down the broad landscape of computing."

The initiative is based on a new specification for personal computer hardware, first introduced in 2000 and backed by a group of companies called the Trusted Computing Group. It also revolves around a separate Microsoft plan, now called the Next Generation Secure Computing Base, that specifies a tamper-proof portion of the Windows operating system.

The hardware system is contained in a set of separate electronics that are linked to the personal computer's microprocessor chip, known as the Trusted Platform Module, or T.P.M. The device includes secret digital keys -- large binary numbers -- that cannot easily be altered. The Trusted Computing Group is attempting to persuade other industries, like the mobile phone industry and the makers of personal digital assistants, to standardize on the technology as well.

The plans reflect a shift by key elements of the personal computer industry, which in the past had resisted going along with the entertainment industry and what some said they feared would be draconian controls that would greatly curtail the power of digital consumer products.

Industry executives now argue that by embedding the digital keys directly in the hardware of the PC, tampering will be much more difficult. But they acknowledge that no security system is perfect.

The hardware standard is actually the second effort by Intel to build security directly into the circuitry of the PC. The first effort ended in a public relations disaster for Intel in 1999 when consumers and civil liberties groups revolted against the idea. The groups coined the slogan "Big Brother Inside," and charged that the technology could be used to violate user privacy.

"We don't like to make the connection," said Mr. Meinschein. "But we did learn from it."

He said the new T.P.M. design requires the computer owner to switch on the new technology voluntarily and that it contains elaborate safeguards for protecting individual identity.

The first computers based on the hardware design have just begun to appear from I.B.M. and Hewlett-Packard for corporate customers. Consumer-oriented computer makers like Dell Computer and Gateway are being urged to go along but have not yet endorsed the new approach.

How consumers will react to the new technology is a thorny question for PC makers because the new industry design stands in striking contrast to the approach being taken by Apple Computer.

Apple has developed the popular iTunes digital music store relying exclusively on software to restrict the sharing of digital songs over the Internet. Apple's system, which has drawn the support of the recording industry, permits consumers to share songs freely among up to three Macintoshes and an iPod portable music player.

Apple only has a tiny share of the personal computer market. But it continues to tweak the industry leaders with its innovations; last week, Apple's chief executive, Steven P. Jobs, demonstrated a feature of the company's newest version of its OS X operating system called FileVault, designed to protect a user's documents without the need for modifying computer hardware.

Mr. Jobs argued that elaborate hardware-software schemes like the one being pursued by the Trusted Computing Group will not achieve their purpose.

"It's a falsehood," he said. "You can prove to yourself that that hardware doesn't make it more secure."

That is not Microsoft's view. The company has begun showing a test copy of a variation of its Windows operating system that was originally named Palladium. The name was changed last year after a trademark dispute.

In an effort to retain the original open PC environment, the Microsoft plan offers the computer user two separate computing partitions in a future version of Windows. Beyond changing the appearance and control of Windows, the system will also require a new generation of computer hardware, not only replacing the computer logic board but also peripherals like mice, keyboards and video cards.

Executives at Microsoft say they tentatively plan to include the technology in the next version of Windows -- code-named Longhorn -- now due in 2005.

The company is dealing with both technical and marketing challenges presented by the new software security system. For example, Mr. Juarez, the Microsoft executive, said that if the company created a more secure side to its operating system software, customers might draw the conclusion that its current software is not as safe to use.

Software developers and computer security experts, however, said they were not confident that Microsoft would retain its commitment to the open half of what is planned to be a two-sided operating system.

"My hackles went up when I read Microsoft describing the trusted part of the operating system as an option," said Mitchell D. Kapor, the founder of Lotus Development Corporation, and a longtime Microsoft competitor. "I don't think that's a trustworthy statement."

One possibility, Mr. Kapor argued, is that Microsoft could release versions of applications like its Office suite of programs that would only run on the secure part of the operating system, forcing users to do their work in the more restricted environment.

