Slashdot Log In
Trusted Computing And You
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Sep 01, 2005 10:38 AM
from the i-don't-trust-many-computers dept.
from the i-don't-trust-many-computers dept.
sebFlyte writes "There's an interesting look at the Trusted computing initiative running over on ZDNet UK, written by security guru Bruce Schneier. He looks at the suggestions for best practice made in a recent policy document, and Microsoft's 'Machiavellian manoeuvring' to stall said document. He posits their moves are to avoid having to enforce such best-practice when it comes to Vista's DRM and other copy-restriction technology." From the article: "This sounds great, but it's a double-edged sword. The same system that prevents worms and viruses from running on your computer might also stop you from using any legitimate software that your hardware or operating system vendor simply doesn't like. The same system that protects spyware from accessing your data files might also stop you from copying audio and video files. The same system that ensures that all the patches you download are legitimate might also prevent you from, well, doing pretty much anything."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Love those dups (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Love those dups (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Love those dups (Score:2, Interesting)
Thanks again! (Score:3, Informative)
Please note, just because the domain of a news site is different and someone included Schneier's URL [slashdot.org] this time doesn't mean that the story isn't a duplicate.
Thanks for helping to make Slashdot a better place.
Re:Thanks again! (Score:2, Insightful)
In the future, waste your mod points, positive or negative, on stories that aren't duplicates.
Re:Thanks again! (Score:2, Informative)
Mark this informative if only for vigilante mod justice.
Re:Thanks again! (Score:4, Interesting)
Creative MP3 Players Ship With Virus is linked to: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/01/13
Parent
Sent a dupe notice as well; I'm not hopeful (Score:3, Interesting)
Let me be the first (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let me be the first (Score:2)
Re:Let me be the first (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Let me be the first (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't have to trust it. I don't trust the government but I have to put up w/it. Sadly, that's what we have allowed the corporations to become.
Another layer of governance over us.
Parent
Interestingly enough ... (Score:5, Informative)
Having learned that, a few companies (I believe M$ was one of them) changed from "trusted" to "trustworthy"
Parent
Ethics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ethics (Score:5, Insightful)
They need to stop fucking twisting words around because it's good marketing doublespeak.
Call it what it is. A fucking privacy and ethics violation.
Parent
Re:Ethics (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Ethics (Score:2, Insightful)
And that, not coincidentally, will be the same time that I stop buying new hardware, and just keep what I've got. The same goes for software. I guess it may be time for me to stock up on some replacement parts.
Re:Ethics (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean like 'Death Tax' and 'Patriot Act'? Business and government are obviously in bed with each other.
Re:Ethics (Score:3, Funny)
Signed,
Big Business & Big Government
Re:Ethics (Score:5, Funny)
case "the 50's":
s/the Boogyman/Communist agitators/g;
break;
case "the 60's":
s/the Boogyman/acid-eating hippies/g;
break;
case "the 70's":
s/the Boogyman/disco/g;
break;
case "the 80's":
s/the Boogyman/mutual assured destruction (and Grenada!)/g;
break;
case "the 90's":
s/the Boogyman/evil hackers and George Michael/g;
break;
case "the 00's":
s/the Boogyman/terrorists/g;
break;
}
Parent
Re:Ethics (Score:2)
We were RIGHT about Disco. Had we put it in place, we'd never have to have suffered George Michael and DRM to protect his sales.
Waitasec, am I missing a joke here?
- Zarq
Re:Ethics (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Ethics (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it means complete transparency and standardization. If any company produces a black box which uses rules which I did not set to control what I can and can not do with a computer that I bought and own, then there is a serious problem.
Trusted computing would be along the lines of "This package is not signed or the signature cannot be verified. Are you sure you want to install it? "
When it crosses the line to "Sorry, I won't let you make a copy of this file", or "No, you aren't allowed to print thi
Will people realize in time? (Score:5, Insightful)
We, as computer users see it coming, just like a satellite sees the storm. We just have to keep broadcasting.
Re:Will people realize in time? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, because it's a fucking calculated descision on the parts of hardware and software manufacturers, see here [slashdot.org] for my comments on this yesterday.
They have known all along that if they do it slowly and under the guise of it being "for your benefit" then people will accept it.
It's really fucking sad that people are willing to put control of everything into someone else's hands. I'm seriously waiting for the day when a corporation will inseminate a woman for you because it's "easier".
You think it's funny or tinfoilish now? Just wait, people will undoubtably get lazy enough that they won't even fuck.
Think of how funny it would have been to you 20 years ago if someone told you that you wouldn't be able to open a document or run a program on your computer because Microsoft didn't give you a code to do so.
Exactly.
Parent
Re:Will people realize in time? (Score:2)
I could do this for you today if you pay for the bus fare.
Re:Will people realize in time? (Score:2, Funny)
I'm seriously waiting for the day when that corporation is hiring.
