Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security IT

Major PC Makers Adopt Trusted Computing Schema 418

Posted by Zonk from the can-I-borrow-a-cup-of-data? dept.
An anonymous reader wrote to let us known about a News.com story regarding so-called trusted computing, and its adoption by the major PC manufacturers. From the article: "The three largest computer makers--Dell, Hewlett-Packard and IBM--have started selling desktops and notebooks with so-called trusted computing hardware, which allows security-sensitive applications to lock down data to a specific PC." Interestingly, while Microsoft is said to be behind the idea support won't be forthcoming for trusted computing until they release Longhorn next year, making this a hardware-vendor lead initiative.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Major PC Makers Adopt Trusted Computing Schema More

Major PC Makers Adopt Trusted Computing Schema

Comments Filter:

  • The end is coming and people want it!?!? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:14AM (#11964963)
    At the time, digital-rights advocates raised concerns that the technology could be used by software makers and media companies to control people's PCs, putting Microsoft on the defensive. The dispute even led the software giant to change the name of its technology from Palladium to the Next-Generation Secure Computing Base, or NGSCB.

    And yes, we all know that now that the name of their security technology is different Microsoft can't "team up" with the hardware makers to lock down PCs to a single OS. It wouldn't be in the best interests of either side to do that right? Oh wait, MSFT already has contractual agreements that basically force this to happen why not take it a step further and make people not only pay extra for the OS pre-installed/distributed w/the PC but also make them have no choice but to run it once they get it.

    I love the wording in the article... Oooh it's the hardware vendors taking the initiative and not Microsoft (like Microsoft is always at the forefront of technology or something). Is that supposed to make me feel better that the entire computing platform will be locked down leading to the end of free distribution of anything, the Internet as we know it, etc?

    Didn't Ben Franklin say something about this? Yeah.

    • Re:The end is coming and people want it!?!? (Score:5, Informative)

      by tabkey12 ( 851759 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:24AM (#11965043) Homepage
      I think it is important that you read this document from IBM [ibm.com] which points out that the technology they will be introducing will not lock you down to a specific Operating System.
      • You are just as confused as everyone else. Microsoft dominates the computing world. They will dictate (via proxy through the masses of users that utilize their OS/software) which global network will prevail under "secure computing".

        Don't want to interoperate with the rest of the secure users out there? Don't use hardware that is tied to THE secure OS.

        See, DRM won't work otherwise.

        • Re:The end is coming and people want it!?!? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by demachina ( 71715 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @12:04PM (#11965461)
          "Don't want to interoperate with the rest of the secure users out there? Don't use hardware that is tied to THE secure OS."

          If trusted computing reaches the point you can't get on the Internet unless you are running it, and at that point trusted computing means your completely relinquish control of your computer and your privacy, then maybe geeks should take this opportunity to start a network of their own free of corprate and government control. Think Pirate Radio except for the internet, the Pirate's Web, or Alternet.

          At least at a local level you should be able to create a wirless mesh network free of the shackles the government and corporations are inevitably going to try to put on the Internet in the name of "security", "safety" and to protect their monopolies on music and films.

          Its going to be a little harder to do the long haul part of the network, since you are going to have to do a lot of hops and latency will be terrible. Thankfully as disk drives and hardware get cheaper people can make liberal use of mirrors to that there are local copies of valuable stuff like Wikipedia and open source archives.

          You will also probably be confined to latency sensitive online games only in your local community.

          All in all I'm not sure it would be such a bad thing because:

          - It would foster a greater sense of local community involvement, which is sorely lacking on the Internet.

          - It would compel geeks to be resourceful and roll up their sleeves instead of just open up their wallet and dole out cash to the giant, abusive telecommunications giant every month.

          - I wager the Internet is going to be in a pretty steady decline in usefulness as governments and corporations seek to exert ever more control over it and try to extract subscriptions and fees for anything interesting, or saturate you with advertising. Its also a near inevitability that they will seek to wipe out bit torrent, all p2p or anything that is used by pirates, even when they also have legitimate uses.