Microsoft denies that it is hatching an elaborate scheme to deploy an ultra-secret hardware system simply to protect its software and Hollywood's digital content. The company also says the new system can help counter global cybercrime without creating the repressive "Big Brother" society imagined by George Orwell in "1984."

Microsoft is committed to "working with the government and the entire industry to build a more secure computing infrastructure here and around the world," Bill Gates, Microsoft's chairman, told a technology conference in Washington on Wednesday. "This technology can make our country more secure and prevent the nightmare vision of George Orwell at the same time."

The critics are worried, however, that the rush to create more secure PC's may have unintended consequences. Paradoxically, they say, the efforts to lock up data safely against piracy could serve to make it easier for pirates to operate covertly.

Indeed, the effectiveness of the effort to protect intellectual property like music and movies has been challenged in two independent research papers. One was distributed last year by a group of Microsoft computer security researchers; a second paper was released last month by Harvard researchers.

The research papers state that computer users who share files might use the new hardware-based security systems to create a "Darknet," a secure, but illegal network for sharing digital movies and music or other illicit information that could be exceptionally hard for security experts to crack.

"This is a Pandora's box and I don't think there has been much thought about what can go wrong," said Stuart Schechter, a Harvard researcher who is an author of one of the papers. "This is one of those rare times we can prevent something that will do more harm than good."

Re:Article Text (For those who don't want to reg.) (1)

sixdotoh (584811) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336378)

props for the nerd's good deed of the day

watch and learn, children

Re:Article Text (For those who don't want to reg.) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6336472)

i almost registered once...but someone named q q was already registered with my email q@q.q ... i wonder what their password is?

one thing the public never seems to get . . . lol (4, Insightful)

sixdotoh (584811) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336360)

But by entwining PC software and data in an impenetrable layer of encryption

COME ON! please, why do they make such claims?! or why do journalists make such claims? i think the establishment/private companies/whatever has been proved wrong on that issue over and over and OVER again. if there's someone who actually thinks their data is totally secure these days . . .

another point: this initiative could be very dangerous. buying OS's with this crap already on them, limiting what you can do . .. so, what, should we stock up on Win2000, XP, and Linux OS's along with our CD and DVD burners?

DRM may stop the morons, but soon enough, once a few "l33ts" circumvent it and it gets released into the wild, what's the point.

Uh huh.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6336436)

And what do you do when the DRM is embedded in the CPU..

Re:Uh huh.. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6336551)

We break it on an old Athlon or Pentium IV and release the cracked/decrypted version on Freenet.

The system used will always be breakable unless they can find a way to rid us of non-compliant technology, and the technology in my house will always be non-compliant.

Re:Uh huh.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6336640)

or we wait for the article on tomshardware that tells you how to take a push pin and punch it through your cpu at a precise cordinate, disabling cpu trusted computing

Re:one thing the public never seems to get . . . l (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6336515)

i think both you and the article's author need to read the following: http://www.research.ibm.com/gsal/tcpa/ [ibm.com] . Especially the second link on that page. Basically, it dispells out the myth that "Trusted Computing" == "DRM" and confirms that Microsoft has twisted the correct definition of the phrase "trusted computing." That page also provides links to a current Linux driver for IBM's TCPA chip, so that the chip may be used within Linux applications.

I want a M$ amusement park (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6336368)

(one of the speakers was from Microsoft research)

Really, what kind of music was coming from the Microsoft research speaker? :) Oh, you didn't mean that kind of speaker did you. Bummer. Nothing to see here then.

