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.
Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling announced an ambitious new technology that will protect investors from fraud. "Sure, everybody who wants to invest will have to buy our product first, but once they do, they'll be perfectly safe from all the, um, bad people who would otherwise take advantage of them", said Skilling.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
"I firmly believe we will be shipping with bugs," says Paul England.
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.
So, this involves a new piece of hardware.
How long does it take mod chips to become available for consoles? Not very long. How long do we think it'll take for mod chips to sidestep the hardware portion of palladium, and enable you to copy protected information, to come along?
Not very long.
Chipmakers Intel and Advanced Micro Devices have signed on to produce special security chips that are integral to the system.
*snip*
Palladium is being offered to the studios and record labels as a way to distribute music and film with "digital rights management" (DRM). This could allow users to exercise "fair use" (like making personal copies of a CD) and publishers could at least start releasing works that cut a compromise between free and locked-down.
Great, let's go ahead and lay the groundwork for hardware level watermarking/rights management. There's no doubt in my mind that the MPAA/RIAA absolutely will jump on this first, quietly or blatantly. There won't even be time for 'fair use' or 'compromise' by the time this hits mainstream. I've never been much of a conspiracy theorist, but you think it's possible that the MPAA/RIAA are handing Microsoft some money to incorporate some of their desires into this security move? They'll *always* have the last move, not us.
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!
Having read the article, I thought - finally, they came up with a justification that can be sold to consumers for DRM - privacy protection.
Having the same systems implementing the filtering of spam (unapproved senders), restricting forwarding (unapproved redistribution), and also cover DRM (again, unapproved redistribution) allows the whole scheme to be marketed as an anti-spam system.
The marketing on "fair use" really is about certain fair uses such as backups. No software is going to be able to figure out whether a transformative use of digital content will be fair or not -- what is the difference between creating a digital commentary on a video (fair) and a remarketing of it? (say in the Spanish language). Nothing that can be discerned by a computer program, I assure you.
Still, it is encouraging to see MS taking security seriously, even if for the reasons of extending the reach of corporate profiteering. Actually, I can't think of any other reason that would motivate MS to do it, but so it goes.
Good old WebElements has a little something to say about the biological reaction to palladium:
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.
I'm sure a MS's execs reply would be, "Of course you dont have to pay extra for a pc... [ you dont have to use a pc at all ]
Which might be just what I do -- move to mac.
I'm *really* sick of the adversarial attitude held by alot of companies latley -- "the customers are our enemies, we will dog them to do what *we* want." If you dont like this (and I sure dont), vote with your $$ and dont buy it.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
If I remember my greek mythology correctly, the Palladium was supposedly used to protect the city of Troy. As long as the statue was there, the city would be safe.
The Palladium was eventually stolen and afterwards the city of Troy fell.
I don't know about you, but isn't it ironic that Microsoft names their next security product in reference to this same Palladium?
This is so laughably stupid it's amazing. Do they not know about screen capture? Or - if that's disabled - digital cameras? I can just imagine the whistleblower at a future Merrill Lynch taking a picture of a future Henruy Blodget's "it's a piece of shit" email and sending it to the press - while the IT manager is shocked and dismayed that Microsoft's "secure email" failed so spectacularly.
sulli
RTFJ.
I was aghast at the article and I shouldn't've been. It's on MSNBC and is intrinsically unable to cast Microsoft into anything but godlike form.
... oh, wait, the common man is not a production house. Suddenly that "our" becomes "their".
... the fiasco that occurred such that we don't have encrypted phones everywhere today. The gov wanted free, backdoor access and the industry (and consumers) knew that it would be selling unsecure products therefore. The consumers didn't want pervasive phone encryption that wasn't secure from the gov; and the consumers simply don't want pervasive Internet security that doesn't allow Libertine file sharing.
... what, is AOL, Hotmail and other such services going to deny members outgoing mailing privileges? Obviously not.
Obviously, MS is trying to link concepts of "your security and privacy" with "intellectual property rights" in the consumer's mind, and there's simply no functional reason to do so other than bowing to the big IP producers in Hollywood. (The article says "[Microsoft researchers] quickly understood that the problems of intellectual property were linked to problems of security and privacy"; I'm sure that the consumer's security and privacy were obstacles to controlling the IP that flowed through their computer.) I don't know if this bowing thing is due to fear of litigation ("our clients allege that Microsoft willfully constructed and distributed an operating system that allowed easy violations of copyrights") or simply from being paid off in some manner like partnerships; perhaps both.
But, statements like "cries for a safeguard" and "easier to vandalize a Web site than to program a remote control" places the article firmly in the ranks of propaganda.