          - People might start appreciating the value of the freedom things like open source give you once corporation controlled governments start taking them away. You usually don't value something until you lose it. Maybe it will be just the thing to ignite a sustainable and powerful political movement to regain control of our governments. As it is everyone is to fat, dumb and happy to do anything about it so corporation controlled governments are eviscerating out civil rights and no one give a damn as long as they have their porn, video games and reality TV.

          All in all I favor college radio, which is the closes thing to pirate radio you can usually find. They play interesting, eclectic mixes of often good music because they are putting out content they like, not content that ClearChannel and the RIAA want to shove down peoples throats and make them like simply by depriving them of anything better.

          Not sure that the Internet might not be rejuvenated if it goes back to its BBS, Modem roots. I wonder if spam, spyware, script kiddies and the like will be lesser or greater on the Pirate's net versus the "trusted" computing Internet. I wager the free lancers would be worse on the Pirate's net but the corporate controlled spam, spying, privacy invasion and intrusion will be worse on the "trusted" internet.

          I wager we can pull off an Alternet as long as unregulated wireless is tolerated by the government and continues to improve. If once the Alternet starts rolling and the government, corporations seek to outlaw unregulated wireless and wipe it out, then it gets to be more interested. Could we run a usable and interesting mesh network in the face of a hostile, corporate controlled police state trying to wipe it out.
          • I've always dreamt of something like that. A network setup by common geeks, of wireless and fiber-through-backyards. I wonder if there are enough geeks in the US to run fiber coast-to-coast via people's houses and yards.

            -Jesse
            • I've wondered how much dark fiber there is laying around the world and if anybody would notice if you started using it. I'm pretty sure fiber infrastructure was way overbuilt thanks to everyone listening to Bernard Ebber's fantasy predictions for global demand for bandwidth.

              I imagine once you started using dark fiber on any scale eventually the owner would notice. Alternately I'm wondering if you can tap fiber cables and run a rogue signal on it without the owner noticing it.

              I wonder if ISP's working un

          • Not gonna happen, (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward
            I don't know what country you live in, but in the USA our laws are made by corporations. If "pirate networks" gain in popularity, they will be outlawed and people who promote them or run them will be put in jail.
          • Don't wait until it's too late. Start now.

            It's currently legal if you keep your broadcast power level low enough (5 watts?). This means that your mesh will be quite local, but the software you need has already been developed, and the hardware is essentially there. (WiFi local nets running TCP/IP with local name servers, authentication, etc...essentially a mini-internet.)

            But do note all the pieces that you need to have in place, especially the hardware. Now figure out what your points of vulnerability
      • OK, so TCPA and Palladium/NGSCB may not exactly be the same system, and may or may not be compatable.

        Who will sell what? Are we going to have to bitch at motherboard makers, chipset makers, and/or OEMs to provide versions of both? And how easy will TCPA be to work with? I better damn well not be forced to phone home to anybody to make my damn hardware work.

      • Re:The end is coming and people want it!?!? (Score:5, Funny)

        by rideaurocks ( 840805 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:42AM (#11965233)
        We won't restrict you to one operating system!
        You can choose from Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows NT, Windows 2000, AND Windows XP.

        Heck we've even got some old Windows 3.1 disks here if you want 'em. How's that for choice?!

      • Re:The end is coming and people want it!?!? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by arr28 ( 739468 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @12:21PM (#11965630)

        See the Trusted Computing FAQ [cam.ac.uk] for the many reasons why this is a bad idea and why lock-in will in fact be a result, despite IBM's claims to the contrary. Written by Ross Anderson, Professor of Security Engineering at the UK's leading univeristy, this article is an excellent primer.

      • What is more interesting is that IBM, according to the link you provided, is developing a GPL'ed version of TCPA for Linux. I think that is an important thing to note. Further, anyone that has said anything on Trusted Computing ought to take a look at that link. It dispells some myths and misconceptions about Trust Computing. After reading it, I am not too worried. The one thing that is common to the article is that it is to protect data, not DRM'ed stuff, against external hardware attack. In otherwords, th
        • Have you bought any good bridges lately?