I WANT AN OOMPA LOOMPA!

who do you trust (4, Insightful)

ecalkin (468811) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336369)

we all deal with 'trusted computing' to some extent or other. in any computer system there is a person/persons/entity that is trusted. in the simplest form it is supervisor/admin/etc. as you design a network you describe who is trusted.

when you get a commercial digital certificate you are expressing trust.

in a well designed (large) system you would build in multiple trusts to act as a check and balance. sort of an auditing feature. novell is real big on this.

i find it interesting that the ms model of trust is pretty much putting all your eggs in what is mostly their basket. no auditing, no accountability, etc.

i suspect that we will see more distributed trust as companies and isps become more involved in this.

eric

Yeah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6336382)

And in 5 years all useful programs will require that we have the new hardware-level encryption installed, and in order to maintain compatibility with a new internet protocol that I'm sure is on the table now we have to all go out and buy new motherboards with the Trusted Computing chip installed.

Jobs' comment (3, Interesting)

PetWolverine (638111) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336384)

...that the hardware "doesn't make it more secure" is well-made. The extra chips for the Trusted Computing platform just contain extra instructions to execute--something that can be done exactly as well in software. The only difference with doing it in hardware is that it can't be updated, so that if a flaw is found, you're stuck with it.

The meaning of trust (5, Interesting)

dmeranda (120061) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336389)

The word "trust" is pretty much the central idea in formal security. And ultimately is comes down to deciding if one person trusts another person. Of course when you mix in technologies, then that expands into trusting the system components. Do you trust the website is the correct one? Do you trust the CA registrar. Do you trust that the web browser isn't lying to you. Do you trust that your keyboard isn't recording all your keystrokes? Its all about trust, and no secure system can avoid the subject. And no formal security method can avoid it either.

So yes, trusted security is very much alive, or it had better be, or we won't have any security. But the big question is whom or what is being trusted? And the big media companies are trying their best to confuse the issue. It's just like their "secure media". Their concept of trust is that they, the media distributors, want to be able to trust your hardware to not trust you the consumer. They also want to also insure that other consumers will not trust you, or you could otherwise become your own media producer and distributor and compete with them. If DVD players only play content that is digitally signed by the cartel, then you are barred from competing because you can no longer produce your own content that other's hardware will trust. But on the other side I want to trust that my computer is not infected with a virus; I want to trust that my legally copied media is not corrupted by the media police. Trust is the just the tool.

Trusted computed could be a very good thing, but you absolutely must define what you mean by trust before you can begin any discussion or evaluation, or to say whether it it "bad" or "good". From a purely technical and formal perspective trusted computing is the next step forward. From a society's perspective the answer is not so easy.

trusted computing? (3, Insightful)

jeffy124 (453342) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336390)

definition depends on who you ask.

it originally meant protecting user keys via a secured tcpa chip (not drm). then microsoft started their trustworthy campaign and included palladium's announcement and that somehow changed the definition to include drm. so please, keep that in mind. palladium and tcpa are not the same thing.

Finally, the mistake that ruins M$ (3, Interesting)

Neuroelectronic (643221) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336392)

Creating an even more closed system will cut off the hand that feeds microsoft. There will be no more small developers in windows, which means MS will have no one to rip fresh ideas from! They seem to forget where they came from. Thank god they finnally will paint themselves into a corner.

Re:Finally, the mistake that ruins M$ (1)

WCMI92 (592436) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336441)

When this crap comes out I already KNOW what I'll do...

I'll go with the PS2 or the Xbox for gaming and go purely Linux on my server and desktops. The only reason why I have Doze is for games... But with PC games getting increasingly dumbed down, etc, I may as well get a console (haven't had one since the Genesis, and before that the Atari 2600).

Or, alternately, I may look to purchasing an Apple. I'd prefer to HAVE an Apple, as I love the idea of a truly consumer friendly Unix OS (though Linux is improving in leaps and bounds), but their hardware, being that they are themselves a monopoly in their market, is twice as expensive as common x86 systems...

The question is, how LONG before OS's without Digital Restrictions Management become DMCA violations?

And, how does one reconcile OSS or the GPL in particular with DRM? It wouldn't seem POSSIBLE to put a "secret" DRM layer into any GNU licensed OS without providing source on what the DRM is.

