Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Discuss BIOS and Palladium Issues With an AMIBIOS Rep

Posted by Roblimo on from the is-trustworthy-computing-trustworthy? dept.

After this Slashdot discussion about the relationship between BIOS biggie American Megatrends Inc. (AMI) and Palladium appeared, we got an email from AMI sales engineer (and former Linux.com contributor) Brian Richardson, who wrote, "I am a bit concerned that the information you provided misled your readers into thinking AMI was promoting Palladium or taking some sort of anti-open-source stance. This might be due to the fact that TCPA was mistakenly equated to Palladium, or questioning how Linux would run on a TCPA-enabled system ... or by the horde of angry Slashdot readers telling us they would never buy an AMI product because we were forcing standards on them." Brian offered himself up as (his words) a "Slashdot interview victim" to clear things up.(Update by RM: And, says Brian, he's happy to answer other BIOS questions as well.) So ask, already, and let's get things cleared up. (Usual Slashdot interview rules.)

453 comments

  1. What will happen with Linux systems. by matthew.thompson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I understand that there should be no problems running Linux systems on these new bioses but can you promise that there will be no nasty wordings that are likely to frighten off users who are trying Linux for the first time?

    --
    Matt Thompson - Actuality - Insert product here.
    1. Re:What will happen with Linux systems. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      can you promise that there will be no nasty wordings that are likely to frighten off users who are trying Linux for the first time?

      You mean like "this software will make your computer explode, we are not liable for any loss of revenue or life caused by your use of this software"?

    2. Re:What will happen with Linux systems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.freiburg.linux.de/OpenBIOS/

    3. Re:What will happen with Linux systems. by matthew.thompson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was actually thinking of something along the lines of...

      "The operating system about to be loaded does not have a valid security signature. As such it is not possible for the BIOS to prevent unsafe software from operating. Are you sure that you wish to continue loading this software."

      But yours is just as good :o)

      --
      Matt Thompson - Actuality - Insert product here.
    4. Re:What will happen with Linux systems. by sunny256 · · Score: 1
      The operating system about to be loaded does not have a valid security signature. As such it is not possible for the BIOS to prevent unsafe software from operating. Are you sure that you wish to continue loading this software.

      Yep, it will be something like that except the last sentence.

    5. Re:What will happen with Linux systems. by grub · · Score: 2


      I'm worried about installing a Free OS on a new AMI BIOSd machine then having the manufacturer tell me that I'm S.O.L. for hardware support because I run an "untrusted" OS. (which is rather silly, I'll trust OpenBSD before Windows anytime, anyplace..)

      --
      Trolling is a art,
  2. Here's a simple one... by Sheetrock · · Score: 4, Redundant

    Will Linux and other alternative operating systems continue to install and function properly on computers containing AMI BIOSes?

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




    1. Re:Here's a simple one... by jamie · · Score: 5, Interesting
      "Will Linux and other alternative operating systems continue to install and function properly on computers containing AMI BIOSes?"

      In answering this question, I would ask that our interview victim clarify whether there are any circumstances under which "alternative operating systems" would need to be cryptographically signed by an authority in order to boot, and if so, who is that authority?

      As Ross Anderson pointed out last year,

      Now here's another aspect of TCPA. You can use it to defeat the GPL.

      During my investigations into TCPA, I learned that HP has started a development program to produce a TCPA-compliant version of GNU/linux. I couldn't figure out how they planned to make money out of this. On Thursday, at the Open Source Software Economics conference, I figured out how they might.

      Making a TCPA-compliant version of GNU/linux (or Apache, or whatever) will mean tidying up the code and removing whatever features conflict with the TCPA security policy. The company will then submit the pruned code to an evaluator, together with a mass of documentation for the work that's been done, including a whole lot of analyses showing, for example, that you can't get root by a buffer overflow.

      The business model, I believe, is this. HP will not dispute that the resulting `pruned code' is covered by the GPL. You will be able to download it, compile it, check it against the binary, and do what you like with it. However, to make it into TCPA-linux, to run it on a TCPA-enabled machine in privileged mode, you need more than the code. You need a valid signature on the binary, plus a cert to use the TCPA PKI. That will cost you money (if not at first, then eventually).

      Anyone will be free to make modifications to the pruned code, but in the absence of a signature the resulting O/S won't enable users to access TCPA features. It will of course be open to competitors to try to re-do the evaluation effort for enhanced versions of the pruned code, but that will cost money; six figures at least. There will likely be little motive for commercial competitors to do it, as HP will have the first mover advantages and will be able to undercut them on price. There will also be little incentive for philanthropists to do it, as the resulting product would not really be a GPL version of a TCPA operating system, but a proprietary operating system that the philanthropist could give away free.

    2. Re:Here's a simple one... by Planesdragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can use it to defeat the GPL.

      Oh, for crying out loud.

      The GPL was not, ever, ever, ever, meant to make it so buying software wasn't worthwhile. In fact, the situation outlined in the parent post is _an ideal business model_ for GPL'd software.

      You keep all of the rights the GPL was designed to preserve (distributing and re-working code you buy), and there's still something worthwhile for buying the software.

    3. Re:Here's a simple one... by kaisyain · · Score: 1

      How will HP be able to undercut them on price? HP has to pay for the cost of making those changes in the first place. Everyone else just has to pay for the evaluation. First mover advantages are often overrated.

    4. Re:Here's a simple one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That one has already been answered many, many times. The answer will probably again be the same: the use of the TCPA features is completely optional to the owner. Ofcourse you will get not different answer than this politically correct one.

      What is much more interesting: will it ever be possible for a Linux OS to get the status of "trusted OS", or is that only possible for Windows?
      There certainly are advantages to being a "trusted OS".

    5. Re:Here's a simple one... by ComputerSlicer23 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      No it's not about being free as in beer, however the GPL is supposed to give me code I can go tinker with, and change, and make it to my liking. Do bug fixes, and enhancements. Possible add bugs of my one. Having the one true binary that's signed kinda defeats the purpose. If I can't self sign the thing, then having the GPL'ed code is no good until I can get it signed.

      Unless the BIOS has a provision of the owner of the machine to add keys to accept as legitimate signatures or disable the signature checking, having software I can change is no good. Unless there's some way for the end user to say, look I own the machine, and I'm technically competent to verify the software I trust, let me run it the source code is relatively useless.

      If that mean's there's a dongle, switch or jumper that has to set up correctly, that's fine by me. Then RedHat and other major distributors can get there kernels certified and signed, and all of the other binaries out there. Then the masses can get trusted computing, and I can certify my own stuff as trusted.

      Kirby

    6. Re:Here's a simple one... by LMCBoy · · Score: 1

      That's fine as long as you are not a developer. If you are, then how are you supposed to work on the code on a TCPA-compliant system? As soon as you recompile, you have an unsigned binary.

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
    7. Re:Here's a simple one... by geekee · · Score: 2

      But if you tinker with the code, how do sw vendors providing secure media guarantee that you're not providing a compromised system? That's the point of signing the code.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    8. Re:Here's a simple one... by CyberKnet · · Score: 2

      It's not about the software vendor. It's about software released as GPL that is not able to be compiled/ran as provided.

      Merits and demerits of the GPL aside, I believe as it is worded that this would not be acceptable under that license...

      What it comes down to for me is that it's my computer. It's my hardware. I should get to decide what runs on it, not someone else. If I don't have a way to override what someone else thinks about what should run on my computer, then I'm voting with my wallet. I'm not going to buy hardware like that until it is the ONLY thing available.

      --
      Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
    9. Re:Here's a simple one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem, is that since M$ controls 99.9% of the desktop market, they can pretty much cajole all the ISP's to modify their user agreements to demand that you must maintain a "trusted" computing platform in order to remain an account in good standing.

      This means, than unless you want to relegate your Linux box to being unconnected (to the net) then you will be forced to use a "trusted" version of Linux (at least anywhere in the M$ dominated parts of the Earth).

      I never though I would consider moving to China, in order to *increase* my freedom :-(

    10. Re:Here's a simple one... by Stonent1 · · Score: 2

      You need a valid signature on the binary, plus a cert to use the TCPA PKI. That will cost you money (if not at first, then eventually).

      I guess you would need your special super-duper HP branded TCPA signature-makin' compiler to make these nice binaries.

    11. Re:Here's a simple one... by ComputerSlicer23 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I'll point out several things. First off, cryptographic signing the binaries doesn't mean the binaries are secure. It just means it's the binary that I have is one that someone who has access to the private key has signed as the one they have certified to run.

      That's it. It doesn't mean the software is secure. It does mean, that any joe user can't just run any old code they compile up. However, if they disable my ability to write shell scripts, they are screwed. SA's will not under any circumstance give up the ability to write quick little shell scripts. It'll never happen. They will vote with their wallet on that one.

      So when a security hole is found in the cryptographic software, they won't be able to just download new binaries to trojan my system. However, they can still just follow the flaw they have found in all the time. They can still script up various badnesses. They will still be able to do all variety of badness to me. They just can't put a trojan'ed version of SSH on my machine to get my passwords. Instead they will script up ssh to run out of gdb, and write the passwords in the clear out of gdb, and run as per normal. Hiding what is going on will be difficult because root kits will be more difficult to install. Now all they have to do is uninstall, the binary once they have the appropriate pieces of information to authenticate to your machine. Now they just authenticate like a normal user. They are in, and can poke around all they want.

      Signed binaries, only means your running binaries that you got from the vendor, that's it. It'll change how the cracks work, but it won't mean you don't get cracked. Trust me, given enough time and research a person can break into your machine using only the binaries RedHat or the Debian, or whatever vendor you use. I'll still be able to ship off your private data, I'll still be able to deface your web site. I'll still be able to compromise the CGI's. Oh wait, are you saying I've got to get the CGI's certified too. That'll never happen. Not in a million zillion years. Internal busniess processes move to fast to do that.

      Signed binaries are no silver bullet. The best they can do is refuse to sign them until a full audit has happened. You don't need signed binaries for that, only install things that have had a full audit, and it's just as good security for the initial break-in. Once the intial break in happens, that's about monitoring for odd behavior, which again has nothing to do with signed binaries. Of course don't get too pissed off, if you don't get a shell with your new Linux distro.

      On certain binaries, it would be nice to enforce the signatures on, like standard libraries, and the kernel. However, most people use tripwire to do that things like that. Maybe the ability for RPM's to carry around the signatures of the files they installed, then verify those signatures after the fact using read-only bootable media, with the RPM signatures on it.

      Signed binaries are a good thing, but I don't see them as the end all be all of security. I don't see them as a useful tool, because they will just get in the way anyplace where you release binaries on a regular basis like I do where I work. If the signed binaries don't, they they aren't providing the security that I hear advertised for them.

      Kirby

    12. Re:Here's a simple one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      > Unless there's some way for the end user to say, look I
      > own the machine, and I'm technically competent to
      > verify the software I trust, let me run it the
      > source code is relatively useless.

      You miss the point. The "trust" involved in the Trusted Computing Platform is not you trusting the software, it is content vendors (RIAA, MPAA, etc.) trusting that the software running on the computer won't let you do things they don't want you to do with the content you've bought from them.

      That's why you will not be able to sign your own Linux kernel, for example. You might have added code to present an MP3 encoder in place of the audio card driver...

    13. Re:Here's a simple one... by AxelTorvalds · · Score: 2
      Or rather, what hardware is disabled if you don't have an authenticating OS?

      I don't mind if they build that stuff into a BIOS unless I'm not going to be able to use my hardware under GNU/Linux.

    14. Re:Here's a simple one... by Blingin'+AMD · · Score: 1

      The GPL was probably never MEANT to make buying software not-worth-your-while, but if you can download Linux and tweak it to your taste, wouldn't that defeat the purpose of buying something that may or may not be what fits your style?

      --
      Now watch this drive.
    15. Re:Here's a simple one... by Panoramix · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The problem, is that since M$ controls 99.9% of the desktop market, they can pretty much cajole all the ISP's to modify their user agreements to demand that you must maintain a "trusted" computing platform in order to remain an account in good standing.

      Hear, hear.