          The IBM paper was mostly factually accurate, entirely deceptive, and contained at least one flat out lie. The one flat out lie is "they even say that the scheme is poorly executed for use as a DRM". The only way that is not a lie is if IBM has a very peculiar definition of "poorly". While everyone involved in Trusted computing is constantly chanting that it was not designed for DRM, each and every one of them has at one time or another directly admited that it is in
    • why not take it a step further and make people not only pay extra for the OS pre-installed/distributed w/the PC but also make them have no choice but to run it once they get it.

      It doesn't make sense for MS to force people to use Windows. Then they have to provide support for those people. It would also lead to a lot of disgruntled users. It also wouldn't be to the advantage of the hardware makers because they would lose customers not interested in Windows to smaller vendors.

      It seems like the ideal syst
    • This "feature" isn't so much about locking you into MS Windows. It is not even about preventing piracy (even though this aspect helps bring in allies among commercial software & content vendors).

      The false opposition and noise raised on these two aspects serve to distract from the real problem, which is that governments need this "feature" to help them track all your internet activity and ID any documents and programs created or passing through your machine. Combined with computer sales slips and credit

  • How about... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by turtled ( 845180 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:16AM (#11964976)
    How about trusted users? The computers aren't the problem, it's the users. It takes a confident voice to say, I'm person X and I am working on the mainframe, I need your username and password. Big words like mainframe scare people. People can't be trusted.

  • Backups? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mattspammail ( 828219 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:16AM (#11964982)
    What happens when your PC dies? How do you recover using the now useless backups? There's bound to be a way to bypass that. Sounds like the data requires a physical key (sentry?). Someone somehow will bypass it.
    • I suppose their adivse (MS and the HW manufacturers) would be to back-up the data to CDs.

      This would completely dodge the issue. If there is a HW key though and all your data is on the Hard drive and Windows crashes (suprise!). Assuming, that trusted computing stuff is turned on (wether willingly or not) will the data on the HDD be locked to the computer? It sounds all fine and great for large computer installtions w/ tape backup and such but for home computer users, many will probably lose data.

    • Re:Backups? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      the "key" is right in the hardware itself....

      i have no doubt that this so-called 'trusted computing' will be compromised by hackers at some point....

      what bothers me is:

      software and hardware vendors will CONTROL the computer, not the owner (well, they will control the owner and his use of the computer. the owner will have no control). billy boy will control whether or not your microsoft word will function (even if you've paid for it).

      new software "activation" (which is complete bs to begin with) will soo
    • This happens now with some Thinkpads.. you lose the admin key.. *poof* your laptop and data are toast.

      Sure might be a way around it, somehow.. but you think 'joe user' will know what to do?

    • Re:Backups? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Alsee ( 515537 )
      What happens when your PC dies?

      I read the hardware technical specification. The rules are quite explicit:

      If your chip dies, your data must be irretrievable. Period.

      If your computer has *not yet died* and you wish to upgrade to a new computer, you may only do so to a computer using the exact same model chip from the exact same manufacturer, and only with the assistance of that manufacturer, and only after destroying the data on the original machine. Under those conditions and only those conditions may y

  • Note to self: (Score:5, Funny)

    by Stick_Fig ( 740331 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:17AM (#11964987) Homepage
    Hug my mac tightly tonight, and trust it to only have one master: me.
    • And if this gets big, you think Apple is just going to sit back and not join? What, you think they care about you? They're just another company.

      But even if doesn't join, Macs already have most of the bad features of TC like vendor lock-in etc,.

  • **Ker-PLONK** (Score:5, Funny)

    by stevens ( 84346 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:17AM (#11964989) Homepage

    ...that was the sound of me moving from x86 to PPC.

    (As long as debian keeps up support.)