THAT is the real reason why Microsoft is prepared to push Palladium. Palladium makes the xAA's orgasm, and furthers MS's desktop monopoly.

Re:Finally, the mistake that ruins M$ (1)

oscast (653817) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336689)

"I'd prefer to HAVE an Apple, as I love the idea of a truly consumer friendly Unix OS (though Linux is improving in leaps and bounds), but their hardware, being that they are themselves a monopoly in their market, is twice as expensive as common x86 systems..." You obviously haven't priced Mac in a LONG time. All of Apple's hardware is either only slightly more expensive (in the $100 range) at the same price or slightly less expensive. In some occations, the hardware is significantly less expensive as seen with the new G5s. When comparing prices, its important to compare hardware as close as possible, while also figuring in software bundles as well.

Re:Finally, the mistake that ruins M$ (1)

sixdotoh (584811) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336457)

ummmmm, no? you wish, apparantly. read into the article a little more, buddy. if MS knows one thing, its marketing. hello: its the most popular operating system in the world. how do you think it got that way. you don't seem to think because its a great OS, so let's stick with marketing . . . they know what's good for 'em

Re:Finally, the mistake that ruins M$ (1)

FunWithHeadlines (644929) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336543)

"its the most popular operating system in the world. how do you think it got that way"

According to the courts, in a way similar to how the Mafia takes over a territory: it makes threats, cuts off suppliers, and squeezes out competitors in an illegal manner all while trying to paint a friendly public face to counteract the rough dealings going on in the back.

But I will grant you that they are very good at that public face (read: marketing). Many people simply cannot believe that the company does anything wrong (despite the facts in the courtroom), and that it actually innovates. Now that's marketing!

Self destruct (0)

berkeleyjunk (250251) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336393)

On a related note Microsoft/IBM/HP announced plans to activate the self destruct feature in the older computers/software without DRM.

"Trusted computing", baloney (5, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336414)

This crap is all about DRM. It's not about real protection hardware, like support for rings or virtual machines or capabilities or channelized I/O or secure interprocess communication.

If the Wintel crowd were serious about security, they'd push for a hardware architecture that supports secure microkernels really well and put a very partitioned OS on top of it. But no; it's all about boot-time lock in.

Re:"Trusted computing", baloney (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6336482)

i hate to interrupt that rant, but perhaps you should read this: http://www.research.ibm.com/gsal/tcpa/ [ibm.com] , starting with the "Misinformatiom Rebuttal" link on that page.

Re:"Trusted computing", baloney (2, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336581)

Where they say:
  • The TCPA chip itself has three main groups of functions:
    • public key functions
    • trusted boot functions
    • initialization and management functions

That's stuff you need to support DRM and crypto. None of the real security features I listed are in there. It won't prevent your Windows machine from being taken over by every worm and virus that comes along. It might prevent some attacks that steal your credit card number, but that's about it. Even that protection would probably work only if you'd signed up for Microsoft Passport or something similar.

Positive sides (4, Insightful)

DreadSpoon (653424) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336418)

I just wish people would remember all the _good_ parts of trusted computing. So far as the TCPA goes, DRM isn't even a part of it. It's just a standard hardware interface for encryption and key storage. Whether that's used to sign OS's, implement DRM, or simply secure Apache, is up to the OS. Yes, it _can_ be used for all that. But hell, a BIOS _now_ can be set to only boot an OS with a certain fingerprint - how the technology is used is independent from the technology itself. TCPA is a (possibly) good thing. Palladium/DRM, that's the real evil (from the consumer and OSS viewpoints, anyways).

Knockin' at your back door... (3, Interesting)

poptones (653660) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336421)

I say "bring it on." the sooner MS makes this their "product focus" the sooner every foreign government in the world drops Windows from its desktops like an anthrax sandwich.