      This, IMO, is the core of Microsoft's evil plan. I will even dare to say that, as much as I am interested in theis AMI guy's answers, his company is not the one with for the plan --they are merely dragged into it, and I think they can't do squat about it. You will get no relief from him.

      See, I really don't think AMI, or any BIOS manufacturer, will ever make one that plainly refuses to boot a bootloader because it lacks a signature from a CA it trusts. That opens a class vulnerability in the scheme (a single CA key is compromised and you lose the whole system). Also, it is just too bloody obvious to the EFF and the likes. And it is unnecessary for the evil plan to succeed. The BIOS will always boot whatever you ask it to boot. I'm ready to take a bet on that. That is not the problem.

      The problem is, the BIOS will checksum the bootloader, and store that checksum in a safe place. Furthermore, the BIOS will provide, to any program that asks for it, be it "trusted" or not, that hash, cryptographically signed with the BIOS key (btw the only key that has to reside in the BIOS, and you can bet it will be hardcoded in the silicon, not overridable). From that point on, you can build "trusted" data delivery paths entirely in software.

      Here's an example: Say, you want to watch a movie trailer. So your browser connects to Universal Pictures' server, which demands cryptographic proof that it can "trust" your computer. So your media player software obtains that proof from the OS, and delivers it. What the OS delivers the hash of the media player, signed with the OS key. To guarantee the integrity of the OS, it includes the OS' hash, signed by the bootloader. To guarantee the bootloader's integrity, it includes the bootloader's hash, signed by the BIOS. Voilá, you have crypto proof that your entire system is kosher. Universal's server has only to verify that the BIOS's key is trustable, which they can do by checking it against AMI, or whatever. If that key is compromised (e.g., you crack the key of your BIOS), then they have a problem with a single individual, not a class compromise.

      But the point is: you have NO say on which keys are trustable or not, because the verifying is not done by you. It is done by Universal. The best you can do is not buy Universal.

      But now imagine this thread's scenario: your ISP is the one that requires proof of "trustability" before letting you connect. You will have to either (1) make your ISP include your OS's key in their trust list, or (2) switch to Windows, or (3) switch to another ISP that does not require this. But you will have option (3) for just some time: just picture the logical progression of this. Extend to almost everything else: online banking, electronic commerce, fucking email! You have MS Internet[TM], what Bill has always wanted.

      And you can bet it will be eagerly adopted by banks, media companies, and the likes, because it is the single scheme that allows them to "protect" their data against their own customers. And all the time we will be scratching our own heads, wondering how we let that happen, if we, after all, successfully coerced AMI into not making a BIOS that refuses to boot Linux.

      This is pure, concentrated evil. I stand in awe of Microsoft. I'm very, very concerned about this.

    16. Re:Here's a simple one... by Planesdragon · · Score: 2

      If you are, then how are you supposed to work on the code on a TCPA-compliant system?

      You're not. You're supposed to work on a development box, that doesn't have to do things like handle movie clips or music files or porn.

      If you're a professional ("day job"), you should focus. If you're an amateur, focusing can still help you.

      And, of course, even if you can't have a second "trusted" system, it shouldn't be that bloddy hard to have a "trusted" and a "development" install of the same program...

    17. Re:Here's a simple one... by The+Analog+Kid · · Score: 1

      Then wouldn't that just defeat the purpose of TCPA, we can all just get developer boxs, and what operating system would you use? Windows, but wouldn't that be Pallidium enabled?

    18. Re:Here's a simple one... by Planesdragon · · Score: 2

      Then wouldn't that just defeat the purpose of TCPA, we can all just get developer boxs

      No. Trusted Computing means that the computer is trusted by a content distributor to handle their files. You don't need to download metallica from RIAAster to test to make sure that your custom MP3 player works.

      A "developer box" would be one that's untrusted, and doesn't bother to be tested because it's being changed so much. Just like development boxes in real software shops are.

    19. Re:Here's a simple one... by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 2

      And you can bet it will be eagerly adopted by banks, media companies, and the likes, because it is the single scheme that allows them to "protect" their data against their own customers.

      And it is exactly these issues of ownership and control which have driven the open source movement this far. I do not have a lot of faith in the average persons ability to recognize the importance of this issue. What I do have faith in is peoples' greed. The media companies will not stop at requiring an OS to be "trusted". If they did, OSS users would be utterly screwed. Once they have 80% or 95% of users under their umbrella, they will begin looking at other restrictions which are less appealing to consumers. Very quickly, the issues of ownership and control will become highly relevant to the average person, and they will (hopefully, if we do our job) have a choice. Provided we stick to our beliefs, there will be an alternate world : the free world. Where your digital media can be copied, edited, and redistributed entirely at your discression. The free world may never be as flashy as the DRM-whatever world, but a flashy prison is a prison nonetheless, and people will recognize this.

      The greed and arrogance of media companies will be enough to turn people against DRM, although it may take a while. We need to stick to our principles, to ensure that when the time comes there is a free world for people to choose. I'm in for the long haul, how about everyone else ?

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    20. Re:Here's a simple one... by Panoramix · · Score: 2
      The greed and arrogance of media companies will be enough to turn people against DRM, although it may take a while. We need to stick to our principles, to ensure that when the time comes there is a free world for people to choose. I'm in for the long haul, how about everyone else ?

      Very well put, sir. Of course I'm in. I won't bend over for those greedy pieces of shit, not even drunk and stoned. And I'm sure that many others will never take this neither, even if that means starting over and building everything again, from scratch, from the personal computer to the Internet (which may well be the case: If this nonsense gets entrenched too much, chances are we'll have to build our own computers and networks to bypass it).

      Anyway, I'm very glad I read your post. I'm starting to believe that there is no other way of fighting this DRM crap. And yours is precisely the attitude I hope the OSS community will take: focus on building a free world, not wasting time fighting a war that can't be won. I will be happy to participate.

      (It's just that, considering what a setback this would be for OSS, the 'net and everything, this is kind of annoying, isn't it?)

    21. Re:Here's a simple one... by MrResistor · · Score: 2

      Here's an example: Say, you want to watch a movie trailer. So your browser connects to Universal Pictures' server, which demands cryptographic proof that it can "trust" your computer. So your media player software obtains that proof from the OS, and delivers it. What the OS delivers the hash of the media player, signed with the OS key. To guarantee the integrity of the OS, it includes the OS' hash, signed by the bootloader. To guarantee the bootloader's integrity, it includes the bootloader's hash, signed by the BIOS. Voilá, you have crypto proof that your entire system is kosher. Universal's server has only to verify that the BIOS's key is trustable, which they can do by checking it against AMI, or whatever. If that key is compromised (e.g., you crack the key of your BIOS), then they have a problem with a single individual, not a class compromise.

      So, what's stopping me, a Linux user, from getting a Windows bootloader checksum and a Windows Media Player hash and telling Mozilla (which of course appears to be IE to the outside viewer) to provide those when Universal asks?

      ALL hardware can be emulated in software, and there is no way for Universal to prove that I haven't done that without sending jackbooted thugs to bust into my house and tear my system apart.

      Hardware based crypto is all well and good, but no outside application has a direct line to my hardware. It MUST go through my OS first, and I control that. Therefore my hardware is whatever I tell my OS to say it is. Problem solved.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    22. Re:Here's a simple one... by Hentai · · Score: 2

      ALL hardware can be emulated in software, and there is no way for Universal to prove that I haven't done that without sending jackbooted thugs to bust into my house and tear my system apart.

      And, thanks to the DMCA, they can do just that!

      --
      -Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
    23. Re:Here's a simple one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there is any hope, it

      A) ... lies with the proles!
      B) ... lies with red communist China!
      C) ... lies with global anti-american sentiment.

      Um, the fate of freedom is
      in strange hands, indeed.

    24. Re:Here's a simple one... by Panoramix · · Score: 2
      So, what's stopping me, a Linux user, from getting a Windows bootloader checksum and a Windows Media Player hash and telling Mozilla (which of course appears to be IE to the outside viewer) to provide those when Universal asks?

      A simple "nonce" in Universal's request. You know, a timestamp, a serial number, a random cookie, which is part of both the request and the response. That's the usual protection for replay attacks, which is what you are proposing (saving the real Windows hash for replaying it over and over from your Linux machine).

      ALL hardware can be emulated in software, and there is no way for Universal to prove that I haven't done that without sending jackbooted thugs to bust into my house and tear my system apart.

      Ah, yes. But the problem is the key, deeply embedded in the chip. You certainly can emulate the BIOS' signed-hash generation in software. But without the right key the emulation is useless. And you can probably forget about getting a good key from the warez kids: the key can very well be different for every chip, and it is not accessible without tearing the chip apart and doing some nano-surgery on it. Which is, of course, quite over our current capabilities. Yours and mine, at least.

      Hardware based crypto is all well and good, but no outside application has a direct line to my hardware. It MUST go through my OS first, and I control that. Therefore my hardware is whatever I tell my OS to say it is. Problem solved.

      You have not yet understood the problem. Think about it a little more. It REALLY does allow Universal, or anyone for that matter, to prove that you have, or haven't, done funny things with your computer, without sending jackbooted thugs to bust into your house and tear your system apart. You'll be amazed, and probably a bit more worried, once you grasp it.

    25. Re:Here's a simple one... by geekee · · Score: 1

      No one's saying you can't run any software you want on drm enabled systems. You just won't be able to decrypt drm protected files unless the drm file provider trusts the software you're running.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
  3. TCPA and the future by program21 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Ok, so this is going to be a couple of questions, feel free to pick and choose.

    What sort of future do you see for TCPA? Do you see it as inevitable, or is it just a fad thing that will pass?

    Assuming it does catch on, what form do you see it taking? What we all fear (only signed apps will run, non-signed apps can't access system data/data from signed apps), or some lesser form?

    --
    This has been a test. Had this been a real emergency, we would have fled in terror and you would not have been informed.
    1. Re:TCPA and the future by Threed · · Score: 2

      Do you think this salesman (engineer or not) is going to say "My company's latest product is sure not to catch on, it should fizzle and die in a few months." As if he'd be allowed to speak at all if his answers to those questions weren't fully in sync with the party line.

      I understand the sentiment, but the mod points probably could have gone to better use.

    2. Re:TCPA and the future by Jeddawg · · Score: 1

      I've got a question along the same lines: Why even _have_ TCPA? Why should computing be trusted? You get into your car and drive to work every day without the benefit of ANY trust relationship (let alone a hardware/BIOS-enforced one) with the other drivers on the road. Why on earth should computing be any different? Why is computing somehow this hallowed Holy Grail in which every machine must trust every other machine and every other piece of code out there? It doesn't model the real world!

    3. Re:TCPA and the future by qqtortqq · · Score: 2

      Its called a license. A driver's license. The central controlling authority who issues these licenses is your state's department of motor vehicles.

  4. So what are the differences ... by Alien54 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Okay. So what precisely are the differences between Palladium and your product, and what assurance do we have that it will not act as crippling ware for open source and other similar free (as in free speech) software endevors? Any thoughts on backward compatibility modes?

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  5. TCPA & Palladium by ignipotentis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Perhaps you can clarify the differences between the two (TCPA & Palladium). After reading up on both of them, i still find that they seem to be pretty much the same, just marketed differently.

    --
    Don't waste time... procrastinate now!
    1. Re:TCPA & Palladium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      TCPA is a platform for trusted computing whereas Palladium is a software by MS that sits on top of TCPA.
      More here

  6. Something in everyone's mind by forged · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Will it be possible to disable on future motherboards which will implement DRM techniques ?

    1. Re:Something in everyone's mind by Koos+Baster · · Score: 2

      Erm. Restate/elaborate that as:

      Will it be possible to disable <insert DRM feature> with absolute transparancy to essentially all of the networked community and services on future motherboards which will implement DRM techniques ?

      Obviously, the answer is no, if "the networked community and services" are to include future trusted parties enabled. Therefore, AMI is fundamentally supporting Palladium, thus Microsoft, to dominate future web contents and infrastructure.

      Period.

    2. Re:Something in everyone's mind by binaryDigit · · Score: 2

      Well, two answers right? Either a flat NO, since turning it off could negate the usefullness of having it to being with.
      br. OR, yes, but anything that expects to have it on won't run. Which for many might be a reasonable alternative.