  • Your computer won't trust you (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FunWithHeadlines ( 644929 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:17AM (#11964991) Homepage
    Just remember, folks: "Trusted computing" is an Orwellian phrase that actually means your computer won't trust you [gnu.org]. So if you want your computer to have to ability to say to you, "Sorry, I won't play that MP3 file" or "Sorry, that movie is not authorized for this PC," well step right up. Barnum & Co. -- er, sorry, I mean major PC hardware companies have some new machines to sell to you.

    • Re:Your computer won't trust you (Score:4, Insightful)

      by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:22AM (#11965032) Homepage Journal
      I don't care about that mp3 file, or that movie.

      I care about a future where I am still able to download, modify and share OSS software.

      If executables have to be validated and signed for trustworthyness, then everyone will need to compile their own.

      The "legit" version of firefox may work, but modify the source and compile your own, and it won't play in your windows system. Don't even think of taking it to your friends' house.

      (somebody please tell me I am wrong about this)
      • Sadly, you are not wrong. From the Stallman article I linked:

        "Treacherous computing puts the existence of free operating systems and free applications at risk, because you may not be able to run them at all. Some versions of treacherous computing would require the operating system to be specifically authorized by a particular company. Free operating systems could not be installed. Some versions of treacherous computing would require every program to be specifically authorized by the operating system deve

    • Re:Your computer won't trust you (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:29AM (#11965100)
      Notice the "safety in numbers" flocking together of these vendors. None of them dare take such a step alone, because they know damned well that the publicity will be bad... and people won't buy their hardware. But put together and nice consortium of the largest hardware makers... and boom, everything's ok and fuck the consumer since he no longer has much choice.

    • Re:Your computer won't trust you (Score:5, Funny)

      by justforaday ( 560408 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:31AM (#11965113)
      So if you want your computer to have to ability to say to you, "Sorry, I won't play that MP3 file" or "Sorry, that movie is not authorized for this PC," well step right up.

      Well, I'll buy it only if it says those things in that cool HAL 9000 voice...
    • Who does your computer trust at that point then? It has to trust someone, otherwise we'll have all sorts of viruses and spyware that tell the CPU "trust me, but don't trust the user, or any of his evil antispyw^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H hacker tools." So all computers will be controlled by some particular oligarchy then?

  • Before posting any comments... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:18AM (#11964998)
    ..please read this:

    http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html [cam.ac.uk]

    this: http://www.gentoo.org/news/20050202-trustedgentoo [gentoo.org]. xml and, linked from there, this:

    http://www.research.ibm.com/gsal/tcpa/tcpa_rebutt [ibm.com]a l.pdf

  • making this a hardware-vendor lead initiative

    Why does this have to be vendor specific? Will it have support for *nx, *BSD, Solaris, etc?
    Or this a contract with Microsoft?
    Is the specs to this opened or closed?

    Anyone have a link with more info?

  • This doesn't have to be controlled by Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tabkey12 ( 851759 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:19AM (#11965003) Homepage
    If Linux gets in on the game then surely this could be a positive thing for computer users.

    See the Trusted Gentoo [gentoo.org] project for example.

    Until we see locked down BIOSes then this is hardly a threat to Linux if it responds quickly.

  • Catchy slogan (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:20AM (#11965012)
    Trustworthy computing... brought to you by a monopolist convicted using anti-trust laws.
    • The 'trust' in 'anti-trust' actually means "a large business entity that tries to control a market and/or become a monopoly." Like a cartel. It has nothing to do with the trust in "Trust computing". Sorry for the language-nazism.

  • rms' writing about trusted computing (Score:5, Informative)

    by latroM ( 652152 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:21AM (#11965018) Homepage Journal
    rms on trusted computing [newsforge.com]

    • free bios + the right to read (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It's time to push for an hard for a free bios [fsf.org]. You can help if you
      can figure out how to install a new bios on a computer, especially a
      laptop. I don't know why we can put linux on an xbox but nobody can
      get a free bios on a laptop.

      Stick to AMD machines, avoid Intel and IBM. Heh, IBM. We talk like
      they're our allies but they're pushing patents and treacherous
      computing. They're a _much_ bigger threat than SCO ever was.

