Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's 'Palladium' Privacy/DRM Scheme
Paradox Jack writes: "according to this article at MSNBC, Microsoft has an ambitious new plan called Palladium to rework computer and internet security. This includes changes in hardware, digital rights management (on all sides), and far more. Now, who thinks this will actually work and is for our own good?"
from the way it looks to me, this system will actually protect your priacy and provide a decent amount of security. However, it is uknown as to whether or not microsoft will be able to invade your privacy, since they make the system. Have to double check that EULA! As for digital rights management, I am just generally opposed to it, as are most of you ;-). And anyone who gives up their freedom for an illusion of security deserves neither (one of those founding father guys).
Remove the DRM and this looks ok to me.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
This sounds like what States' Attorney Steve Kunney put into closing arguments this past week:
Somehow they know better than anyone else what's best for this PC ecosystem. What's good for Microsoft is therefore good for the economy, good for consumers and good for everybody else.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
Even if that is not the goal, I guarantee that only Microsoft signed drivers will be able to be installed, finally closing that pesky "sound card and CD-ROM emulation" fair use hole that is robbing the MPAA/RIAA of additional royalties.
This is NOT about making things better for the user. This is about removing the ability for the end user to make decisions about how her computer operates.
By this they mean one of two things. Either it simply WONT run anything 'unauthorized' which brings up:
- will an independant developer have to jump through hoops to 'certify' every exe you compile to run on your own machine?
- will we have to go through another damn 'trusted' certifying agency a la SSL certs? Perhaps MS will be the last word?
Alternatively the OS might run things as long as the user tells the OS a particular binary is authorized. In this case I give it a good five minutes until some newbie tells the OS the latest email worm is an 'authorized' exe because they're looking to see that promised video of Brittany Spears some stranger w/ poor english apparently sent them out of the goodness of his heart.-j
Microsoft is also publishing the system's source code. "We are trying to be transparent in all this," says Allchin.
Uhhhh, did everybody else read that the same way I read it? I mean I know they arn't hostile to BSD style licences (heck they use BSD programs) but given the way they push security through obscurity using an open source model for this is like a glaring admission that closed source has some serious flaws.
I stole this Sig
"Though Microsoft does not claim a panacea, the system is designed to dramatically improve our ability to control and protect personal and corporate information."
Maybe this should actually read:
"Though Microsoft does not claim a panacea, the system is designed to dramatically improve THEIR ability to control and protect OUR personal and corporate information."
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand". -Milton F.
The article says, "people will have to trust Microsoft".
Now ignoring all the heat that Microsoft gets around these parts, it's usually a bad idea to trust one entity:
- Hollywood trusted DVD encryption
- Stock holders trusted Enron and Tyco
- Investors trusted Merrill Lynch & Author Andersen
- Pinto owners trusted Ford
Obviously, even with the billions at risk, a trust to not screw up is more of a faith. A prayer. A hope.
The difference here is that even more people will be putting their faith that Microsoft will do the right thing morally, and that microsoft will not screw up. Will not screw up even once. Like they'll never release a Microsoft Bob again.
Unlikely.
Sadly, if Microsoft wants to pursue this effort, it really has to be open, and, dare I say it, well regulated with many legal protections for the consumer.
That's apparently the basic concept. Only "authorized programs" ("Genuine Microsoft") will run. That's where we are now with the XBox. Read up on how the XBox boots, and you'll see where Microsoft is going.
This isn't security. Real security would mean you could run anything in a jail with no risk of it getting out and hurting anything. That's what a secure OS is supposed to do.
And if the Genuine Microsoft code has a hole in it, attacks may still work. Microsoft might set up memory management so that only signed code can be in executable pages, but that only protects agains one class of attacks.
What are the bets on whether the interface for this hardware will be open? How likely will it be that the licensing board allows OSS software to be written for the hardware? With DeCSS, we've already seen that OS-neutral companies are unwilling to allow their content to be viewed in Linux. Microsoft, being not so OS-neutral, is likely to take this even further.
Does no one else notice the irony in having the company responsible for 90% of the viruses, worms, back doors, and trojans - all due to poor planning on the part of MS executives and programmers - suggest that now they can fix it for all of us?
If I were a conspiracy buff I'd think that MS created the security problems so that they could point to the "insecure internet" and offer some solution that benefits only them.
That anyone, much less some "internet guru" takes this at face value illustrates that P.T. Barnum was right about suckers.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
Even if it means having to pay for overseas shipping, I'll never buy a peice of hardware designed to prevent copying of software. It's just too counter-intuitive a concept to spend that much money on. The ability to back up software in an unlimited manner is a fundamental property of hardware that I will not do without. I find it insulting that there is a presumption of guilt about being able to copy software, especially after discovering that some of my favorite software on CD has been lost due to use and age.
If this initiative begins to make it into the hardware market, I encourage all of you to explain what it means to anyone you know considering the purchase of hardware. Explain why being able to backup software is such an important aspect of hardware, and why it would be worth even paying more, if needed, to have this ability.
Thank you.
Ryan Fenton
Some System Warnings.
