Will Microsoft Code-Checking Plans Cripple the GPL?

Infonaut was one of many readers to point out that "Thomas C. Green at The Register seems to think Microsoft is after far more than the 'ubiquitous security' they're pitching to the mainstream press. In this lengthy article, he contends that Microsoft's latest plans are in many ways an attempt to kill Linux by rendering GPL'ed software unusable. Yep, that's freedom to innovate, I'd say."

Comments

AP bashes Palladium on CNN.com *Today*!

[SloppyElvis]

I submitted this link to a CNN article before reading the /. front page today, and given its "Popular Press" status, I'm sure it won't make it through the Slashdot editors. However, it seems the popular media has taken an anti-Palladium stance for now, perhaps to cool the flames of this article.

1. Given the reliance on hardware encryption, Palladium requires everybody to buy a new computer to use it.
2. Given that an encryption system that can stand up against attack through time has never been accomplished in history, the MS plan has little chance for truly ensuring "private data".
3. Given that the United States government want to be able to look at your data because you might be a terrorist (or just an enemy of the state), "private data" opposes Big Brother, and is therefore not likely to give any *real* privacy at all (unless you just have blind trust in the govenment ;P).

The good news is, I don't think the 'commons' are buying into Palladium, at least not yet. Besides, real paranoids don't use Windoze.

Re:Not remotely possible

[mikeee]

Unsigned code will run. Unsigned drivers/modules will not, and unsigned OS kernals won't boot.

One could target holes in the OS itself, and workaround this way...

Re:interesting article. but...

[mjh]

No. They do store something on the mobo. But it's a public key. The fact that you can get to it is irrelevant. So you'll still be able to use your apps offline. You have a public key with you when you're offline. But you still can't crack the verification process. You need access to the private key to do that. And you don't have it.

The key difference between CSS and this thing is that CSS was trying to hide something. This is trying to verify signatures. In CSS, to unhide the thing you need access to something secret. In this, you need access to nothing secret. CSS is insecure because they have to distribute that secret thing to everyone who wants to watch a DVD. Paladium is secure becase the secrets are kept secret.

This is going to be much more difficult to break than CSS.