      If you haven't yet read stallman's dystopian short story The Right To Read [gnu.org],
      this might be

  • Nothing new (Score:5, Interesting)

    by afidel ( 530433 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:21AM (#11965020)
    IBM has had the hardware in place in their laptop line for the last several years. It makes repairs which require a motherboard swap a PITA because you have to be sure to order the part with the crypto in place if your current system had one, which might not know about the first time you do one, resulting in a several day delay....

  • Problem for Apple (Score:5, Interesting)

    by vijayiyer ( 728590 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:22AM (#11965033)
    This sort of crap runs contrary to Apple's philosophy, and I don't think they'll want it in their hardware (heck, they don't even copy protect their OS). However, they may get forced into it for compatibility. I believe in trusted computing - I trust myself not to be dumb.

  • what does this really mean? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by yagu ( 721525 ) <yayagu@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:24AM (#11965049) Journal

    I've read the article, and many related articles, but it is still not clear to me what this technology really means...

    • How far does it extend? (software apps run only if trusted?.... or can user override, much like browser certificates).
    • What does it mean for linux installs? Dual boot installs?
    • Who controls these "keys"?
    • Who controls "trust"?
    • Is there a mod classification of "paranoid" for this post?

    I am pretty sure there are answers to this technology, but I haven't found a clear concise source to make me feel any better about what this technology may bring upon OSS. I'm afraid it might be bad. Someone reassure me.

    As an aside, is this really a direction technology needed to take? Is there really that much of a need for "trusted" computing? Sheeesh, I've not found this to be a huge issue, and I hope this technology incurs huge backlash when its inconvenience far exceeds its benefits.... (especially since the type of intrusion and hacking I've ever seen has little to do with protecting data and much more to do with social engineering).

    • Re:what does this really mean? (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Who controls these "keys"?
      I think this guy [geocities.com] does.
    • As I understand it:
      The current implementation is optional, and you don't have to even enable the security crap. I know I have my IBM Thinkpad with one of these chips in it, and I just flicked it off in the BIOS when I found out. The keys are user-controlled, as I recall, not manufacturer-distributed.

      The fear is that either some big company M****s*ft will make software which won't run if you don't have trusted computer installed, and/or that Microsoft's implementation [Palladium, or whatever they're calling
  • I knew you could get a Dell linux server, and IBM is behind linux, but I haden't checked in a while and didn't know that HP made linux machines.

  • Microsoft's Version Here (Score:3, Informative)

    by MLopat ( 848735 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:25AM (#11965053) Homepage
    Just in case anyone wants to see the software side of what's happening with trusted computing, here's Microsoft's plans to integrate certain software technologies with these new hardware components. It's called Microsoft Palladium. [microsoft.com]
    • The funny thing is it all started off as an innocent research project. MS wanted to be able to boot servers without local storage off of PXE. The problem is that many of their security concious customers were worried about the OS being modified as it was loaded over the network. So an MS researcher started looking into the problem, and the easiest way he could come up with that was reasonably secure was to have two way authentication between the hardware and the software. The problem is that MS usurped it

  • will it work? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by logicnazi ( 169418 ) <gerdesNO@SPAMinvariant.org> on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:26AM (#11965066) Homepage
    So my understanding is that it is far too complicated to have the content only accesible by hardware (isolated HD or sectors directly controlled by the hardware which would need to convert to output without going through main memory).

    I believe instead these systems work by only giving access to certain content areas if the booting software has the right key or matches the right checksum. However, once that access has been granted the software is in control and a software flaw in the software could allow for copying.

    How long do you think it will be till they find a bug in longhorn?

  • Locking data to a PC... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:27AM (#11965074)
    ... is bound to be a pain in the arse if you get a new PC.

    I suspect that the idea is that you'd use hardware-based encryption (which must be optional, otherwise general removable media would be worthless) and the OS would be expected to support it through some service layer. But anything it does in hardware should be emulatable in software. So, the solution is only truly useful if all parties agree to play nice. That seems to be a ludicrous expectation.