The requested download of Linux.iso is not allowed, no signature was found. Press any key to continue.
Please be patient while the computer is cleaned of all unsigned Multimedia files.
In further news: You will require new digital camera and scanner software that interacts with the "Passport Chip" to auto generate signatures. You just wont be able to save those unsigned pictures of your family reunion sent to you by your Aunt X.
Get a free ipod.
Microsoft knows what they're doing, and if this thing succeeds, you can forget about any non-Windows operating system being even remotely usable.
Microsoft holds a patent that describes a method by which hardware and software interoperate to guarantee "digital rights management" (aka fair use destruction and monopoly lock-in). The patent describes a mechanism in which there is a private/public key pair, with one half embedded in hardware (possibly the CPU). Only "authorized code" (aka Windows) can run in ring 0 (kernel space) on the CPU. Naturally, only Windows has the other half of the key.
This is probably how the Xbox prevents third-party operating systems from running, and it probably is why they originally applied for the patent. But it also has lots of uses in the monopoly business. This article describes how useful the patent could be in implementing the Hollings bill. Take it one step further and it's easy to envision a world in which this type of "protection" is not only mandated by law... but unimplementable by Linux hackers due to patent problems.
Hopefully, by the time this thing hits critical mass (if ever), Linux will be too firmly entrenched for the industry to allow it to be required. I think we're already there on the server side (1 out of 4 servers sold today ships with Linux, more if you include the ones they can't count). In another couple of years we'll be there on the desktop as well. But as they say, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Let's make sure we get heard.b
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Whaaaaa ? My website is secure, TYVM, it hasn't been defaced even once. Nobody ever stole my credit card number, and my personal info is well guarded. I have never have a single virus on my many computers. And none of my intellectual property was ever stolen.
So what the Hell is the problem ? People are taking advantage of your computer-illiteracy ? Then learn, or drop dead.
I see this whole Palladium thing as a solution to a manufactured problem. Oh-my-goodness people on the Internet are filthy script-kiddies cracking servers and spreading virii mainly because Microsoft can't code secure programs ! And they're stealing music and movies because the RIAA can't sell CDs and DVDs cheaper !
And then they say the solution should be another patch upon this ? Why couldn't they get it right first ? Why can't they fix what already exist ? Microsoft is running so far away from the very concept of QA they try to sell a solution to the problem they are the most responsible for in the first place !
I wish they'd just stop thinking for me, or rather stop thinking at all. Their reasoning is flawed from the begginning: I don't need to have it fixed for me, I took care of that myself already.
So I'll just go on and ignore this stupid thing. Nobody'll ever force me to use it.
from http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/Palladium.html :
--
Seeing is believing; You wouldn't have seen it if you didn't believe it.
How quickly we forget that they gave themselves that ability by EULA The XP EULA states 'You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the Product that will be automatically downloaded to your Workstation Computer.' To do this they must be able to read your files at will. What kind of privacy is that? That's M$'s stated policy and that's what you can expect.
Encrypting data between the keyboard and the monitor is good only for tin foil hat types and making sure that Other OS are deprived of hardware. Hollings might like this crap but the rest of us just won't buy it. How much more bloated and useless can M$ get? All of this junk to replace user accounts, file permissions and there means of actually insuring security and privacy.
It's reassuring to read that 45% of computers are built by small shops that have no incentive to follow M$ down. To paraphrase Bones, "It's dead, Jim."
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
There are two ways to do that: by banning any software not directly trusted by Microsoft, or by passing the data around encrypted until it reaches the screen (and, of course, trusting that the screen's private key will never be discovered). I'm not sure which is scarier, but I honestly don't think even Microsoft has the power to accomplish either.
And they claim this: "Eventually, commercial pitches ... can be stopped before they hit your inbox--while unsolicited mail that you might want to see can arrive if it has credentials that meet your standards." There is no way to allow email from strangers without also allowing commercial email from strangers. It's possible to reject all unsigned email (and thus, at least, know who is sending you spam). All hail the death of anonymity.
And last, it pains me to see that "security" has stopped meaning "protecting your computer and data from attackers" and now instead means "protecting your computer and data from you." A computer that enforces DRM isn't more secure. More authoritarian, more expensive, and more likely to let me watch DVDs, but not by any means more secure.
Take another look at the criticisms being voiced. The issue is whether this really has anything to do with security, or more to do with providing an architecture to lock out competitors and control, or eliminate, fair use rights.
Microsoft's insecurity woes have little to do with encrypting signals between your keyboard/monitor and the computer. Signed code also misses the issue. The problem is that Microsoft has a long history of bad implementation and flawed architectural design. Environments that will remain flawed even as Microsoft moves on to their next Big Thing.
This casts further doubt on Microsoft's intentions and even ABILITY to provide a secure architecture. This is not entirely a technical issue. This has as much to do with Microsoft's culture and focus as it has to do with their engineer's abilities. There has to be a fundimental shift within Microsoft such as changing the focus on last-minute features at the cost of debugging. And that is a challenge for even a company as nimble as Microsoft.
Do not be deceived.
This is not about giving the consumer freedom. It is about controlling all facets of a consumer's computing life.