Re:Will people realize in time? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not talking about that and you know it. This has nothing to do w/hardware dongles. It has to do with tying the BIOS, OS, and oth
Re:Simple (Score:3, Insightful)
If I can't buy a mother board without trusted computing then I have no choice but to buy artists that only use DRM.
This means that I could not play any media of artists that refuse to use DRM or sell non-DRM media.
Don't you understand. DRM is not about stopping piracy. It's about controlling content. What happens when the organizations that control DRM don't like your art and
Re:Will people realize in time? (Score:3, Insightful)
Those are rights that you have. Th
The problem with "trusted" computing (Score:5, Informative)
Which is why I do not support Digital Restrictions Management.
Re:The problem with "trusted" computing (Score:2, Insightful)
You hit the nail on the head, my friend.
Most people read the words "trusted computing" and they assume they know what it means. They think it means you, the user, can trust you computer to be secure. So, so wrong.
One of the seminal papers in the field of trusted computing is called "Programming Satan's Computer" (PDF file) [cam.ac.uk].
In that paper, the point is, when the user of the computer is as evil as, say, Satan, how do you protect the information on that compute
Trust... (Score:4, Insightful)
Like this story, for example.
Hmm, which evil is lesser (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hmm, which evil is lesser (Score:3, Insightful)
More importantly, if *I* paid for the computer and *I* paid for the software, why shouldn't *I* choose wha
Browse this discussion at -1 (Score:2)
Who The Fuck Is This Moron Zonk? (Score:2, Insightful)
Is that his name or his mental condition?
Look, morons, if you can't find an editor that can see a dupe from the previous day, get the fuck out of the business.
Aside from offering me the chance to insult morons,
because of lock in. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this is a reason:
TC faq [cam.ac.uk]
The second, and most important, benefit for Microsoft is that TC will dramatically increase the costs of switching away from Microsoft products (such as Office) to rival products (such as OpenOffice). For example, a law firm that wants to change from Office to OpenOffice right now merely has to install the software, train the staff and convert their existing files. In five years' time, once they have received TC-protected documents from perhaps a thousand different clients, they would have to get permission (in the form of signed digital certificates) from each of these clients in order to migrate their files to a new platform. The law firm won't in practice want to do this, so they will be much more tightly locked in, which will enable Microsoft to hike its prices.
Why Trusted Computing Will Fail (Score:5, Interesting)
Trusted Computing will be DOA. It's a pipe dream, and it will never work.
Not because it's technically unfeasible, but because the market won't stand for it. Let's say that Microsoft declares that Word 2006 will only open "trusted" documents. Total lock-in. Would any sane business buy in?
Absolutely not. My company still uses Word 2000 - and many of Microsoft's problems stem from the fact that they have to bend over backwards not to break legacy APIs and file formats. If Joe and Jane Sixpack find that they can't play their old DVDs on their new PeeCee, they're taking the thing back. If their old MP3s don't play, they'll take it back.
Look at the failure of Divx (the self-destructing DVD format). It had some major studio support, and yet it was practically stillborn. Users drive technology, and users don't like to have to deal with jumping through hoops. The only reason XP's Product Activation crap didn't result in a backlash is because 99% of users never had to deal with it since they got XP with their new PC - preinstalled and pre-activated.
That's why Trusted Computing will fail, even though parts of it are a good idea. Microsoft can't force people to accept it. The real world of economics doesn't work that way. They can't force people to upgrade, and as long as they have to support legacy data, they can't totally lock down the system.
I dislike Microsoft as much as anyone, and for all the clout they have in the market, they can't do everything. Trusted Computing will either be full of holes (likely) or a major flop depending on how much security they apply.
Flawed Argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it won't work that way, it'd be corporate/product suicide.
However, only Windows will be able to use these locked formats. Which means that once locked formats come into circulation, you will always forever after have to use the Microsoft-mandated access method. Your old DVDs will still play on your new PC, and your new DVDs will still play on your new PC, but they won't play on your Linux box or your OS X box and so on.
Locked formats will be rare for years to come. It has to wait for market uptake. You won't see locked DVDs released right away, because that means that all existing electronics will be broken, which again would be corporate/product suicide. It'll be years after DRM is already integrated into those electronics, when a large quantity of the user base has those DRM-capable electronics, that you'll see locked formats released on a large scale. Years after people have seen no detriment form DRM and have already accepted their DRM-capable electronics has standard. Years after, for the vast majority of the populace, the DRM actually doesn't hurt them in any way, because it only stops the real thieves and the Free Software nerds.
Parent
Re:Why Trusted Computing Will Fail (Score:3, Insightful)
You mustn't forget that the primary goal of Microsoft isn't to piss off users. They want to make sure everyt
Re:Why Trusted Computing Will Fail (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's say that Microsoft declares that Word 2006 will only open "trusted" documents.