    It seems to me that the strategy is wrong. There's no mechanism that isn't ultimately circumventable, so simply eliminate the complex hurdles and work such that there's nothing to circumvent and no reason to do so (change the model of how you operate).

  • IBM (Score:3, Interesting)

    by White Roses ( 211207 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:27AM (#11965080)
    I'm hard pressed to see them doing this. They've sold their PC business [engadget.com] to Lenovo [lenovogrp.com]. Why would Lenovo care about trusted computing? Isn't China pretty much against MS operating systems? Don't they officially use a home-grown version of Linux?

    Another reason I'm glad I use Macs, really. Let's hope Linus's PowerMac really does drive Linux on PPC as much as we all hope it will. Then, let's hope IBM starts pushing PPC based systems more than the Xeon powered servers I always see advertised.

  • Why is it good for Linux?

    Because more people will have to pay for Windows, which costs too much, and therefore the poor and those not inclined to part with $100 for the stripped-down version of Windows will look for another way to get a free operating system -- legally, this time. It's well-known that most Linux distributions are available at no cost to the user except production of CDs or a DVD.

    And that's the best thing I can say about Palladium -- the issues others have raised about backups et cetera s
    • What happens when you try to use your untrusted OS to go onto a website to download content?

      How do you explain to your relatives that internet access is blocked because the ISP cannot confirm your trusted status?

      At first glance, putting your head in the sand and running away from the problem is feasible, but if this plays out as far as people expect, then your machine is not your own, and the only way round it is total compliance.

      Think of an x-box as 1st generation.

      Without some VERY clever trickery, you

  • not a big deal really... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by havaloc ( 50551 ) * on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:30AM (#11965103) Homepage
    ...this is something that businesses want (ones that already control your computing environment, like at work), and I really don't see it being aimed at the typical consumer.
    I would also say that there will always be a market for open computers. The market always has ways around this.

  • This has nothing to do with protecting users! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anita Coney ( 648748 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:30AM (#11965107) Homepage
    This does not "lock" a computer to make it free from viruses or spyware. It "locks" a computer to keep it from playing non-DRM content. Basically, it takes control of the PC away from the user and hands it over to the RIAA, BSA, and the MPAA

  • Balkanization (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Concern ( 819622 ) * on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:32AM (#11965120) Journal
    I don't know how thoroughly we've all digested it yet, but open source has arrived, and in addition to changing what people expect of their software, it has raised the bar considerably for corporations like Microsoft. It is already eating their breakfast in the server space, and it is growing to the point where in a few more years there is potential to threaten their client desktops as well, starting with businesses and other large, lucrative deployments. We as an industry are starting to recognize, and ultimatly demand, the benefits of freedom.

    On the one hand I like Microsoft buying into the wild-eyed "Alamo" mentality of the content trust, trying to arm wrestle every customer for control, because the more aggressive they get with Digital Restrictions Management, the more it will drive everyone into the arms of competitors, including open and free software.

    I wish I could say I thought trusted computing was doomed to fail, but frankly I think it can be considerably successful. If the end result is that your computer is not managed by you, and 3rd parties like Microsoft can take the XBox busines model (and probably, simplicity of interface) deeper into PC territory, this is probably a relief for a variety of consumers beleaguered with "general purpose" computing and all that it entails, viruses, spyware, etc. Better software architecture could solve their problems, but outside control can solve it almost as well.

    I guess what will ultimately happen is balkanization, as more aggressive attempts at controlling the platform will split consumers into low and high ends. At the low end, the "game console" converges into a media system and a simple home computer, where every application is trusted and the vendor is the gatekeeper. They'll be happier because, like video consoles today, the hardware is cheap and the costs are deferred into the software and services. At the high end, the general purpose PC that is currently a staple in the home will fade into niche status - a tool for hobbyists and professionals. What fills the void in between, in the end, is hopefully a free-software-based system that is simple enough for all consumers to use, that provides them with an alternative to commercial products, perhaps marketed by a white knight corporation much as IBM has taken free software to the server world.