"[T]he system is designed to dramatically improve our ability to control and protect personal and corporate information"? Who's "our"? I'm sure the system will make give you incredible control over that movie, song or book you made
The IP industrials have their own controls, and when they've implemented them (various forms of copy protection) the consumer mass has either raised an uproar or produced a crack. That alone shows the lifecycle of control (plan, implement, ruckus/crack, retreat/pointlessness) and thus that controls are a pointless exercise. The point is further made even if an end-run is made around the consumer by embedding controls into the OS. Despite MS's near monopoly position, MacOS and Linux are viable alternatives to MS Windows, and I've seen people make the switch when sufficiently motivated. Does MS expect the people on college campuses (who are doing a large fraction of the file sharing) -- with all their computer-saavy and access to IT skills -- to just sit in their dorm rooms and offices and let some ACCESS DENIED message blink in front of their faces when they try to fetch or open the latest sn0g, pr0n, m0vie or w4r3z?
The privacy solutions raised in the article aren't anything that can't be made with software right now. We could encrypt all our outgoing packets right now; every email could be encrypted, and every file put up on FTP and Web sites. Why isn't that kind of security pervasive? I think that answer is more along the lines of "we [the people] don't want it" rather than "encryption software isn't pervasive". I am reminded of the Clipper chip
There's more outrageous propaganda: the system "[c]ans spam". Oh, puh-leeez. The age-old problem of mailbox access will still be there; we can stop spam now with restricted mailbox access, but we just don't do that since a restricted mailbox is a big problem against receiving mail in general. So perhaps this Palladium plan will address outgoing verification, so
This further piece is even funnier: the system "[s]afeguards privacy", so "it's possible not only to seal data on your own computer, but also to send it out to "agents" who can distribute just the discreet pieces you want released to the proper people." Ah, built-in file sharing, and until somebody logs on, downloads and then blabs, Hollywood isn't going to know.
Finally, the last laugh: "[c]ontrols your information after you send it". This must mean the end of cut-n-paste from a window; either that, or you will need Microsoft Visual Implants {tm} so that encrypted data will be emitted from a screen pattern and then safely reconstructed into an image upon your retina.
Sorry to degrade into sarcasm, but the article -- and the Palladium system -- really deserves my scorn. You can keep reading past the article's last laugh but it is just more smoke and mirrors.
[also misbehaves on Kuro5hin as Peahippo]
Let's take a look at these new innovations:
So MS is going to claim it invented encryption and checksumming in 2002. Most Windows users get viruses via email scripts, which aren't programs. So this won't cut down on viruses (why would MS want to when they can claim that the virus writers are just getting savvyer and that you need to buy a more secure system to stay one step ahead). I've seen the "unsolicited mail you might want to see." Hotmail calls them newsletters and prevents you from blocking them. Bull$hit. No company is going to spend the money to store, manage and distribute your information if they aren't getting paid or reading your information. If you're already talking to the lender, why can't you give them the information yourself... or are people really too lazy to write down their name, address and phone number? Yeah, it's funny how people didn't buy into DRM the first time around, kinda like pay-per-view DVDs. But if we sugar-coat it and convince consumers that they can benefit from DRM (after all, a reader of a protected Word document can't copy its contents down while he has access to it and redistribute it later), they will accept it, the music industry will turn to us for DRM-formatted CDs and MS will control the audio CD format. Great. The future of the PC redefined by a paintball arena manager. Because terrorists and hackers keep welding antenna-laden black boxes to my keyboard and monitor. Now that's innovative... convincing consumers that someone is trying to wiretap their watches so they will pay more to hardware-encrypt data between the crystal and LCD. With the current U.S. push to chip away at privacy rights in the name of preventing terrorism, the FBI/the CIA/Ashcroft would be speaking out against this if it really protected the individual's privacy. Please note that this is a Newsweek article, not an MSNBC article. Newsweek's parent, The Washington Post Company, cut a deal with Microsoft about two years ago in which MSNBC would publish Newsweek.com in a more cost-effective way than the WashPostCo could.Whether you want to trust Newsweek's articles about Microsoft any more than you would trust a MSNBC article about Microsoft is up to you.
It's absurd to think that such a huge company that has control of such a huge share of the market with software that has such huge security concerns, can come up with something that actually *is* secure. If this takes hold, all I can say is that the OEM's will be getting my business, NOT Dell, HP, or any of the other major players that are going to incorporate this nonsense into hardware.
Just the same, I especially liked this passage:
Controls your information after you send it . Palladium is being offered to the studios and record labels as a way to distribute music and film with "digital rights management" (DRM). This could allow users to exercise "fair use" (like making personal copies of a CD) and publishers could at least start releasing works that cut a compromise between free and locked-down. But a more interesting possibility is that Palladium could help introduce DRM to business and just plain people. "It's a funny thing," says Bill Gates. "We came at this thinking about music, but then we realized that e-mail and documents were far more interesting domains." For instance, Palladium might allow you to send out e-mail so that no one (or only certain people) can copy it or forward it to others. Or you could create Word documents that could be read only in the next week. In all cases, it would be the user, not Microsoft, who sets these policies.