Wrong. It will be able to open both Trusted and Untrusted documents. It will be able to save both Trusted and Untrusted documents. An Untrusted loads can become Trusted saves, but Trusted loads can never become Trusted saves. It has a tendancy to encourage a movement from Untrusted to Trusted and prohibits any movement from Trusted to Untrusted.
The new software can open and save anything. If you have the new software then eveything "just works".
Any normal wordprocessor can only read and save Untrusted documents. A normal word processor cannot touch Trusted documents at all. A normal word processor doesn't work when anyone gives you a Trusted document.
If you have Trusted software it always works, and tends to move more things into the Trust zone. If you have Untrusted software then sometimes it spits out error messages at you.
If Joe and Jane Sixpack find that they can't play their old DVDs on their new PeeCee, they're taking the thing back. If their old MP3s don't play, they'll take it back.
You have it backwards. Old stuff always works on the new computers. The new Trusted Computers "just work". Old DVDs and old MP3s play just fine on the new DRM lockdown computers.
What will happen is that Joe and Jane Sixpack find that they can't play the NEW DVDs and NEW CDs on their OLD PeeCee. Joe and Jane Sixpack will take little Tyffani and Tyler through the McDonalds drive through and get a pair of McHappymeals. And in the pair of McHappyMeals will be a pair of FREE CDs! One CD will be free Britteny Spears Trusted music and the other one will be a Trusted Spongebob Squarepants game. When they get home they will find that the new trusted CDs DON'T WORK in their old obsolete Untrusted computer. Litte Tyffani will yell and scream that she can't play her Britteny Spears CD and ask what's wrong with their crappy old computer... that the CD works just fine on the shiny new computer at her friend's house. Little Tyler will yell and scream that his Spongebob Square pants game doesn't work on their crappy old broken computer... that it works just fine on the shiny new computer at his friend's house. The kids will be whine city: What's wrong with our compyuooooter? Why doesn't it work on our compyuooooter? Why do we have such an old crappy compyuooooter? We need a new compyuooooter!
Joe and Jane Sixpack will go out and buy a new Trusted Enhanced computer just to get the bloody FREE CDs to work and shut the brats up.
Mark my words, there will be all sorts of free crap givaways that only work on the new Trusted Enhanced computers.
Old stuff works on the new computers. New stuff does NOT work on the old computers. If you do not but a Trusted compliant DRM lockdown computer then you're screwed and none of the new stuff works. You get locked out of everything new.
as long as they have to support legacy data, they can't totally lock down the system
Wrong. They *DO* support legacy data. It is all of the NEW data that gets totally locked down. It is all of the NEW software that gets totally locked down, but it can still real old unlocked data. It's the NEW websites that will be totally locked down, unviewable unless you have a Trusted Browser. A Trusted webbrowser can see all of the websites, it is normal old webbrowsers that get locked out of the new websites.
Yes, at first very few websites will be willing to lockout everyone with a nonTrusted browser, but there are MANY reasons for them to do so and the number of such sites will only increase as more of the public is handed Trusted compliant machines. One of the primary reasons for websites to do this is to lock out anyone from using pop-up blockers or ad-blocke
Parent
the problem is Microsofts OS design, not hardware (Score:2)
There are some cases where you absolutely must have physical security, but for the most part, this whole thing is about forcing new hardware changes, new upgrades, new $$ for Microsoft, and new restrictions on what users can do on Windows.
They, Microsoft, also get to restrict what OS/filesystem gets installed on the system too. So while the number of GNU/Linux users is st
Mac (Score:3, Informative)
Which is why I'm looking forward to getting a Intel based Mac which can happily dual boot XP and OSX until a certain point when I'm fine with formatting the XP bit entirely off.
(assuming, of course, that Apple doesn't go into this too, in which case I'm stuffed)
Response to "Dupe!!!one111" posts (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, I understand that you don't want to waste your time reading something you already have formulated an opinion about, and that you might have some knowledge about.
But just because there has been one article published about a certain topic, does not mean that there is not valuable information and/or insight in another article covering the same topic.
You don't want to spend the time to review a related story? Fine, then don't.
But don't waste your time posting "It's a dupe" posts or "Editor sucks" posts just because you read something similar yesterday -- then you're just compounding your own problems.
Plus, you're wasting my time by posting duplicate posts to a duplicate article.
Have nothing valuable to say about an article, dupe or not? Then don't say anything. Just move on.
Knowledge of a subject is not a boolean variable. I, for one, welcome the opportunity to learn more about topics that interest me.
Re:Response to "Dupe!!!one111" posts (Score:2)
Features of Vista (Score:4, Funny)
Solution: Owner Override (Score:3, Informative)
Trusted Computing: Promise and Risk [eff.org]
Re:OS Revoke (Score:2)
Re: What, about twenty posts... (Score:2)
and noone screaming DUPE!!!
Dupe!!!
DUPE!!!
Dupe!!!
DUPE!!!
Dupe!!!
There's something subtly funny about that post being moderated "Redundant".