  • Yeah, Right (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PingXao ( 153057 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:35AM (#11965154)
    Ever since I've been in this field the allure of computers for me has been that you have a general-purpose device that, with a little ingenuity, can be made to do just about anything. A computer does exactly what you tell it to do. Now your average PC buyer can't even appreciate the difference between not knowing and not caring about what's inside their shiny new computers. But I can and I'll be damned if I ever spend any of my hard-earned cash on a device that will do what someone else tells it to do and not what I tell it to do.

    Can't say I'm surprised. We knew this was coming several years ago. I bought a new keyboard last week and was shocked at the number of MS keyboards on display featuring the little fingerprint reader built right in. Within a few years we'll probably have the gubmint mandating all new PCs be equipped with TC elements. To keep us safe from terrorists no doubt.

    On the bright side this will be hacked from here to kingdom come. In that sense it's good they're showing their hand now so intrepid BIOS hackers and EEs can start peeling away the mystery. What's that? The latest software won't work without TC? TC-compliant apps will work better together? Yeah. Right.

  • Oh boy... a secure PC, at last! (Score:5, Funny)

    by ka9dgx ( 72702 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:36AM (#11965163) Homepage Journal
    I can hardly wait. This will mean I don't have to run a virus scanner any more! I can get rid of that pesky firewall box, and save some power. I also can stop worring about spyware, worms, spam, phishing, or any other nasty things that happen to Windows PCs on the internet!

    It's going to be so nice, knowing that my data in my PC can't be taken away, erased, trashed, or otherwise caused to be lost. This will keep my stuff secure, for me.

    Finally, I'll be able to trust my computer.

  • The Right To Read (Score:3, Informative)

    by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:36AM (#11965168) Homepage Journal
    Make sure to read this:
    The Right To Read [gnu.org] by RMS.

  • That means companies can improve the security of access to corporate data, even when the PC is not connected to a network.

    I thought one of the best ways to keep data secure is not to have the PC on the network...

  • TC (Score:3, Informative)

    by northcat ( 827059 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:38AM (#11965194) Journal
    Here [cam.ac.uk] is what the opponents of Trusted Computing have to say.

  • The computer is your friend... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Walkiry ( 698192 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:39AM (#11965203) Homepage
    Trust the computer!
  • Another reason NOT to buy a Dell

  • This won't work... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Zog The Undeniable ( 632031 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:44AM (#11965250)
    Look how many people rejected region coding on DVDs. They just buy Far East-sourced players that ignore the region coding (or can easily be switched to do so) and someone will produce non-TC computers if there's the same demand.

    I think MS and Intel have underestimated people's determination not to be shafted by The Man.

  • This won't make me popular around here... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Skweetis ( 46377 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:46AM (#11965270) Homepage
    ...but I would like to see some sort of hardware-enforced secure context available on commodity computer systems. I would like the hardware to remain completely backward-compatible with all existing operating systems and software, and certainly not stop the owner of the system from doing anything they could previously do. I would like this as I'm working up a p2p MMOG protocol as a hobby project, with the goal of being able to host a world with tens or hundreds of thousands of users on minimal hardware by offloading most of the processing onto the network. Anyone who's played an MMOG for any length of time probably knows that this would be unworkable because of the potential for hacks that would give unscrupulous players an advantage. However, it could work if the networking code could be run in a sufficiently secure context, which I believe can only be provided at the hardware level. I would like to see something like this, as it could allow for MMOGs to be hosted with much smaller hardware and network resources, significantly reducing the cost to the player.

    Of course, such a system would have undesirable uses as well, DRM and the like...

  • Dear Dell, Hewlett-Packard and IBM,

    In my security policy, running MS software is an unacceptable risk. Could you make me a PC that will not run any MS software at all? Oh yes, I assume I will not need to pay MS tax for a system that is disabled to run MS software.

    Yours faithfully,
    Spagh
  • I'm sure I'm being redundant here and will be moderated as such, but this is the beginning of the end of the open movement and digital freedom in general..

    Unless someone like IBM ponies up to pay the fees to get things authenticated to be on the 'trusted list', nothing we have will run in 5 years.