I started reading, and I thought..."it's obvious where this guy is heading - protect the commercial interests, screw the consumer." Then I read a little further, and noticed Bubba's comments on 'ordinary people' - but does it mention that nasty P-word (Privacy)???? No way. It talks about being able to place constraints on EMAIL! Oh happy day! And guess what...this isn't about ordinary people, because ordinary people usually don't have any reason to put such constraints on their e-mail...but corporate executives *cough*gates*cough* certainly do.
Overall, I think this whole thing is a crock, being masqueraded as something we need. Even if we do need it, I'd argue that the last person we need it from is Billy.
Exactly what I was thinking. MS Windows has a whole bunch of security flaws (and perhaps security woes, that aren't necessarily flaws yet), so what do we do? We plan on making everybody else change so that MS Windows can do whatever it wants, but this doesn't make any sense because Windows will still continue to suck. Every single problem they listed is simply a problem in software design. The hardware has nothing to do with any of those problems. Sure, you could go ahead and design a whole bunch of hardware to solve some of those problems, but what is the point when you could do it at 1% of the cost, but in software? The whole article (if you could call it that, sounded more like a MS PR release) sounded like a bunch of MS FUD trying to get the general public to believe that the reason computers have problems is because the hardware is poorly designed. I see it as just another way for MS to get ahead in a field that it is already #1 in (maybe not for long though). How much do you wanna bet that MS, et al would not release any of the specifications for this new 'technology', siting security fears, to anyone else (the public, third party companies, etc) in order to edge out the little guys who develop great alternatives (open source and closed source)? This whole thing looks like just a way to get other large corporations to join in on MS's monopoly so that they can form an oligopoly and not look so incriminating (although I'm sure time would tell even that, if it isn't too late and the United States of MicroSoft (USMS) haven't already formed a large army). Why else would billions of dollar be spent to disrupt a market in which a couple million could be spent by MS to fix 90% of the security problems?
I don't know about you, but I'm stocking up on hardware and software NOW. As the article said, future improvements aren't going to be about speed but "security" (read: copy restriction at the cost of improved speed). This means that what we should do now is get the fast and free computers before they are no longer available. This stuff might become very expensive and rare -- available in places like the ghettos in 1984. Get two or three parts of everything. Maybe some LUGs can start "freedom hardware pools" where we will change out parts as the break.
One thing is certain: digital rights management has momentum, and is gaining more and more of it. The increased profitability of corrupt corporations and corrupt governments are at stake, and the fall of Napster is the first sign that the Internet is not government-proof.
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
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.
Yup there already is a secure OS that provides great strides in privacy as well. You don't need any special hardware to run it, and it doesn't cost you anything. It doesn't include any DRM garbage and it's called Open BSD.
Duris MUD - The best pkill MUD. Ever.
It's a brilliant name. They're talking about supplying a Palladium to a Troy, which will thereby prevent things like "Trojan horses" from bringing about the downfall of that Troy. The Palladium provided security. Microsoft wants to supply a Palladium. Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, man, this isn't that hard to fathom.
If I may, I'd like to thank my grade school teachers for their emphasis on reading comprehension and critical thinking skills.
They also realized that if they wanted to foil hackers and intruders, at least part of the system had to be embedded in silicon, not software. This made their task incredibly daunting.
So there you have it. They believe that security through obscurity will be sufficient if that obscurity is in the hardware, buried under a layer of ceramic or epoxy. In other words, using hidden encryption keys in the hardware so that the key exchange won't be accessible via software tools. And the only way this can work is if everybody upgrades all their hardware at once. Fat chance! I'm all for cryptographically secure hardware--but only if I am the one setting the keys, not some secret industry / government consortium. DRM is absolutely not possible with obscurity and therefore is our enemy.
What to do about this?
1.) Don't buy or support M$ software. That means being choosy about employers too.
2.) Implement excellent free software solutions that will be inherently incompatible with any nonsense M$ pushes. The more people satisfied with Linux/BSD, the more people that will refuse this rubbish.
3.) Don't buy any hardware that supports any standards they dream up.
4.) Come up with our own open hardware/software security model. Be innovative. Find a way to make security and encryption easy for the average user.
5.) Spread the word to the non-tech folks. Use propaganda if needed--fight fire with fire.
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/
However, a band of smart geeks (erm Greeks) found a back door into the city, disabled the protection mechanism thus leaving the city wide open to attack.
The community complains loudly about companies that want to forcefully restrict liberty for users and developers alike. But has the community come forth with its own proposal?
How do we implement rights management for the independent author? How do we support code signing for the independent programmer? I should have an Open system that allows me to produce my documents, write my code, distribute what I want, and have everything appropriately signed by me.
Are we up to this? Are we able to propose alternates? Instead of just saying "no", shouldn't we be constructive and say "this is how to do it"?
I'm willing and able to work towards this, altough it's not something I can/want to do alone. Any takers? Let me know.
free the mallocs!