    3. Re:Something in everyone's mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure the answer is no, otherwise 'untrusted' software could disable the functionality and run. I'm so glad I can trust companies such as HP and Microsoft.

    4. Re:Something in everyone's mind by geekee · · Score: 2

      "Therefore, AMI is fundamentally supporting Palladium, thus Microsoft, to dominate future web contents and infrastructure."

      I believe that will be left up to the consumer, as it should.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    5. Re:Something in everyone's mind by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      No. It will be left up to which side can pay congress the most money.

    6. Re:Something in everyone's mind by SpaceJunkie · · Score: 1

      Im not about left up to the consumer. Unwashed Joe does not understand DRM, nor Palladium, nor TCPA. So he will buy whatever motherboard has the most marketing hype. A roll out of TCPA enabled devices, along with a rapid phase out of non-TCPA devices would give the consumer little or no choice... I can think of a few examples of this happening before...

      --
      OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
    7. Re:Something in everyone's mind by geekee · · Score: 1

      So you want to take away Unwashed Joe's freedom because you think you know better.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    8. Re:Something in everyone's mind by SpaceJunkie · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand me- I dont WANT this at all- in any way shape or form. I personally think DRM, TCPA and palladium is a dark form of digital martial law. But what I have said is what will happen - like it or not... I will personally fight TCPA, palladium and any form or DRM all the way....

      --
      OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
  7. "Trusted" computer by michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A few related questions:

    a) Isn't the goal of "trusted computing" to allow entities other than the owner of the computer to control what the owner does with his/her hardware? For example, "trusted computing" applied to music implies that the music publisher gains control over what the computer owner can do with the music data files. Isn't this the exact opposite of "trust" as that word is normally used - a trusted computer is one that can't be trusted by the computer's owner to perform the tasks asked of it, because other entities have veto power over the computer's actions?

    b) Companies like AMI have repeatedly claimed that they aren't part of Palladium. However, isn't it true that without AMI's trusted BIOS (and all the other components necessary to build a "trusted computer"), Palladium wouldn't work? Why does AMI think they shouldn't be held responsible for enabling Palladium and similar schemes?

    c) In what way does AMI benefit, financially or otherwise, from introducing a BIOS designed to make the computer it is installed in less useful to the purchaser of the computer? Please avoid saying that this is "optional"; AMI wouldn't create this BIOS if it wasn't intended to be used.

    d) What is a "sales engineer"? Is your job primarily public relations, or primarily engineering, or primarily product sales?

    1. Re:"Trusted" computer by Alien54 · · Score: 2
      What is a "sales engineer"? Is your job primarily public relations, or primarily engineering, or primarily product sales?

      Basically a 'sales engineer' is a salesman with a technical background so that they can talk intelligently about the product without looking like a pointy haired manager. sometimes an ex-geek.

      --
      "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    2. Re:"Trusted" computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...isn't it true that without AMI's trusted BIOS ..., Palladium wouldn't work? Why does AMI think they shouldn't be held responsible for enabling Palladium and similar schemes?

      That might be the stupidest question ever. It is the same thing as asking whether gun manufacturers are responsible for murders. They may be producing something that enables Palladium but they feel it call also be used for other, in the opinion, worthwhile purposes.

    3. Re:"Trusted" computer by Mitreya · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Isn't this the exact opposite of "trust" as that word is normally used -

      YES!
      And here is the explanation that must be quoted again and again until we all know it (quoted from http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html)

      24. So why is this called `Trusted Computing'? I don't see why I should trust it at all!

      It's almost an in-joke. In the US Department of Defense, a `trusted system or component' is defined as `one which can break the security policy'. This might seem counter-intuitive at first, but just stop to think about it. The mail guard or firewall that stands between a Secret and a Top Secret system can - if it fails - break the security policy that mail should only ever flow from Secret to Top Secret, but never in the other direction. It is therefore trusted to enforce the information flow policy.

      Or take a civilian example: suppose you trust your doctor to keep your medical records private. This means that he has access to your records, so he could leak them to the press if he were careless or malicious. You don't trust me to keep your medical records, because I don't have them; regardless of whether I like you or hate you, I can't do anything to affect your policy that your medical records should be confidential. Your doctor can, though; and the fact that he is in a position to harm you is really what is meant (at a system level) when you say that you trust him. You may have a warm feeling about him, or you may just have to trust him because he is the only doctor on the island where you live; no matter, the DoD definition strips away these fuzzy, emotional aspects of `trust' (that can confuse people).

      Remember during the late 1990s, as people debated government control over cryptography, Al Gore proposed a `Trusted Third Party' - a service that would keep a copy of your decryption key safe, just in case you (or the FBI, or the NSA) ever needed it. The name was derided as the sort of marketing exercise that saw the Russian colony of East Germany called a `Democratic Republic'. But it really does chime with DoD thinking. A Trusted Third Party is a third party that can break your security policy.

      25. So a `Trusted Computer' is one that can break my security?

      Now you've got it.

    4. Re:"Trusted" computer by radish · · Score: 4, Funny

      But surely that means we already have Trusted Computing? Windows (and other software) has shown itself to be vulnerable to many attacks which would breach my personal security (e.g. by mailing out my private documents to random people). Seeing as my machine is capable of breaching my security, that means it's trusted. Windows is already Trusted, Linux is Trusted, IIS is very Trusted ;)

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    5. Re:"Trusted" computer by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Informative

      Something is trusted when it is put in a position where if it screws up, bad can things happen.

      Something is trustworthy when it is thought to not be likely to screw up when it is trusted to do something.

      So, when you put up your organization's website on an unpatched IIS server, that computer is trusted to serve that set of pages and not all the pages to be changed by anybody other than those people trusted enough to be authorized to do so.

      However, since an unpatched IIS server has security holes that allow for the site to be either taken offline, or replaced with an undesired site, that unpatched IIS server is not trustworthy... which means it's not a good idea to put an unpatched IIS server in a trusted position. If you do, it's very possible the unpatched IIS server might fail to live up to its responsiblites, causing the bad things you didn't want to happen.

      Likewise, any of the trusted people might go crazy and decide to use their password to walk right in the front door and tear the site apart. This is why its important that you select trustworthy people, and as few people as possible, to hold that password.

    6. Re:"Trusted" computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey- just because YOU want to steal that copyrighted gay pr0n doesnt mean we are together. Don't lump me in with the rest of you pasty-white thieves...

    7. Re:"Trusted" computer by geekee · · Score: 2

      "b) Companies like AMI have repeatedly claimed that they aren't part of Palladium. However, isn't it true that without AMI's trusted BIOS (and all the other components necessary to build a "trusted computer"), Palladium wouldn't work? Why does AMI think they shouldn't be held responsible for enabling Palladium and similar schemes?"

      I would say DRM allows copyrighted material to be sold digitally, which would otherwise be remanded to the "old business model" that everybody on slashdot bitches about. Therefore, claiming DRM makes your computer less useful is flawed. At the very least is does nothing less than a non- DRM computer if you choose not to use DRM content.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    8. Re:"Trusted" computer by Gerry+Gleason · · Score: 2
      It seems like you are deriding the way this language is being used, but it really does make sense. The idea is that you only need to trust a person, company or system if that entity has the access, authority and control to compromise system security. The trust comes in because you have to be able to trust the entities that actually have the power to break that trust.

      We understand this implicitely in the kernel/user space distinction. Kernel programs and drivers are trusted not to do bad things to kernel memory because they can (usually by mistake).

      The problem as I see it with the whole TCPA concept, is that the trust required is too extensive. As a practical matter, we could try to create versions of Linux that follow this standard, but because in principle, any kernel driver could snoop and interfere with any other kernel function. The only way to make guarantees is to outlaw the running of any modified drivers, and the ability to make changes is exactly why we wanted Linux in the first place.

      Does anyone see any value in TCPA for Linux? Distributions could implement TCPA functions based on signing keys and key databases that are sourced from the distribution vendors. I think this could have some value in securing the platform, but in a way it is very indirect.

    9. Re:"Trusted" computer by baldyman · · Score: 1

      The passage goes to great lengths to define 'trusted' as a necessary link in the chain of security, then takes a cheap shot in the last sentence completely ignoring what has just been said.
      In the sense of trusted which is being talked about here a 'trusted computer' would be one which could break the security of the entity trusting it i.e. the content-providers selling you 'secure content' NOT the owner of the computer itsef.

    10. Re:"Trusted" computer by dextr0us · · Score: 1

      I'm absolutley sure that your post will get answered. I mean, its not harsh at all, and interviewees love answering questions that make accusations and seem to come from a bad place.

      If you want to get questions answered in the real world, try using a couple of techniques. If you want to ask a question that seems like its harsh, make it seem like you're not asking it. Say something like "what do you say to your critics that say Why does AMI think they shouldn't be held responsible for enabling Palladium and similar schemes?" that is the exact same question, but more people would answer it.

      Just trying to give you some ideas so that you get the answers you crave without pissing people off.

      --
      "Martha Stewart can lick my Scrotum......do i have a scrotum?" -- Sharon Osbourne
    11. Re:"Trusted" computer by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      It is the same thing as asking whether gun manufacturers are responsible for murders. They may be producing something that enables Palladium but they feel it call also be used for other, in the opinion, worthwhile purposes.

      This is an unfair comparison, in my opinion. Guns have many uses besides unlawful murder, such as self-protection, hunting, police, military, etc.

      I think a better comparison is tobacco companies being responsible for smokers' lung cancer. Tobacco has only one use: to smoke it. Smoking it causes adverse health effects. Tobacco companies can't claim that they sold tobacco with the intention of it being used for things other than smoking, and if used properly wouldn't cause adverse health effects.

      TCPA is the same way. What possible use could it have other than to reduce the functionality of a user's computer, and remove the user's control over their own system?

    12. Re:"Trusted" computer by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but your comparision is flawed too. People seek out and buy tobacco products because they want them.

      This will likely be slipped in without informed consent of the user, something that is nearly impossible to argue for tobacco use.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    13. Re:"Trusted" computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eehm isn't murder always unlawful ? And I think it is a perfect comparison. The sole purpose of a gun is to injure or kill people. That a gun might have uses that can be considered acceptable in some situations doesn't change this.

    14. Re:"Trusted" computer by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Offtopic

      One could argue that war is state-sanctioned murder. As is a firing squad.

      Guns do things other than killing people. 1) Target shooting. 2) Shooting animals.

      If I were a gun owner, I would want to use my gun for lawful purposes, such as target shooting or home defense. I would not want to use it for murder. The gun is not taking anything away from me; instead, it's giving me extra capabilities.

      TCPA does not give me, the computer user, any new capabilities at all. Instead, it takes away capabilities, such as being able to access all the data on my system, convert data between formats, etc. It gives extra control of my data to media corporations, but this doesn't help me, the user, at all.

      The whole point of this argument was whether AMI could claim innocence by selling a TCPA-enabled BIOS, using the argument that it allows both good and bad uses. A baseball bat manufacturer can claim innocence because their bats are sold for the purpose of playing baseball, not cracking people's heads open. A gun manufacturer can claim the same, although their product is obviously much more dangerous, and is normally used for killing something (which is only a bad thing if it's a murder). A tobacco manufacturer, OTOH, cannot claim any innocence because their products are only used to harm people (even though their customers do buy the product willingly). Similarly, AMI's new product can only be used to harm their customers, and it's even worse than the tobacco companies because the customers don't want TCPA and never asked for it. They're only doing this in collusion with other anti-end-user companies like Microsoft and Intel, in order to possible increase their profits at the expense of freedom, and by providing something that customers never asked for.

      So by this analysis, AMI is even lower than the tobacco companies. Imagine that...

    15. Re:"Trusted" computer by radish · · Score: 2

      Oh please don't misunderstand, I understand the difference perfectly well, and I enjoyed the original explanation of the meaning of Trusted, very concise. What I was pointing out was that AMI et al are not promoting "Trustworthy Computing" but "Trusted Computing". I think we already have the latter, but REALLY need the former!