Does anyone believe for a minute the US will allow Microsoft to ship, worldwide, a truly secure "solution?" Of course not - even in the (very) unlikely event MS actually ships a Pall-Windows without cryptographic backdoors no one will believe it. All those foreign countries are gonna have to choose between adopting linux or being Bill's bitch, and they're gonna have to get motherboards and CPU chips from somewhere. And once they're running linux the only remaining half of the "wintel" brand has lost its grip on the market. If AMD and intel won't ship pal-free chips you can be sure there are other semiconductor companies just chomping at the bit to take their places. And in the meantime we just might make networked computing a bit more secure.

I KNOCKED ON YOUR MOM'S BACK DOOR (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6336588)

"Industry leaders" (4, Insightful)

ScuzzyTerminator (683387) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336422)

Industry leaders also contend that none of this will stifle innovation.

What the Industry Leaders mean is that the Industry Leaders will not be stifled. The rest of the industry should just not worry their little heads. It will all be done for us by those who know best.

The Audacity!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6336423)

"For example, Mr. Juarez, the Microsoft executive, said that if the company created a more secure side to its operating system software, customers might draw the conclusion that its current software is not as safe to use."

Someone please tell me. Does this qualify as ironic? Or just plain frigin unbelievable..

Forgive me, English may be my first language but I never do things right the first time..

I see a Lindows parallel here (4, Insightful)

diabolus_in_america (159981) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336427)

The biggest argument made against Lindows was that people who bought the system would be turned off once they got it home and realized it wouldn't let them do what they expected. In this case, running MS Office, games, etc. As a result, Lindows has since abandoned much of their early claims about MS-compatibility.

What happens when a someone gets one of these new Trusted systems home and realizes that they can't use it as expected? What happens when it doesn't let them them burn audio CD's or play previous burned songs on CD-R/W's? What happens when they have trouble just opening word processing or spreadsheet files, because they are not considered "trusted"? Even email could become a problem.

I see this whole "Trusted" initiative by Microsoft as a potential boon to open source software developers and even "white box" computer manufacturers.

Word will get out: "Don't buy any of the new Hewlett-Packards with that new Windows. They just don't work!" Microsoft has already turned many corporations against them with the new License 6.0 scheme. "Trusted" computing could turn many home users against Microsoft and all of the hardware manufacturers who have thrown their lot in with them.

Re:I see a Lindows parallel here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6336657)

I think you misunderstand. Word will get out: "Hey with this new HP and this new Windows, I can go to TV.TV and download all my favorite TV programs for only $1 each! Yuck yuck, those Simpsons sure are funny."

Poindexter: "But you can't share those programs with your friends".

"Whatever. It's illegal anyway."

This is what they call Progress? (3, Insightful)

UltraSkuzzi (682384) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336433)

Large corporations have historically always got what they wanted, unless of course the government had steped in. I'm no longer so concerned if this technology will be implemented. I am now concerned about HOW the computing community will deal with it. Gates already said he doesn't plan on deploying trusted computing technologies immediately. Why wouldn't he want to deploy this technology that can supposedly stop all forms of piracy? People will not buy computers that do not do what they ask. MS will wait until their TC enabled OS is prevailent on most PCs, and then send a signal from Redmond enabling it. There will be no way out. People will have to learn to live with it. After all they paid hundreds of dollars for their PC, right? You can't stop progress, but you can try. UltraSkuzzi The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill

Re:This is what they call Progress? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6336535)

and then send a signal from Redmond enabling it

Just think about the tremendous consumer backlash that would cause. It will definitely call everyone's attention to it, including politicians themselves. Heck even their own kids will complain about it. Obviously, that's not how it will happen. And knowing MS, they'll probably find a way to screw it up anyway, and end up disabling the entire OS in the process.

Re:This is what they call Progress? (1)

dmeranda (120061) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336683)

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings.

I don't care about the unequal sharing of the blessings, that is after all what motivates people to do wonderful things, paid or not. It is the unequal sharing of opportunity that is the problem.