    Sure, you say 'but it can be turned off', and that is true, today.. In time that wont be an option and it will be mandatory at some point in the near future for most people. Sure some will find ways around it, bu
  • (holds up Jedi hand....)

    This is a trusted computer....
    ..........nothing to see here.....
    ...............these aren't the droids you're looking for......
    ......you may pass.........

    :(

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @12:12PM (#11965537)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • As someone who has used MS OS since I got my first computer I'm somewhat loathe to change. However, if this starts restricting what I can and can't run / watch on my comp with DRM style controls I'm switching. Either to linux or or Mac if I can affored it

    I'm still ticked about compaq putting my XP install on a hard drive partition instead of giving me the disk.
  • I don't know of all of the details but it seems just like how DVDs are supposted to be secure and encrypted all along the decoding chain. We all know how well that turned out. And ultimately we must think was it such a bad thing to have the encryption broken? It maybe purely coincidental but it looks to me like people were happier and more willing to buy DVD hardware in computers once this was broken and made openly available.

    In general, security is about holding secrets in the right places. Putting se
  • Ok... say all the other doomsday things somehow dont happen... there is one thing that WILL happen... note that in the description of how it works on microsofts site, that you control the parameters, and an agent oversees activities and such... people here keep thinking that it has to do with DRM, but actually it has to do with third party compatibility!!!! right now i can reverse engineer ms file formats for say Word.. i can then write an application that does something tha Word does not. if i pay micro
  • I think the general understanding of "trusted computing" is missing the mark. The idea of TC is that the CPU garuntees that the code it executes has been authenticated, and that its transport to/from RAM/IO is also authtenticated.

    This prevents casual logic analyzers and other hardware hacktools from reverse engineering the component level interoperability. While its not a garuntee of securing the design, it sure elevates the level of effort required to manufacture alternative hardware components.

    Sound fam

  • Whats the difference between this and (Score:4, Insightful)

    by whois ( 27479 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @01:05PM (#11966069) Homepage
    hardware dongles? Or DVD CSS for that matter?

    You might say "but but but but but but" this is going to be different, more secure, stronger.

    Or something. But you're still going to be selling the public hardware, that they control. Hell, some of these computers will never be accessing the internet or any network at all. How will you control what they do after you turn them into the hands of the customer?

    You made hardware dongles for expensive programs, they were broken. You made hardware copy protection for console game platforms, it was broken (even when games were shipped as a cartridge, eventually people made cloners)

    You've made DVD players you thought were unbreakable, unleashed them on the masses, then they were broken, so to spite everyone you created new laws to try to stop people from doing it (DMCA)

    You created directTV and dish network. They're hacked. And before that? Satallite TV was scrambled, but there were descramblers.

    ANY hardware based "encryption" or "dongle" or "trusted computing initiative" is security through obscurity. Do you think every person who ever worked for all these conglomerate companies will be able to keep a secret?

    The first person who finds out you use pins 1 and 6 on the chip to pass keying information will end up leaking it to the public. Said public will start watching those pins and find out what needs to be sent to "ok" a program running.

    So you tell me your "dongle" is smack dab in the middle of the CPU, no sniffing possible?

    Someone will just realease the keys then. It's only a matter of time. In the meantime, you're just blowing smoke up the asses of all the customers you have who want this product, and pissing off all the customers who don't want this product.

    Give it a rest. PC's were pretty cool until you started breaking them. If you make them too hard to use, the world as a whole will find something new to play with.

    HP is already on the fritz because they've merged too many times and found out they can't be the next IBM. Imagine if everyone stops buying from you and starts buying from a toaster company?

  • my paper on the subject (Score:3, Interesting)

    by woodforc ( 10906 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @01:17PM (#11966229) Homepage
    A few years back, when I was a law student, I wrote my law review student note on trusted computing (published last year). I've made it available here if anyone is interested. Not sure I still agree with the thesis but hey, I was ensconced in academia when I wrote it.

    http://actusre.us/cjam/woodford.pdf [actusre.us]

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close