      Trusted Computing

      Not trustworthy :)

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    16. Re:"Trusted" computer by IronChef · · Score: 2

      d) What is a "sales engineer"? Is your job primarily public relations, or primarily engineering, or primarily product sales?

      I can actually answer that because I used to be one. A SE is a guy in the sales dept. who knows enough of the technical details to answer the customer's detailed, pointed questions, questions that the actual account executive (lead sales dude who isn't technical) can't handle. In many cases the SE will work with the client to develop a Solution as a hook to get them to Close the Deal. The SE is a sales team resource though, not the deal closer. In my experience anyway.

      Ideally the SE IS an engineer by training, but sometimes they are clueful non-engineers. (that was me.) Sales Engineers are sometimes called Systems Engineers too, though that term has other meanings as well.

      Whatever it stands for, SE is a difficult job that requires a certain "moral flexibility" unless you truly belive in your product, like any other sales, I guess. And since I was selling Vignette, I didn't believe in the product. ;)

    17. Re:"Trusted" computer by Twilight1 · · Score: 1

      Copyrighted material can already (and is) sold digitally. DRM simply allows the "old business model" to be applied to a new, digital medium.

      Copying a piece of copyrighted work for purposes other than personal fair use (which is an argument in of itself) is already illegal. I don't see the logic in making something "more illegal" when it already is illegal, or that it would help improve that situation. Adding DRM on top of copyright laws is redundant... unless of course, you are wanting to use DRM to enforce something other than copyright laws.

      - Twilight1

    18. Re:"Trusted" computer by Maso · · Score: 1

      When Buffy is only available in Palladium signed formats, the kiddies will seek it out as well.

    19. Re:"Trusted" computer by SpaceJunkie · · Score: 1

      Surely the better way of trusted - is a platform I trust. By installing an app, an MD5 sig is created and the encrypted. I will be requested if I trust this app. If I do, it will be installed- fine, and the sig will be created from the binaries it uses. THis then means if the program changes - when it will be sig checked before execution - the system can alert me immediately.

      But this is not about ME trusting MY computer, or ME trusting MS (Which I most assuredly do not), but about RIAA trusting MY computer not to play MP3's. Thats what this is all about. Where open source can fit in this mess confuses me - as how can an external organisation control a system to which you have the ssource to build the kernel.

      Trust me - we do not want TCPA any more than PALLADIUM - and I shall fight it on the beaches....

      --
      OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
  8. microsoft OS spin by ywwg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    currently if you try to install vendor drivers on windows, the OS tells you things like "are you sure you want to use these untested third-party drivers, which will no doubt ruin your computer because you're a bad boy for not using windows." Can you assure us that linux, bsd, and all other "alternative" operating systems will be treated as _equals_ of microsoft products? Can you assure us that there will be no preferential treatment for any os, and that there won't be any "are you really sure?" messages?

    1. Re:microsoft OS spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      currently if you try to install vendor drivers on windows, the OS tells you things like "are you sure you want to use these untested third-party drivers, which will no doubt ruin your computer because you're a bad boy for not using windows."

      What the hell are you babbling about? Did you read what you wrote? If you are installing Windows drivers why would it say anything about not using Windows. And I very rarely see that message. Only when you are installing beta unsigned drivers does that pop up and it is just to make sure you realize what you are doing. It isn't about Microsoft trying to control your machine. They just know that idiots like you will blame Microsoft when your machine crashes because of some crappy untested driver.

    2. Re:microsoft OS spin by Mitreya · · Score: 1
      Can you assure us that linux, bsd, and all other "alternative" operating systems will be treated as _equals_ of microsoft products? Can you assure us that there will be no preferential treatment for any os, and that there won't be any "are you really sure?" messages?

      I think you're asking the wrong questions. I am just paranoid of course, but there *will be* preferential treatment. There *will be* "are you really sure?" messages. There is no doubt in my mind (and that is why this technology should never see the light of the day)

      It is a question of how many (1 or 20) "are you sure messages" you will see and whether you will ultimately be able to run your OS at all...

    3. Re:microsoft OS spin by fitsnips · · Score: 0

      Actully its about money! All that warning means is that the vedor decided not to pay the extorsion fee to run their software in the Windows neighborhood(or OS to make it clear to you). Get a clue. The code could be great, but unless MS gives its high priced blessing you get the warning.

      --
      I am a republican not by choice, but rather by lack there of.
    4. Re:microsoft OS spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It isn't about Microsoft trying to control your machine.

      You're right. It's about Microsoft trying to control the vendors. It lets Microsoft dictate the conditions under which the vendor's drivers will be signed. If the vendor helps develop a Linux driver for their hardware, it may take six weeks or so before Microsoft signs their latest security patch.

  9. Licensing by Arc04 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Will OS manufacturers have to pay to get an "unlock code" that allows them to run their OS on the BIOS.

    That would be terrible as it would kill many under funded open source OSes that aren't as big as the Linux big players.

    Arc

    1. Re:Licensing by LostCluster · · Score: 2

      Couldn't the underfunded OS makers just insist that their operating system is only for use on "non-DRM" hardware? So long as that still exists on the market, all is well...

    2. Re:Licensing by Windcatcher · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Here's a better one: will software vendors (either open-source or not) have to pay a license fee to be able to decrypt data files from competing products? What if you want to move your documents from Windows+MSOffice to Linux+StarOffice? Surely Office would use TCPA to encrypt the files.

      Gasp! MS would never do something as low as that!

  10. Interview??? by wonkamaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I suppose that I like reading Slashdot interviews as much as the next person, but I must ask myself "Why?" Wouldn't it be simpler to just post corrections to what was he considers misleading and/or post AMI's offical stance on Palladium?

  11. On the Exclusionary Uses of TCPA by the-banker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is it (will it be) possible to use TCPA to effectively lock-out certain operating evironments from various services (software, media, etc) solely because the operating environment is not backed by a company, and has no mechanism for paying certification fees and licenses? Specifically, could TCPA be used against free OS's like Free/Open/netBSD and Linux to prevent those users from accessing the same content users of commercial OS's can?

    1. Re:On the Exclusionary Uses of TCPA by Mitreya · · Score: 2

      I might be misunderstanding the issue, but... isn't this lock-out the purpose of TCPA?
      Let me rephrase my question: provided that TCPA does not discriminate against any services, and does not distinguish between those that own some paid licences and those that don't... what ELSE can it be used for?

    2. Re:On the Exclusionary Uses of TCPA by Jack+Va1enti · · Score: 0

      Given Microsoft's tendency to explicitly block "alternative" web browsers from its web based services (e.g. Hotmail, Windows Update), I would see it as mere continuation of that behavior to block non Pd-enabled machines from future services.

  12. Customization support? by ryanr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I actually think this feature could be useful, if done "right". Along the lines of my idea of right... will I be able to, say, install my own set of public keys in the BIOS so that I can have a system that will only boot the software that I have signed?

    1. Re:Customization support? by Skjellifetti · · Score: 1, Redundant

      I have mod points, but this ? is aleady at 5. It is also the most important question to ask. I am not terribly worried about TCPA as long as I can install my own keys into the BIOS and sign my own os and other software. A proprietary DRM system could still refuse to run content based on those keys and I really wouldn't care too much. But if I am prevented from telling the BIOS which keys are legit and must have my OS signed by some outside TCPA key authority in order to have access to the TCPA features of my motherboard, then I am going to be very, very pissed off about TCPA!

      --
      FreeSpeech.org
    2. Re:Customization support? by iamcadaver · · Score: 2

      +1 The above question MUST be asked.

      Also, will it prevent the flashing of the BIOS proper?

      --
      Before I part with'em: two pennies weigh ~4.996+/-0.014g, have a zinc core, and the face of Lincoln. You can keep 'em.
    3. Re:Customization support? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2
      ...two pennies weigh ~4.996±0.014g, have a zinc core, and the face of Lincoln.

      I miss the old 3.11g, 95% Cu, 5% Zn, 1982-and-earlier pennies...did you know that the new and old pennies sound different when dropped on a hard surface? The old ones 'ring out' better (clearer high harmonics). You can tell them apart without looking!

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    4. Re:Customization support? by iamcadaver · · Score: 2

      Whoa, sounds like a whole paperclip difference in weight too. I think the old ones spin better, too.

      --
      Before I part with'em: two pennies weigh ~4.996+/-0.014g, have a zinc core, and the face of Lincoln. You can keep 'em.
    5. Re:Customization support? by Alsee · · Score: 2

      I actually think this feature could be useful, if done "right"... so that I can have a system that will only boot the software that I have signed?

      That is one of the lies supporting TCPA/Palladium. Yes, it probably could help do that. It is a lie because because it would be almost trivial for a BIOS and/or operating system to implement that WITHOUT TCPA/Palladium.

      The ONLY time you ever need TCPA/Palladium to implement something is when you want to take control away from the owner of the computer.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    6. Re:Customization support? by ctr2sprt · · Score: 2
      Yeah, and you could implement a coarse kind of protected mode without all the CPU hardware to support it. But it's harder to do, and it's better when you have a two-tier approach where both the hardware and the software act as security barriers.

      I'm not saying your point is without merit, but remember that the best security policies are built like onions, with many layers of redundant protection. Some of the features that are being talked about for the "Trusted Computing" initiative could be a useful and important part of a complete security policy (though I doubt their utility for Joe Desktop).

    7. Re:Customization support? by jbolden · · Score: 2

      No you couldn't implemented trusted computing without a hardware component. A program can't tell if there is a debugger running or not. It can't tell if its being emulated. Without trusted hardware the fact that windows media player can decrypt a file means that the person who owns the computer can decrypt the file.

    8. Re:Customization support? by Alsee · · Score: 2

      No you couldn't implemented trusted computing without a hardware component.

      I never said you could implemnt "trusted computing". I said you could implement the feature the parent poster asked about - namely only allowing signed files to be run where the owner of the computer does the signing.

      ANY "trusted computing" feature that helps the OWNER of the computer can be done without special hardware or TCPA or Palladium. TCPA and Palladium are NOT for the benefit of the owner of the computer.
      You only need hardware and "trusted computing" when what you want to do is put a pair of hancuffs on the OWNER of the computer. These systems cripple the computer and restrict the owner. They do it solely for the benefit of the companies like the RIAA and MPAA and Microsoft.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  13. Do you think Palladium is a good thing? by Noryungi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As the title says:

    Do you think Palladium is a good thing? Whether your answer is "yes" or "no", please explain.

    Knowing that Palladium is a Microsoft Technology, do you think AMI is making a smart move by adopting it? Again, please explain your position.

    Are you afraid that Microsoft may use its position to control, not just 90% of the software used on PC, but also the overall architecture of modern machines?

    Many thanks in advance.

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    1. Re:Do you think Palladium is a good thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ....not just 90% of the software used on PC, but also the overall architecture of modern machines?


      Do you think they don't already? M$ can readily decide if an architecture lives or dies. Despite the recent blurb on HP figuring out how to squelch the fact that new Alpha boxes are fast, M$ basically killed that arch years ago. How much has the fact the M$ hasn't jumped on the Itanic luxury liner really hard hurt the Intel cruise ship line? If M$ had pushed Itanium do you really think AMD Hammer would every have seen silicon? Let's face it, reducing the variance in HW is a way to for M$ to control its bottom line. They are built around the clunky ia32 and can only lose money if the world forces them to also support something better.
    2. Re:Do you think Palladium is a good thing? by LordNimon · · Score: 1
      Do you think Palladium is a good thing?

      You'll never get an honest answer to this question. If he answers no, he'll get fired..

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
  14. General TC question by j3110 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I actually like the concept of trusted computing quite a bit. So long as the user selects which code will be trusted, it has great potential for good. My question is, from your position, do you foresee trusted computing being more like web-browser applet signing applied in hardware (where the user can add and remove trust for certain companies) or more like the media industries idea (where the OS/hardware manufacturers select which code is trusted under penalty of DMCA)?

    --
    Karma Clown
    1. Re:General TC question by Mitreya · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I actually like the concept of trusted computing quite a bit.

      You clearly don't understand the use of word "trusted" here. read this. If you want to make it short, start from question #24.