And things like DRM, outrageous copyrights, software patents, and illegal "Redmond" monopolies are fundamentally about eliminating opportunity or unfairly sharing opportunity; preventing people from doing wonderful things even though they have the motivation and possibly even the means. Those are not capitalistic ideas; they are the cancer that is trying to bring the downfall of capitalism.

Trusted computing for the home? (4, Insightful)

thepacketmaster (574632) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336440)

I believe "Reliable and Secure" computing is what people want for home computers. The term "Trusted" computing is usually saved for military computers, etc, that are following the Rainbow books' criteria. Also for systems trying to get a Common Criteria rating. "Trusted" computing includes two-man controls, the kind that prevent one person from launching a bunch of nuclear missiles. The NYtimes version of trusted computing means computers that the RIAA and MPAA can trust not to let you download their stuff. It might even include letting the RIAA and MPAA destroy your computer if you do (based on what some senators want to pass as law)

Another way to force upgrades on us (5, Interesting)

thelandp (632129) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336444)

Even though computer PC hardware has been sufficient for most applications (other than games / video editing etc) for quite a few years now, Microsoft and Intel have been constantly trying to justify more upgrades of both hardware and software to the user. Now along comes this:

Beyond changing the appearance and control of Windows, the system will also require a new generation of computer hardware, not only replacing the computer logic board but also peripherals like mice, keyboards and video cards

Like most new Windows features, I don't see anything in this that the consumer actually wants, I think it is just a way to force yet another upgrade on us.

Re:Another way to force upgrades on us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6336537)

A new breed of secure hardware would be a good thing, If only I could trust them to do it right.

I'm very much afraid that "secure hardware" might translate to "anti-open source" inside Microsoft meeting rooms.

Re:Another way to force upgrades on us (1)

WCMI92 (592436) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336541)

"Like most new Windows features, I don't see anything in this that the consumer actually wants, I think it is just a way to force yet another upgrade on us."

And the public will eventually figure this out. Indeed, I think they have already. Windows XP wasn't exactly the huge boost in sales, or cause for "upgrades" that earlier `Doze releases were.

Although I have to say I like XP, and think it is a better `Doze in that it gives you the compatability of 9X with the stability of 2K (well, most of it anyway).

I don't think Windows is a bad desktop OS. I think it's a great one. But Microsoft has yet to display ANY serious understanding of security, which is why I don't much like Windows as a server OS, at least, without a LOT of work to lock it down.

Indeed, they DO show some clue in how they did 2K3 Server, which differs from 2K Server in only two ways:

1. XP GUI. Yay. The thing I HATE about XP....
2. By default, services are TURNED OFF, access is DENIED, and the admin has to GRANT it.

Which is a step in the right direction.

Microsoft has simply gotten bitten by the bug of control... They keep SAYING that they own your software. Now they want to ACTUALLY accomplish this.

Will it work? Only if the average person is TRULY as stupid and ignorant as the most cynical and pessimistic would believe.

You know, this is irritating... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6336452)

The National Security Agency's "security-enhanced" Linux is an attempt to make Linux into a "trusted" computing platform, but that has NOTHING to do with DRM and other MPAA- and RIAA-borne stupidity.

Security researchers are putting a lot of effort into defining trust relationships and developing guidelines for applying the term "trusted" to software. Has the software design been verified? How about the code? Who verified the design and audited the code? Have there been security problems in the past? Is the concept fundamentally compatible with security?

Then along come the MPAA and RIAA, and they convince Microsoft (among others) to start talking about a totally fucking DIFFERENT definition of "trusted". Whereas the OLD definition of "trusted" involved concepts like integrity, secrecy, reliability, and auditability, the NEW meaning of "trusted" is essentially "crippled".

As somebody who studies security for a living, it irritates me to see the two concepts confused. Microsoft's DRM-enabled operating systems will NOT include the features I've outlined above, and a highly "trusted" operating system could very well include software that allows you to "rip, mix, and burn" just as people are accustomed to doing today.