In order to achieve the power and control (which leads to money) that Microsoft relentlessly pursues, they need the cooperation of hardware manufacturers. Otherwise, if features we did not desire were implemented, we would simply go to Linux. We would have a choice. Choice is good for the consumer, but that takes away their power. Your ability to go somewhere else takes away from their ability to control you and the world. But if the hardware itself is designed to run their software and conform to their plan, it would be extremely difficult for the consumer to have any choice. There aren't too many hardware manufacturers. Software is easy and cheap to design and share. Hardware fabrication plants are extremely complex and expensive to design and run.
After they have gotten the hardware manufacturers to go along with their plan, the next step would be to get the politicians to support their cause and draft laws that would require "trustworthy" computing. In a post-September 11 world, with the political and media hype about terrorism and security, that would be very easy to accomplish.
We cannot afford to be ignorant. This really is about choice, freedom, and ultimately, livelihood. These are the things at risk. What they want is the ability to control our lives for their ulterior motives.
I'm sorry to say this but many of the strategies employed by Microsoft remind me of the Nazi's.
"One World, One Web, One Program"
- Microsoft Promo Ad
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer"
- Adolf Hitler
A word is enough for the wise.
One-way hash functions: In a nutshell, a one-way hash function is a function that takes a variable-length string of input data and returns a fixed-length string (the hash) that represents it. Due to the mathematics involved, it is computationally infeasible to derive a different input string that will evaluate to the same hash. The same input data always produces the same hash.
Symmetric (a.k.a. "secret key") Cryptography: Basically, you take two inputs, the "plaintext" and the "key", and you feed them through an algorithm to get the output ("ciphertext") that looks like jibberish (a process called "encryption"). You can then take the ciphertext and the same key, feed them through the inverse algorithm, and get the original plaintext (a process called "decryption").
Asymmetric (a.k.a. "public key") Cryptography: It's just like symmetric cryptography, except instead of using the same key for both encryption and decryption, you use two different but related keys -- one for encryption and one for decryption. You call one of these keys "private" and you never let anyone see it. You call the other key "public" and you distribute it to everyone.
Other people can encrypt data using your public key, and that data can only be decrypted using your private key. The other thing you can do is encrypt data using your private key, so that it can only be decrypted using your public key.
But what use is that, you say? Well, you can encrypt the hash of the program you're signing using your private key, and distribute the resulting cyphertext with your program. If other people want to verify that your program is authentic, they can compute their own hash of your program, and then decrypt the cyphertext of the hash you computed. If both hashes are the same, then your program is verified, because only someone with your private key could have generated that cyphertext.
This is how all digital signature systems work.
For more information (especially if I confused you), see An Introduction to Cryptography (PDF), which explains it much better that I can.
OEM?s are wimps. Remember when the athlon first came out and asus denied it even had an athlon motherboard because they were scared of the big bad intel? Or how compaq killed the alpha because they did not want to frighten intel so they signed a contract in exchange for cheaper prices for pentiums in there consumer desktop divisions?
.net my services will finally take off. After all you agreed to use it didn't you? If you don?t agree to it USE A TYPEWRITTER will be Microsofts attitude. This is why ms wants drm so bad. Sure it will prohibit piracy but it will also insure their renting schemes and license hikes at the hardware level. Very, very dangerous in my opinion. My guess is the 2nd version of Windows.net will not run without drm enabled hardware. This would make the OEM's cream in their pants. Microsoft always lets the OEMS do their dirty work and this is probably MS's latest scheme. Sadly, I guess 5 years from now we will all be running linux on slow and expensive macs. This will be our only choice for a cost effective linux platform. We need to write our representatives because the linux marketshare won?t make a difference with the oems and yes it will go through. If Microsoft and the OEMs are for it then their is no stopping it. With or without linux.
Like it or not consumers want to buy the latest and greatest versions of Windows and intel chips for the cheapest prices. Consumers who need a newer pc will not invest thousands of dollars for yesterdays software. They want to be on the edge of the upgrade curve for their investment. An oem can't sell pc's without the latest version of Windows or else they will go bankrupt. Linux only makes up %2 or %3 of their sales. Most use it for servers anway so they wont care. If I were Michael Dell I would discontinue linux immediately and sell these drm cripples pc's before compaq or gateway do to outcompete them. If I didn't do this I could lose my job and bankrupt my company. Its sad but true. This is how OS/2 lost. It was beginning to get popular right before Windows95 came out. Then out of nowhere it vanished. Even IBM sold out due to fear from Microsoft after they invested billions into it. It was a waste but their pc division would of went belly up if they didn't cave in.
The only thing we can do to stop this is to email and snail mail your elected official and explain to them what your opinions are and also explain how it could physically cripple the whole IT industry. This is worse then the anti-trust violation of the bundling of IE. Much, much worse at a whole different scale. At least with the internet explorer case, consumers benefited by having a zero cost browser. This new scheme offers no benefits besides to lock consumers into agreeing to buy only microsoft operating systems with dracionian eula's attached to them that will prohibit fair use. Who knows, maybe
http://saveie6.com/