      So long as the user selects which code will be trusted, it has great potential for good.

      We already have code signing and confirmation before installs. The problem is that users trust the WRONG programs. Either this will increase the number of "are you sure you want this" (not removing the problem of people making mistakes). Or, more likely, the selection of which code to trust will be relegated to BIOS/MS/etc... that would also be bad...

    2. Re:General TC question by j3110 · · Score: 2

      I just wanted him to define the word trusted to AMI pretty much. I have a pretty good idea of the difference between my use of the word trust, and the Media market's use of the word. :)

      Some users will trust the wrong programs, its inevitable. On the other hand, I think a lot of people wouldn't. To them, it would actually be useful. You don't not make a tooth brush because some people won't brush their teeth.

      What we don't have today is a "Run in sandbox" option. We really need a stricter way of defining what a program can do. Say you get an e-mail with a program attatched. It's supposed to sing and dance. You should have check boxes that will not ever let this program sing and dance again, let it sing, but not let it create a window, or let it dance, but not make noise. By no means should this program be allowed to open files or network connections. Of course you could have a dumbed down version for the not so smart that says "This program wants to open windows and play music, do you want to allow this?" Then with the virus code tries to open a file or network connection or try to talk to the mail program, it will say "This program is trying to use your email/internet connection/open files on your disk... Should I let it?" Most users I think would be ok with this. If not, at least it could be configured in the ID-10T mode where they trust someone else to verify if a program is safe. Say you set up a computer for grannie in idiot mode. She gets all her trust from your certification server, and when she needs to run something you or a buddy hasn't tested to be ok, then she calls you and you add it for her. No more viruses for grandma. Then when sites are verified, no more (or a lot less) porn for children. It's all around a good deal if it's implemented properly.

      --
      Karma Clown
    3. Re:General TC question by fitsnips · · Score: 0

      How do you feel about the built in nature of tracking every thing you do. It will no longer be a question of did you write this. It will be on Jan 13 2003 1200 hrs you wrote MS sucks to the file letter_to_jane, see its all right here signed with the digital key of your computer. The really fucked part is they dont have to get a warrent and come to your house, they have a built in back door. I am thinking it may be time to go back pen/papper.

      Think my boss would mind all had written code?

      --
      I am a republican not by choice, but rather by lack there of.
    4. Re:General TC question by Mitreya · · Score: 2
      Some users will trust the wrong programs, its inevitable. On the other hand, I think a lot of people wouldn't. To them, it would actually be useful.

      Do you really feel that there exists a group of people who are can chose which programs to trust and suffer only because they are not deciding who to trust? I don't understand how any BIOS support is different from simply signing the code... I thought only issues are that there are bugs in software or that people click yes without thinking.

      What we don't have today is a "Run in sandbox" option.

      We have all seen the "run in sandbox" option. It is called Java... I guess java applets to not present a serious threat to security, but they are so crippled as a result...

      No more viruses for grandma. Then when sites are verified, no more (or a lot less) porn for children.

      If you are talking about setting up a local certification server, that actually sounds like a cool idea ;). But you gotta be kidding about website verification... Website whitelisting is doomed. You would have to precertify each website your grandma wants to see?

    5. Re:General TC question by j3110 · · Score: 2

      Well... the hardware implementation is because there are bugs.

      Java isn't crippled(not SUN Java)... there are just a lot of crippled Java developers. All the really good Java programmers are working on the server side. What you have left are the people that just got their degree, and don't have a clue. Then the UI sucks, not because of the controls or interface, but because there is noone that can both program and design a UI. LUXOR (XUL for Java) is coming along, and may help this. Then there is Webstart(less broken every day) which will get rid of the run in a box problem, as well as it asks everytime the program needs more security and is required to be signed in order to have any security. It's a neat idea that will probably make it somewhere someday.

      Local certification servers will probably be a popular idea, mostly in coorperations. They will demand this once other signing is up.

      I'm not talking about whitelisting sites. It's more of a require digital signatures on sites in order for them to display thing. If they have a digital signature, then even search engines could have the signatures built into the query responses. Even responses to searches could be filtered based on the signature. They could fake the signature, but a search engine that did that would be blacklisted. (definately not whitelisted)

      There are a lot of sites, but this ensures that children can use the internet with parental supervision, and the end user knows with a degree of certainty that the site is authentic. Defaced sites probably wouldn't get signed. (pretty much just sign the HTML before it can be displayed, not stupid https that works on the connection instead of the content.. securing connections is stupid in comparison to securing the content. If credit cards had public keys, we sure wouldn't need https Get a public key from Visa for a Card, then with a smart card chip, you could ask the card for a verification number (signature of the biller's account number and ammount to transfer))

      It may not be feasible, but I guess the crypto-geek inside me would love to see encryption and signatures in places that they may not belong :) I think cryptographic monitors that require special glasses to read would be cool, but maybe I'm just a bit too paranoid or to easily excited by encryption.

      --
      Karma Clown
    6. Re:General TC question by autopr0n · · Score: 2

      We have all seen the "run in sandbox" option. It is called Java... I guess java applets to not present a serious threat to security, but they are so crippled as a result...

      Java applets were crippled by Microsoft, and mostly Netscape's crappy implementations, not by their sandbox. Java applets can access more resources if the user wants to allow it, and can even be restricted to spesific files and hosts for internet access.

      --
      autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  15. So it's not Palldium... by inerte · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But does your company have any plans to implement a "security measure" similar to Palladium?

    And what if Microsoft releases a software that needs it, won't AMI need to adopt it so it can run the "DRM features"?

    How will Linux, or any other "non-trusted" software run on your hardware?

    --
    Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
    1. Re:So it's not Palldium... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the best question asked so far. I'll rephrase it just to make sure that everybody caught it.

      If Microsoft creates a software that requires TCPA, but you (AMI) don't want to implement TCPA, will you do it anyway? There are certainly a lot of computer users in the world, and many of them sure do use Windows, but out of those, how many do you figure even know their computer has a BIOS? Are you willing to tie yourself to Microsoft for the market share and risk throwing away the more technologically knowledgeable section of your customers?

  16. Re:Ask him this: by mccalli · · Score: 1
    You know, this is probably the one time in my life that I'd actually like to see that question asked...

    Cheers,
    Ian

  17. Acronyms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Do you have any funny acronyms for AMIBIOS?

    1. Re:Acronyms by iapetus · · Score: 2

      With all the anti-Microsoft feeling that we're likely to see on this topic, and the pretension that so often accompanies it, might I suggest:

      Bias? Moi?

      --
      ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
      Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
    2. Re:Acronyms by radish · · Score: 1, Troll

      I think you mean anagram. AMIBIOS already is an acronym, and the only acronym OF it would be "A".

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    3. Re:Acronyms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It already is an acronym, fucktwit. You must mean anagram. Fucking stupid cocksucker.

    4. Re:Acronyms by radish · · Score: 1

      Hmmm yeah "Troll". I only correct english in order to stir up heated debate!

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    5. Re:Acronyms by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      Always many instructions before initializing operating system

  18. How can we confirm that NO BS is in your BIOSes by nenolod · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Are you going to release the source? Will the BIOS be auditable? Will the BIOS code contain some sort of monitoring code? Will the BIOS contain spyware? All of these questions are important... and how will we be able to confirm your answers to them?

    Can we really take the word of a conglomerate? Will you be able to ensure that what you are saying is accurate?

    Modern conglomerates usually misrepresent their products if they think it will generate more customers. How can we be sure that you wouldn't be doing this to us?

    1. Re:How can we confirm that NO BS is in your BIOSes by Mitreya · · Score: 5, Funny
      Will the BIOS code contain some sort of monitoring code?

      Only to catch terrorists...

      Will the BIOS contain spyware?

      Never! It will contain some select offers from our partners and collect some information to customize and improve your booting experience

      Can we really take the word of a conglomerate?
      Will you be able to ensure that what you are saying is accurate?

      No.
      Our EULA will take care of that.

      Modern conglomerates usually misrepresent their products if they think it will generate more customers. How can we be sure that you wouldn't be doing this to us?

      As the courts become less and less of a threat for a corporation (and already a 0-threat to a corporation from an individual). There is NO way to be sure. Unless all the non-entry level employees in the company will be made to sign all these statements...

  19. A question.... by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 4, Funny

    How many hours will it take after the first Palladium boards hit the market for someone to crack it and have linux running on it? Should I have put an 's' onto hours?

    1. Re:A question.... by martyn+s · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes. As in "Zero Hours"

    2. Re:A question.... by StormForge · · Score: 1

      As encryption gets stronger and stronger and as evil corperations (tm) put more and more money into these things, it won't always be trivial to crack... There will come a day when cracking this sort of thing will be a huge effort -- that's the danger, and saying "it will just be cracked" is trivializing the problem.

  20. Shouldn't it be: by Nurlman · · Score: 3, Funny

    AMIBIOS or NOT?

    1. Re:Shouldn't it be: by W32.Klez.H · · Score: 4, Funny

      AM I BIOS OR NOT

  21. Lockout by rtkluttz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Be truthful. Is there even the slightest chance that someone other than me will be able to say what will run (or more importtantly will NOT run) on a PC that contains this technology? I'm not talking about purchased software that locks me out directly in one way or another due to licensing issues. But can this technology be used to stop me from exercising fair use rights if I decide to get around those blocks in purchased software? Or will they hinder me from writing my own code to do what I want, or downloading and compiling/running someone elses code?
    If ANY of these CAN be a side effect of this technology, it is bad. There are stumbling blocks, of course, but no one will have ultimate say over what does or does not run on my own computer.

    .

    --
    Digital is, by definition, imperfect. Analog is the way to go.
    1. Re:Lockout by Kargan · · Score: 1

      //But can this technology be used to stop me from exercising fair use rights if I decide to get around those blocks in purchased software? //

      You can't do that anyway. "Getting around those blocks" is a violation of the DMCA and therefore illegal under US law. We all know what happens to folks who violate the DMCA, now, don't we?

      --
      Palaces, barricades, threats, meet promises
  22. Advantage by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What is the advantage to me, a Linux using consumer, to buying your product over those of your competitors?

    1. Re:Advantage by Windcatcher · · Score: 2

      You get to never be able to run any future versions of MS Office under WINE, as Linux won't be able to provide authentication for the app, which will require a trusted PC. While this may be a blessing if you're familiar with OpenOffice, grandma won't be as eager to migrate to Linux if she can't run Office, which is the main reason she bought her PC.

      Simply put, AMI has absolutely no choice in the matter. Microsoft will announce that Palladium Office will require TCPA (or will run in crippled mode otherwise), and AMI has to therefore be compatible with it if they wish to stay in business.

      Perhaps MS should have been broken up after all. It seems that what we have here is the OS monopoly being used to preserve the Office monopoly.

    2. Re:Advantage by Windcatcher · · Score: 2

      Correction: using the office monopoly to preserve the OS monopoly.

    3. Re:Advantage by nfg05 · · Score: 1

      The point you make is valid that most Linux users will not want to buy a Palladium computer. Sadly, companies aren't out to cater to everybody, they're out to cater to the group that will make them the most money. The problem is that the mainstream will buy into Palladium eagerly just because they're told of all the supposed "benefits", and besides, it is the latest technology (yipee!). Do most people really delve into their computers to find all the spyware running behind the scenes? No, the fact is most of them are oblivious, as they're oblivious to the possible implications of Palladium being implemented. AMI/Microsoft can make a lot more money off the average consumer than they can off the (as of now) small base of Linux users. So while you and most everyone else using Linux won't want to buy their products, to companies like AMI and Microsoft, that's irrelevant. As for the competition (ignoring the obvious monopoly), what are other companies going to offer average, not-so-computer-literate people to counter the rosy landscape of "trusted computing" and (suppposed?) eradication of viruses painted by Microsoft?

    4. Re:Advantage by jbolden · · Score: 2

      Frankly if the reason you bought a PC is to run a Windows only app (like MS office) they you probably should be using Windows as your OS. The same way that if the reason I buy a computer is to execute JCL's supporting PFS autodocument construction from DB2 I should be running Z-OS(new name for MVS), or if I buy a computer to execute VaXBasic scripts against RDB I should be running VMS, and if I buy a computer to run Final Cut Pro I should be running OSX. I might be able to get around these problems; AIX has PSF, JCL and DB2; there is a VAXBasic emulator which is open source and Oracle can fake RDB; but why bother with that headache?