Really, just who is "trusting" the DRM operating systems? Not the users-- I imagine there will be just as many viruses and exploits and bugs as before. Not software developers-- Microsoft hasn't really announced any plans to do things like, say, encrypt the swap space or integrate stack protection into their linkers, loaders, and compilers.

In fact, the only people who are really trusting the DRM operating systems are the content industry associations. Which makes sense, as Microsoft and company are essentially doing the whole "trusted computing" thing at the behest of the MPAA's congressional whore [senate.gov] .

Please, folks, let's call a spade a spade: the DRM-enabled operating systems are NOT "trusted". They're "content-industry-friendly". They're "crippled". They're a lot of things, but they're not "trusted".

Let's start asking for some precision of language, here.

This won't play very well overseas (1)

Go Aptran (634129) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336489)

I'm very amused by how a file system that's a colaboration of the US Government, Microsoft, and American corporations could possibly be considered a beneficial thing.

This will only increase the speed at which foreign governments adopt open source software and (eventually) hardware.

I'm SO GLAD I own a Mac.

Trusting Trusted Computing (2, Funny)

somethinghollow (530478) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336494)

"...one of the speakers was from Microsoft research..."

I trust Microsoft R&D to come up with good security concepts, but I don't trust Microsoft to implement the good security concepts without having giant security holes in them. Then they can make programs that monitor/protect the security holes in the other security programs, and they will have holes, too. This would be an infinite recursion, BTW.

I can see the ad now:
Security programs with security problems. Only from Microsoft.

ROFL at the Microsoft guy (1)

FunWithHeadlines (644929) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336508)

I laughed hard at this paragraph that I see others have noticed as well:

"We think this is a huge innovation story," said Mario Juarez, Microsoft's group product manager for the company's security business unit. "This is just an extension of the way the current version of Windows has provided innovation for players up and down the broad landscape of computing."

Well! If this is more of that same innovation Windows is known for, we know just how worthless to the end consumer this will be! Thanks for the warning, Mr. Microsoft group product manager. It's not often a spokesperson for a product gives a clear warning to steer clear of his own product like this. We should be grateful for these moments of truth when they arise...

What's in It for Me?? (4, Insightful)

malia8888 (646496) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336523)

There is nothing in trusted computing to benefit the consumer. I am hoping the word will get out to the average consumer in time for them to rebel by keeping their $$$'s to themselves.

The very things that computer users want to be protected from--viruses and the tons of spam messages--are not addressed with these "improvements".

As eloquently outlined in the Times article: the new encrypted computing world, even the most mundane word-processing document or e-mail message would be accompanied by a software security guard controlling who can view it, where it can be sent and even when it will be erased. Also, the secure PC is specifically intended to protect digital movies and music from online piracy. But while beneficial to the entertainment industry and corporate operations, the new systems will not necessarily be immune to computer viruses or unwanted spam e-mail messages, the two most severe irritants to PC users. "Microsoft's use of the term `trusted computing' is a great piece of doublespeak," said Dan Sokol, a computer engineer based in San Jose, Calif., who was one of the original members of the Homebrew Computing Club, the pioneering PC group. "What they're really saying is, `We don't trust you, the user of this computer.' "

In "trusted computing" the public gets no security; the FAT entertainment industry gets fatter; and the common man is unduly scrutinized.

Let's hope our everyday "Joe Consumer" rebels. If Intel comes out with a chip with this trusted-Big-Brother component, I hope the American consumer leaves it rotting on the shelves.

Money talks, b.s. walks. If the public refuses to buy this garbage which is hyped to protect them, perhaps the companies will look at this trusted computing issue again and drop it in the trash can it belongs.

OSS and DRM and MS Hardware (5, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336562)

No one seriously believes that MS can create a secure OS. What can happen is that MS, along with laws that will make circumvention activities illegal, will create enough a of a facade of security that people will trade certain current freedoms for safety and convenience. It always happens. People want convenience and simplicity.

OTOH it looks like this stuff will only effect Intel and MS products. Personally, I have always used Apple products myself. It has protected me from MS viral licenses. It has protected me from Intel's occasional desire to track all users. It is now protecting me from silly DRM schemes that do nothing but protect antique business models. Apple has done more for security by allowing the user to turn off HTML in mail.app that MS could possibly hope to do in a decade.

The same could be said for GNU/Linux and other non-MS users. For these users there are only three concerns. First, laws could be passed to require certain attributes in entire classes of software. For example, as the article suggests, all email and music might have to be signed with a CPU generated hash. Of course all advanced users know that such technology could be circumvented, and, even with laws against circumvention, such actions will routinely occur.

Second, the makers of Intel clone chips might, and probably will, succumb to pressure and include security features. This would be bad because right now OSS is very tied to Intel class chips. The solution to this is to build open hardware platforms around non-Intel class chips, and create OSS projects that run on such platforms. Intel may be a slave to MS, but AMD and others might be more scared of lost sales due to OSS moving to Motorola and IBM chipsets. In five years if OSS is still tied to the Intel instruction set, and Intel is only making chips that spy on the user, there will be no one to blame.

The third issue comes from a quote in the article
the system will also require a new generation of computer hardware, not only replacing the computer logic board but also peripherals like mice, keyboards and video cards
from this we can infer that MS intends to push DRM to all hardware connected to the CPU, which, of course, is the logical course of action. The issue is as above. OSS runs mostly on what is essentially MS hardware. If all MS hardware requires software that is cryptographically signed and externally validated, probably by MS related service, one wonders if OSS will exist. If OSS does exist, one wonders if it would have any purpose the user was still ultimately tied to MS licenses and security schemes.

This has always been the danger of the single environment ecosystem. The OSS people seem to forget how inherently dependent on MS whims they are. One wonders if some diversification might be in order.

Re:OSS and DRM and MS Hardware (1)

WCMI92 (592436) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336599)

VERY brilliant points...

Ok, if we dump the x86 hardware, what do we use?

I know that Linux could be easily modified to run on something like IBM's PPC 970 chip, but will we be able to buy motherboards, hard drives, keyboards, sound cards, etc that will work with it?

I have my doubts as to whether MS will be able to succeed in this effort... IF they do, it will have to be an incrimental thing. Suddenly having your OS refuse to let you install other software, and your hardware like the mouse refusing to talk to your PC unless it has it's DRM key from Redmond would cause Redmond to be BURNED TO THE GROUND by an outraged public....

Most likely, it will be able to be disabled at first. But then content won't be available... So you turn it on... And at first it's not really annoying... Then it gets more annoying... SLOWLY.

Microsoft knows how to make incrimental changes, and to use the "escalator". THAT is the danger.

Re:OSS and DRM and MS Hardware (1)

vegetablespork (575101) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336671)

Exactly. Even the record industry isn't stupid enough to think people are going to rush out and buy locked down "digital toasters" later this week. "Consumers" will have to be "eased into" the "transition." And for those who hold out, a descendant of the SSSCA/CBDTPA will make all that old hardware illegal.

It's simple... (4, Funny)

Sebby (238625) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336568)

The words 'Microsoft' and 'trust' do NOT go together, UNLESS 'anti' is in there somewhere too...

This is actually a shift in product... and not... (3, Insightful)

SmurfButcher Bob (313810) | more than 10 years ago | (#6336606)

...what you think.

Face it, the software market is pretty much saturated from their perspective, and there isn't much room for growth on the desktop compared with previous years.

What MS discovered, about two years ago, was that they could sell a completely different product. What MS discovered was Radio.

Radio doesn't make money by playing songs. Radio makes money by selling its listeners. Now, take a re-think of the Trusted Platform from that perspective, and what it's purpose will be completely obvious.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...