      Linux offers an excellent Unix which runs on a huge range of platforms. Linux offers an excellent range of apps for a wide variety of purposes.

      A better question about Grandma is does she want office or office functionality?
      If she merely wanted office functionality than in a few years (maybe) Open Office would be an alternative (though I hope apps like LyX win and not Open Office which is IMHO highly overrated). If by Office she just really means something like Microsoft Works than Open Office gives her that level of features today.

  23. Boycott actions against TCPA? by DocSnyder · · Score: 2

    Isn't AMI afraid of many many people boycotting any products of TCPA-friendly vendors? In the near future, "voting with their money" will be the only chance for millions of PC users to fight against TCPA.

    1. Re:Boycott actions against TCPA? by melonman · · Score: 2

      Can we ask him if, in stark turnover terms, he would be more afraid of people not being able to use the next generation of MS products on his company's products?

      --
      Virtually serving coffee
    2. Re:Boycott actions against TCPA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt this would work since the vast majority of computers purchased are premade systems by the large vendors. And the large vendors need MS, which will mean TCPA, so we are all screwed....

  24. Refunds/Opt-outs by ninewands · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Given the existence of The LinuxBIOS Project and the fact that the Linux kernel does not require a ROM-BIOS once the kernel is up and running, what will be AMI's position on refunds if a significant fraction of the Linux userbase starts installing LinuxBIOS and returning the BIOS chips. Will AMI make the refund, or will they give us the runaround that Microsoft and the hardware OEMs did on the question of Windows refunds?

    --
    utter rubbish
    1. Re:Refunds/Opt-outs by binaryDigit · · Score: 2

      Wouldn't the BIOS be considered a more fundamental part of the hardware. EG, if you don't need your floppy, you wouldn't expect Teac to give you a refund if you removed it from your computer and mailed it back to them? That and unlike a copy of an OS, how much is the BIOS as a factor of cost on a machine, would it even be worth the effort to get this refund even if it were offered?

    2. Re:Refunds/Opt-outs by Ageless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Okay, now hear this! In the "Real World" you can't randomly pull things apart and ask for a refund. Computers are not different than other products. If I buy a box of tissues and only use half of them I can't return the other half for a refund.
      If I buy a phone that has a caller id function but I don't subscribe to the service I can't pull the LCD and pry the caller id chips out and ask for a refund.

      Damn, read the shit you type before submitting it and try to remember exactly when it was that you lost all semblence of sanity.

    3. Re:Refunds/Opt-outs by m0rph3us0 · · Score: 2

      There is no agreement you can refuse when purchasing an AMI BIOS, or at least I've never encountered a EULA with an AMI BIOS. I don't see why AMI should have to refund you for a piece of equiptment you willingly bought.

      Have you asked Ford lately to refund you for their engine if you decieded to put a new engine in?

      The problem with the MS Windows thing is that there is a EULA and MS refuses to sell you the license unless you agree to the EULA, so in the event that you don't agree to the EULA no purchase has taken place and they have your money and you have no product resulting in them owing you money.

      The situation is no where near the same with AMI, replacing a working product with something else is not a valid reason for return.

    4. Re:Refunds/Opt-outs by iamcadaver · · Score: 2

      It will soldered to the board, how can you ask for a refund after destoying the product be removing it?

      --
      Before I part with'em: two pennies weigh ~4.996+/-0.014g, have a zinc core, and the face of Lincoln. You can keep 'em.
    5. Re:Refunds/Opt-outs by Qzukk · · Score: 0

      Just to break your analogy, take a look at a bag of chips someday. Quite a few things let you return the unused portion for a refund.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    6. Re:Refunds/Opt-outs by Lordrashmi · · Score: 1

      Thats only if the whole bag of chips is "defective". Not because you only wanted to eat half of them.

    7. Re:Refunds/Opt-outs by BigDish · · Score: 1

      Unsolder the chip. It's not hard at all. Usually (today at least) the bios chips are socketed.

    8. Re:Refunds/Opt-outs by LostCluster · · Score: 2

      No, actually, the phrase on Lay's potato chips products is "Satisfaction Guarenteed" which says that if you can claim that the bag of chips is not to your satisfaction, they promise you a full refund. Yeah, you can't do that if they didn't make that promise, but they did.

      Likewise with Microsoft. In order to get a legal shrink-wrap EULA, they must offer a way to decline the EULA. So, the EULA instructs that you indicate acceptance by using the software, and indicate rejection by promptly returning the software to the place of purchase for a full refund.

      AMIBIOS will step into this mess if they start releasing BIOS products that need an EULA, as presently they're just being sold as part of a piece of hardware. (Have ever seen an EULA for a motherboard?) DRM might just send them over that bridge...

    9. Re:Refunds/Opt-outs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if every single chip in the bag was in perfect working order, but you only hit the mouse-droppings section of the bag after you'd eaten half the chips?

      Apple's latest computer offering showed many new computer users that they don't need a floppy drive. What will happen when those users get a little wiser and realize they don't need a BIOS?

    10. Re:Refunds/Opt-outs by ShavenYak · · Score: 2

      Has anyone ever tried returning a bag of Lay's chips, mostly (or completely) eaten, claiming that they were not satisfied? It would be interesting to see what kind of hoops they make you jump through to get your refund.

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    11. Re:Refunds/Opt-outs by iamcadaver · · Score: 2

      Maybe you missed the part that read something like: ..will be a seperate chip soldered to the motherboard until it is migrated to the CPU itself...

      --
      Before I part with'em: two pennies weigh ~4.996+/-0.014g, have a zinc core, and the face of Lincoln. You can keep 'em.
    12. Re:Refunds/Opt-outs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      talk english

      de-soldering wick can remove something without damaging it. There are many ways of aplying heat and removing the solder...

    13. Re:Refunds/Opt-outs by LostCluster · · Score: 2

      I think the label is clear that you mail the wrapper (complete with the stamped portion that tells them when and where they made the chips) to an address on the label to claim the refund.

    14. Re:Refunds/Opt-outs by AxelTorvalds · · Score: 2
      Damn, read the shit you type before submitting it and try to remember exactly when it was that you lost all semblence of sanity.

      Do you mind if I start using that as my sig?

    15. Re:Refunds/Opt-outs by Ageless · · Score: 2

      I would be honoured, but please never respond to my posts with it! ;-)

    16. Re:Refunds/Opt-outs by ninewands · · Score: 2
      Grandparent post moderation totals: Flamebait=1 (???), Interesting=5, Overrated=2, Total=8

      Quoth the parent poster:
      Damn, read the shit you type before submitting it and try to remember exactly when it was that you lost all semblence of sanity.

      And MY post got modded down as flamebait???
      --
      utter rubbish
    17. Re:Refunds/Opt-outs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      people often don't expect refunds. The action is symbolic and designed to generate embarassment for the company involved.

  25. My Question Is: by cca93014 · · Score: 4, Funny

    How do you sleep at night?

    No, I have not RTFA, I'm just taking the piss, ok?

    --

    Invoicing, Time Tracking, Reporting

    1. Re:My Question Is: by cca93014 · · Score: 1

      I cant quite believe someone modded my post as +1 Interesting. Maybe they were continuing the bad humour? Ho well...

      --

      Invoicing, Time Tracking, Reporting

    2. Re:My Question Is: by RinkRat · · Score: 1
      How do you sleep at night?

      Let me answer that one for you:

      As the Rep for the first company to deliver the TC BIOS that MS wanted: "On large piles of cash, surrounded by beautiful women."

      --
      RinkRat
  26. Portability of software/licenses with TCPA by naarok · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Will TCPA compliant machines make it more difficult for a user to updgrade CPUs or change computers? Do you see users having to re-confirm their identity with external sources because the identity of their computer has changed? (I know this already happens, I just see it becoming more pervasive in the future and am afraid more software vendors will begin to license by specific computer).

  27. Performance hit by oliverthered · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I assume that data pathways with be signable or encripted in some way. What performance hit will the [operating system] take when using trusted system? e.g. How much extra data is added to form a signiture, what methods are used for signing. and how will this benifit the end-user.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:Performance hit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hardware computing speed doubles every 18 months.

      Software speed halves every 18 months.

      Well, that bloat has got to come from somewhere.

    2. Re:Performance hit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the micro kernel in my GPU's going to love DRM.

      It'll be nice to see what questions he doesn't answer!.

    3. Re:Performance hit by Bill+Privatus · · Score: 1

      FINALLY!

      Again, dotters (and dotties) miss the central issue - this is a rep for a BIOS vendor. NOT ms. NOT darpa.

      It took this long in the thread for someone to ask a question about the BIOS?

      If I were the gent in question, I'd ignore all the posts above this one.

      "TCP is to Palladium as hardware is to software"

      Here's another question: If AMI BIOS is TCPA-compliant, and the secure mode is "enabled", and I receive a CD-ROM (bootable) from a vendor with "the latest OS", and I boot from that CD, will it incorporate a public key, or more likely a certificate signed by VeriSign, that will be "loadable" into the memory space of the BIOS? I'm assuming the cert isn't available to the BIOS yet - pretend it's 3 years from now, and my "old" TCPA-v1.1 computer is where I want to run this "new OS".

      Will I have to flash the BIOS to update the certs?

      Ancillary question: If there will be such a storage area, will it be addressable in software? How large do you predict it might be?

      And "thanks" for volunteering to run the gauntlet.

      Now let's see how many other on-topic posts there are in this thread....

      --
      Redundancy is good; triple redundancy is twice as good! - Me.
    4. Re:Performance hit by MrFredBloggs · · Score: 1

      "Stop National ID Cards"

      Why? They have them in Europe, and there is less crime there. No more excuses. just stop breaking the law, or pay the price.

    5. Re:Performance hit by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      Why not?
      1: because I a liberal
      2: I know who I am already
      3: When the Nazis get elected again, i'll just stop being a Gipsy or a Jew to stop breaking the law shall I.
      4: Who not?
      5: I don't want anything David Blunket suggests (going on his record, it's a bit screwed up).
      6: Trust no-one, even I'm wrong sometimes.
      7: I don't not break the Law,I just follow my beliefs, infact I don't know what the Law is in a lot of cases. It just happens that so far either I havn't broken the Law or I havn't been arrested.
      8: How are ID cards going to stop crime, please tell me, maybe there are less draconian Laws to break in 'Europe' incidently the UK is part of Europe.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  28. How would AMI response to market pressures? by CodeShark · · Score: 5, Interesting
    How would AMI respond to pressures from companies such as Microsoft, Intel, Sun, or to the combined companies in the MPAA or RIAA if those companies insisted that AMI only release "DRM compliant" BIOS chips, etc.

    Would AMI disclose that such pressures were being placed on them, or would this type of fact be kept hidden from consumer groups or individuals, etc. until it was too late for us to effectively respond?

    --
    ...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
    1. Re:How would AMI response to market pressures? by fitsnips · · Score: 0

      Shit who cares about MS, Sun, or the MPAA. Is the dam FBI,CIA, and OHS that should have you worried.

      --
      I am a republican not by choice, but rather by lack there of.
    2. Re:How would AMI response to market pressures? by CodeShark · · Score: 2
      I respecfully disagree. AMI is engaged in a business venture to sell BIOS chips for (I assume) x86 platforms, and their main consideration has to be those who have the most influence on the sales of x86 chip sets -- namely Microsoft and Intel, followed by a few of the others.

      The FBI, et. al are much more concerned with privacy related issues, not what you can see on your own computer system.

      --
      ...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
    3. Re:How would AMI response to market pressures? by agentofchange · · Score: 1


      Would AMI disclose that such pressures were being placed on them, or would this type of fact be kept hidden from consumer groups or individuals, etc. until it was too late for us to effectively respond?

      If they plan on hiding the pressures placed upon them they wouldn't disclose them to /. readers just because the questions being asked would they?

  29. Options? by ncc189 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Will AMI (and the TCPA) allow owners of these "trusted" computers to turn off or disable the features that are being discussed? Will we as users of our hardware be able to control what features are on and what features are not, or will these choices be up to Microsoft and its partners(TCPA)? How is AMI addressing these issues of choice and control?

    1. Re:Options? by fitsnips · · Score: 0

      Of course, but if you turn it off by accident just call and we will be glade to reenable the feature for you remotely.

      --
      I am a republican not by choice, but rather by lack there of.
    2. Re:Options? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      This IS the main problem with TCPA.

      Either you have in on, or you have it off. You just
      can't control what it is doing.

      So what ? no big deal, just turn it off !

      WRONG !

      because once you'll need TCPA to access documents
      ms-word,excel, music, video, ....

      you'll have to make a choice :
      - turn it off and forget about it all
      - continue living and use TCPA

      and don't come and tell me that "if you don't like dvd encryptions just don't watch dvds" like some said for decss. People working in companies just can't accept to forget about reading ms-word docs.

      You can choose to use TCPA or not. But they are going to FORCE you to choose YES.

  30. DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will there be any DRM in the near future that will actually reduce the functionality of hardware, ie. keep it from doing things that non-DRM hardware could do? Or will it only add features to use DRM'd content?

  31. Have customers asked for TCPA features? by Sloppy · · Score: 5, Interesting
    AMI rep, the reason I think some people view your company with suspicion, is that we think it is unlikely that an AMI customer has asked for TCPA's "features." I suspect that anyone who is cooperating with that effort, is somehow being influenced by forces other than traditional market forces.

    So maybe you can set me straight: do you think your customers want TCPA? If so, why? Who are these customers? If this a case where customers are not the same as users?

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:Have customers asked for TCPA features? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the single best question I've read here. I wish it could be mod'ed "Score:6 Essential".

    2. Re:Have customers asked for TCPA features? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words: Who asked for a more expensive computer which initializes slower after power-on and has only one additional feature: that it can sacrifice its universal nature on the altar of third party interests.

    3. Re:Have customers asked for TCPA features? by mark_lybarger · · Score: 1

      good question, but i would argue that a companies influence to go a certain direction sometimes is not always for the customer, but often to help out strategic business partners. the bios folks, the motherboard, the hdd, cpu, the OS, they all need each other to survive in some sort of way.

      so one day the OS folks say, "Hey look, we're getting raped over the coals here with people ripping our software all over the place. it would be really really nice if we could digitally sign our software and have the users install some key at the hardware level that will unlock the software. that way people stop sealing our stuff!".

      so the bois and cpu guys just say "yeah, whatever you need, we'll send you the engineering/development and implementation bill.

      to sumarize. i would ask what is their exact modivational source for including some TCPA in thier systesm...

    4. Re:Have customers asked for TCPA features? by iamcadaver · · Score: 2

      Because the same question is phased as:
      "Would you like to be able to rent and watch movies over the internet?"

      Answer: Yes. I would too.

      You have to pair this TCPA and DRM thing with the fact that the box in question will likely resemble a TiVo. The days of the PC are numbered, and there are less then 500 of them to go.

      Once this is mainstream, you'll kiss goodbye the day of $40 motherboards. More like $400, if not more, for these archaic component breadboards.

      The TV makers will likely take over the motherboard market, and the chassis market will go the way of the dodo.

      Except it. Linux will live on in embedded devices and universities, until maybe it is made available again via a signed VMWARE-like application. Or whole distributions might one day be a web application, which is already in the works.

      --
      Before I part with'em: two pennies weigh ~4.996+/-0.014g, have a zinc core, and the face of Lincoln. You can keep 'em.
    5. Re:Have customers asked for TCPA features? by phil+reed · · Score: 1
      If this a case where customers are not the same as users?

      You betcha. When was the last time anybody here wrote a check to AMI?

      --

      ...phil
      "For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
    6. Re:Have customers asked for TCPA features? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft ("the OS folks") is looking like they'll go bankrupt any day now. CPU and HDD manufacturers know that only expensive software and copy restricted media files can increase sales of their products. About the only guys who are going to be pissed because of TCPA are the spooks: They won't be able to spy on trusted systems, because Red Lantern and similar tools won't be signed, will they?

    7. Re:Have customers asked for TCPA features? by intermodal · · Score: 2

      That was an awful lot more eloquent than I would have put it...mine would be more along the lines of slapping anyone involved upside the head and demanding to know, "Why the hell would I want something like this? no, ME. Why do I want this? I don't even like/watch/takepartin movies, label music, or television. I just want a computer that does whatever the hell I tell it to do."

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    8. Re:Have customers asked for TCPA features? by SymLink-Dyn · · Score: 1

      Please do NOT submit this question to the victim, it's a trivial one for a flak to handle. The tactic that will be used to counter this argument is the one IBM is taking with their laptop line. You know the commercial, where they find many serious looking people in suits to act panicked about confidential customer data. "The more security you can build into it, the better." "I want 5 pounds of security in my next laptop."

      A better question might be: Will you be honest about what these restrictions are actually for, once you've foisted them off on your customers?

    9. Re:Have customers asked for TCPA features? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freudian... Magic Lantern

    10. Re:Have customers asked for TCPA features? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know the IT industry is a little short on inspiration right now, but is it really that bad? Will we not desire universally programmable machines in the future? Single-function gadgets do have their market, but can you really not see what the benefits of truly universal machines in the hands of the masses are? Or does that thought frighten you?

    11. Re:Have customers asked for TCPA features? by iamcadaver · · Score: 2
      Single-function gadgets do have their market, but can you really not see what the benefits of truly universal machines in the hands If the masses are?
      The point is that it will be argued this way to congress, by paid lobbiests:

      No DRM: no movies on demand, no interactive television, more viruses, more risk to US information networks

      With DRM: new businesses, new instant polling data ( huge for a politician ), video on demand, less SPAM... secure tracking of financial transactions for taxing
      Do you think you could make the arguement that this is not what the masses want? Do you think it would be loud enough to pull the dollar signs from congress' eyes?

      Or does that thought frighten you?
      As a UNIX/Linux System Administrator, an X10 hobbiest, and a rabid TV timeshifter: It terrifies me that I can imagine a hundred ways they will pass this as law, and not one way we can stop it. I think you have just prompted me to donate to the EFF. I wish Lessig had a donation pool.
      --
      Before I part with'em: two pennies weigh ~4.996+/-0.014g, have a zinc core, and the face of Lincoln. You can keep 'em.
    12. Re:Have customers asked for TCPA features? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who are these customers?

      What are their addresses?
      Where do their children go to school?

  32. Software. by 13Echo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Do you intend to require some sort of a per-operating system licensing fee to operating system companies, in order to profit on the inclusion of these "features"? E.g. Will Microsoft be giving you royalty payments for each machine that includes this AMI BIOS and gets their OS installed with these supported "features"? What position does this put your company into in terms of trying to also force open source OS companies (like RedHat) into paying these licenses?

  33. A question. by DAldredge · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Will you be able to tell the truth in your answers or will your answers have to be 'cleaned up' by the AMI PR dept first?

  34. You'd think an editor would know this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't one of the "Usual Slashdot Interview Rules" "only one question per comment, please"? Or do the rules not apply to you, Michael?

  35. An OFF switch? by Edward+Teach · · Score: 1

    Will I, as the OWNER of my computer, be able to turn this crap off, or is it that I am not the one that should be trusted?

    --

    Setting his threshold to 5, Sparky eliminated most of the trolls on /.

  36. Non-Linux, non-Microsoft operating systems by aridhol · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I see many people worried about Linux not working with Trusted Computing. What I'm wondering is if other operating systems will work. It has often been the case that something will come out for Windows, then get ported to Linux because they are the most visible minority group.

    One of the operating systems I use is FreeBSD. Will that still be usable, or will it be forced to deal with substandard or non-existant drivers (think NVidia until recently). I also use QNX. Will that work? How about a new OS that will be created sometime in the future?

    --
    I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
  37. What the hell is a sales engineer? by lpontiac · · Score: 2

    (not intended as an interview question, more as a comment in the form of a rhetorical question)

    1. Re:What the hell is a sales engineer? by geekoid · · Score: 2

      A engineer who happens to be a smooth talker.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:What the hell is a sales engineer? by finkployd · · Score: 2

      A friend of mine is a sales engineer. He got his BS in EE and went on to get his MBA. He has all the training and intelligence of an engineer and all the weasel-speak training of a salesman :)

      No, seriously, they are people who are brought in to sell things that your average car salesman who got his undergrad degree in sales&marketing would not be able to understand, let alone sell. Plus they tend to make a butt load of money to boot.

      Finkployd

    3. Re:What the hell is a sales engineer? by SalesEngineer · · Score: 1

      That's mostly true, except for the boatload of money quote :)

    4. Re:What the hell is a sales engineer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A sales engineer is one who can answer a technical question about his company's product.
      Ask the same question of a plain salesman and you will most likely get "I don't know, I'll check with the factory."

    5. Re:What the hell is a sales engineer? by finkployd · · Score: 1

      That's mostly true, except for the boatload of money quote :)

      Well, compared to me he made a boadload of money. :)

      BTW: Just read your responses, very impressive. One of the best /. interviews I've read in a while.

      Finkployd

  38. The crux of "trustworthy computing"... by Doug+Neal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... is, who is doing the "trusting"? In Microsoft's vision of it it certainly isn't the end user, it's them. Or other copyright owners.

    TCPA is fundamentally a sound technological concept, but wide open for abuse. If it could be used for the user's benefit to prevent against viruses etc, then that's great.

    What I'm saying is that the owner of the computer should be able to override the trust relationships - assert that the code is trusted (by them). The owner of the computer should have the ultimate veto. After all, it is theirs. Does AMI's plans for a TCPA implementation have this in mind?

    1. Re:The crux of "trustworthy computing"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TCPA is fundamentally a sound technological concept, but wide open for abuse.

      OK, now there's the understatement of the decade - would've been the understatement of the century if made before 2001 (would easily have blown away "Hydrogen bombs are a fundamentally sound technological concept, but wide open for abuse" - circa 1950).

    2. Re:The crux of "trustworthy computing"... by fitsnips · · Score: 0

      I would argue that you already have a great deal of virus protection. It just lack of knowledge that is the problem. If you do not know the author of a email just delete it. If you do not know the md5sum of the binnary you just downloaded from company x's web site, request it. If your are to lazy to do these simple things they you deserve the virus. This seems like many of the laws in the USA, I it illegal to kill am man, but we now need a specific law to tell us that if that man is of diffrent ethnic orgin it is still illegal? WTF?

      --
      I am a republican not by choice, but rather by lack there of.
    3. Re:The crux of "trustworthy computing"... by Doug+Neal · · Score: 1

      You're quite right, and I have never had a virus in all 15 or so years of using computers, but not everyone's as smart and/or lucky. For a while I worked as a sysadmin at a large company, with about 3500 PCs across several sites, one of my responsibilities was keeping the antivirus systems updated across the network, making sure each PC was up to date. I could see all the "hits" the virus scanners had for the whole network and we're talking about 30 on a normal day, and over 100 when a new virus is released. Don't forget that most PC users in this instance aren't in IT related jobs, just use it for email and wordprocessing etc. This could be great for corporate desktops.

    4. Re:The crux of "trustworthy computing"... by fitsnips · · Score: 0

      A simple change in OS structure could fix a lot of this. Most server and OS's and the newest round of Desktop OS's have user level rights. i.e. if you are working at company X and have to use a word processor and email why do you need to have system level access? This is a big reason why we do not have as may Desktop system viruses in linux. Most of MS new products have this same feature, but unlike MS users most linux users are told not to run as root(or admin) and most users are to used to being able to install any software they find on the net. Other then desktop look and feel all addtional software should be installed by the PC admin people. Lock the users down, if they can justify a buisness need let then go through proper channels. I know you will have a lot of pissed off users, but its a buisness cost issue. i.e. my company cut free coffie, yes people where pissed but its better then firing one person so everyone can have coffie for free. Especialy if the sucker who gets canned does not drink coffie. This plan works in my company. Only engineers get root access or admin in XP, everyone esle thin-client.

      --
      I am a republican not by choice, but rather by lack there of.
  39. Hacked Servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aside from all the DRM stuff, these new technologies are advertised to "prevent hacking". If I'm running redhat (or some other "signed" OS) on my server, will your product or Palladium keep me from getting HaXx0r3d?

  40. How will I be affected??? by josepha48 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How will I be affected by TCPA? I run several machines at home some running NetBSD, FreeBSD, Linux, and Windows. I generally build my machines, unless they are given to me by my employer (or its a laptop), and even then I reinstall the OS or install my own OS of choice. (Whatever I'm in the mood to run at time of install or what works). If I buy a new Motherboard from AMI with TCPA will I stil be able to do this? Will I have to do special tricks to get this done or will it be just like it is now?

    --

    Only 'flamers' flame!

    1. Re:How will I be affected??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may or may not be able to do this, the technology is still in the early stages. (Read: may not, can't, don't, forget it, an't happinin.)

      You will NOT be able to do "special tricks" to make this work. Because TCPA is a secure system, to do such would be a clear violation of the DMCA. We will seek to enjoin anyone who even discusses a potential for trying this.

      There is nothing wrong with your computer system. Do not attempt to circumvent this software. We are controlling the transmission.... and the reception. You are entering a world where freedom does not exist. We control the horizontal, we control the vertical, we also control the hard drive, the CPU, the CDROM, the DVD, the printer, and yes... even that old legacy floppy disk. (Which can be used to pirate MP3s in small pieces.) We control everything you see and hear, and you will pay for each hearing and for each seeing. For the next few minutes we will check the integrity of your computer system. We will disable or preferably destroy any CDR/W, DVDRAM or MP3 device we find connected to our computer. We can divulge your information to a thousand companies or sell it to the single entity to which you are of the most value. We will shape our pricing structure to anything we know you can financially afford. You are about to experience the total transition of control from the smallest solitary user to the vast media corporations.

      This whole thing gives me a chill similar to that of a George Orwell book.

      Phoenix

  41. EMail Client by ACNiel · · Score: 1

    You had, in your writings for linux.com, ventured out on a road of discovery to find the linux email client that best suited your needs. This was in pre-1.0 versions of Evolution.

    I was wondering if you ever found one you liked, that scartched all your itches, or are you still looking?

    1. Re:EMail Client by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's probably going to be Outlook Express (TM).

  42. What makes you think? by codepunk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So really what makes you think myself as a customer want's even anything close to that on one of my motherboards?. The possibility of future misuse is to great for me to even consider it. I can tell you as both a corporate and private customer that it is not wanted in any shape or form. The mere mention of supporting it frankly makes my skin crawl with disgust. If this is how you choose to release your products I choose not to participate with my dollars.

    --


    Got Code?
    1. Re:What makes you think? by theLOUDroom · · Score: 2

      Right on!

      The only reason for TCPA / Palldium is to prevent the actual owner of a computer from having full access to its hardware. Any other benefit they claim is something that could be implemented in software (ex: writing an extension to the linux kernel so that it will only execute binaries signed with a certain public key).

      The only reason to do all of this in hardware is to prevent the end-user from being able to modify the system as they sees fit (ex: modifying the code so that a user can sign his own program to do what he wants to with the DRM'ed err...umm TCPA'ed part of his machine.

      I hope they loose a lot of money on this :)

      People don't want crippled technology.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    2. Re:What makes you think? by molarmass192 · · Score: 1

      Yep ... you are bang on here. Reality is that if the software is buggy, and easily exploitable ... IT'S THE SOFTWARE THAT'S AT FAULT. Fixing a certain northwestern company's poorly written code by moving the responsibility to the hardware layer is NOT the way to address the problem. Besides, when this gets cracked (and you're ignorant if you think it won't) then you'll need to have people flashing their BIOS rather than just installing an upgrade. It's utterly ridiculous ... FIX THE LOUSY SOFTWARE.

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
  43. Something has been bothering me...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Can you address why you think it is that the open source community has taken Palladium as _such_ a scary proposition?

    Then, building on the above answer, can you explain why the open source community has only yelled and screamed about how evil Palladium is, rather the doing what they preach others should do? (Which is, of course, create an open source, trusted architecture (i.e.: TCPA) which protects/promotes consumer rights over and above the rights of corporate media groups.)

    Or (if the above is not possible) can you at least explain why building an open source TCPA structure is not possible?

  44. The confusion by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

    If you knew in advance there was going to be confusion, and possibly controvery over this, then why even undertake it at all?

    In Other Words, what is to be gained by this?

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    1. Re:The confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great notion! Don't undertake any project if it might be contraversial, or if it confuses people! Contraversy and confusion means that there's nothing to gain. Nope, nada.

      If you knew in advance there was going to be confusion, and possibly controvery over this, then why even undertake it at all?

      In Other Words, what is to be gained by this?

  45. Straight-up products? by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    No matter how many DRM technologies AMIBIOS does adopt, can you promise that AMIBIOS will continue to offer DRM-free BIOS products?

    1. Re:Straight-up products? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Is there a migration path of I have decided to move my components from a DRM enabled machine to another vendor's bios ?

      Will my data be recoverable ? Do I need to have my data recovered by specialist ? How much would that cost ?

  46. Two versions by AlgUSF · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why can't we have two versions of the BIOS?

    K901 (Trusted Computing enabled)
    K901B (Trusted Computing disabled)

    And enable users to crossship the chips if they want a different version...

    --


    I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
  47. Missing Idea by GreatOgre · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think the idea that most of us our missing is this. Most PC users buy their computers from Dell, Gateway, or some other big vendor. These vendors will ultimately sell TCPA/Palladium enabled computers. So, the real question should be: In the future will those of us who build our own systems be able to escape the issue of having TCPA/Palladium on our systems courtesy of the big players?

  48. Mod parent up!!.. please.. ^_^ (N/T) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    N/T = No text.. move on..

  49. TCPA 2.0 spec by petsounds · · Score: 1
    On the TCPA FAQ it states that under the TCPA 1.1 spec, "The system owner has ultimate control and permissions over private information and must 'opt-in' to utilize the TCPA subsystem." The FAQ also states in regards to how Palladium relates to TCPA, "Microsoft is a founding member of the TCPA. Detailed questions about Palladium should be directed to Microsoft at this time."

    My question is, although the TCPA 1.1 spec sounds harmless enough, what guarantees do we have that the 2.0 spec will not erode our software liberties, or that Microsoft will not successfully lobby to empower Palladium to take away those liberties completely? And if Palladium becomes the only working implementation of TCPA, doesn't the idea of TCPA holding the high ground on DRM/privacy issues really become a moot point?

    1. Re:TCPA 2.0 spec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the vital point here. Like the UK's proposed "Entitlement Card", it doesn't matter squat if it is optional if the only way you can get at the stuff you need is by using it: it becomes mandatory by the back door.

      And before replying along the lines of "reverse engineer and reimplement" or "remove protection", remember the magic words: DMCA and EUCD.

  50. Hardware vendors by cybermace5 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Since a BIOS is only part of a motherboard: what steps will hardware vendors have to take, in order to incorporate your BIOS? Will they have to adhere to certain hardware design rules or controls in order to maintain the TCPA? Is there going to be a licensing procedure for hardware manufacturers?

    --
    ...
  51. Hoe to stop people to buy no AMI products? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What will you do to prevent people to just buy other, non TCPA enabled hardware, which will obviously not be from you? But, hey, I guess you just don't need the million GNU/Linux geeks to have good income, do you?

  52. Technology can be used for good and evil by defile · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As we all know, technology can be used for the purposes of both good and evil. Here are things that I consider good about where TCPA is going, along with the evil.

    Good

    • Users can protect their computers from viruses or other unapproved malware.

    Evil

    • The BIOS can be feasibly configured to only boot only "approved" code.
    • By extension, "approved" code means that the Operating System must be a fresh, "blessed" install from a certain large proprietary software vendor.
    • Developing this further, this means that this certain large proprietary software vendor's OS can cease to function if any unapproved modifications are made to the system.
    • This gives the vendors, and anyone they do business with, incredible control over our PCs and the user is incapable of doing a damn thing about it unless they violate the DMCA and face criminal prosecution.

    There are many advantages for the hardware/software/content vendors if this is realized, but few of them seem consumer driven: the erosion of fair use, the control of speech, taking a cut of every e-commerce transation, eliminating standards and competition.

    Undoubtedly, your shareholders will push you to cooperate with the software/content vendors because it means big money for them and anyone who plays ball, but for us, it means we lose a lot. PR will say that it stops pirates from raising music/movie prices, and that it means ISVs can produce software that can't be warezed, no more cheating in online games, no more child porn, ad infinitum, and it's all for our own good.

    Unfortunately, the potential for abuse is extraordinary, and the last thing I want to see is more of my friends being locked up because they do something with their computers that some company doesn't agree with. And right now it looks like AMI wants just that to happen.

    Yes, right now your BIOS may offer choice, but hardware vendors seem committed to building an infrastructure that one day can make it very easy to eliminate this choice.

    Please explain why we do want TCPA, why we should support your company, and how we can be assured that our colleagues don't go to jail just for believing they still control systems they bought. Also, please explain why the system we have now is so inadequete.

    Thank you.

    1. Re:Technology can be used for good and evil by jmu1 · · Score: 2
      user is incapable of doing a damn thing about it unless they violate the DMCA and face criminal prosecution.

      I do have a solution. Most folks won't like it, as I've voiced my opinion on the matter before and have been flamed... Buy something else. Jump the PC ship. Save up and buy the "other" hardware out there. You can still run your programs(although modified slightly)...I promise. Plus, the upshot is that prices will inevitably go down as more folks are jumping said ship.

    2. Re:Technology can be used for good and evil by Reziac · · Score: 2

      And how long before those "other ships" knuckle under, especially if that's the only way to continue to get -- oh, say, Photoshop and Office for the Mac?? (See, I can hear you thinking. :)

      They won't knuckle under, you say?? How long before those "other ships" are locked out of basic services (like internet connectivity) if they don't??

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    3. Re:Technology can be used for good and evil by Reziac · · Score: 2

      PS. By weird coincidence, as I posted the above, my randomized WinAmp playlist arrived at "Sink the Bismarck". I think it's a Sign. :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    4. Re:Technology can be used for good and evil by newt · · Score: 2
      Good

      * Users can protect their computers from viruses or other unapproved malware.

      You don't seriously believe this, do you?

      Let me put it this way: Microsoft and a hoard of third-party software vendors try their hardest to prevent malware TODAY, and yet they fail.

      So tell me how, exactly, a digital signature on a piece of software prevents, say, a buffer-overflow attack. Or a scripting bug. Or any of the other countless bugs which viruses exploit, have always exploited, and will always continue to exploit?

      When Windows NT came onto the market, MS touted memory protection as a defence against viruses -- But virus writers just treated it as a hurdle to be jumped over, and we still have viruses on Windows systems today. I see nothing in TCPA which will change that; The only thing TCPA achieves is control over my systems ceded to people I don't know or trust. The "T" in TCPA means that RIAA and MPAA trust my computer, it doesn't mean that I trust it.

      - mark

      --

      -----
      I tried an internal modem, but it hurt when I walked.

    5. Re:Technology can be used for good and evil by jmu1 · · Score: 2
      Very true.

      However, I do think that if the forces that be notice a large percentage of their previous victims, er consumers had moved to a different market, would consider the possibility that they made a mistake.

      Then again, it could work just like with the whole Windows/alternatives bit... not enough folks make the switch.

    6. Re:Technology can be used for good and evil by Reziac · · Score: 2

      I think it will depend directly on how much of their market they can consider as "locked in" vs profit margins. After all, Apple has lost 80% of its relative market share over the past decade, and doesn't seem to regard that as a bad thing (at least, not enough to change their basic business model).

      One problem is, there really AREN'T enough true alternatives. While consistency for a majority of users is a good thing, it has had the side effect of locking down what's realistically available in the desktop. And it's pretty much the same when it comes to basic components like BIOS, CPU, and hard disk. There simply aren't all that many ships to jump TO. And it only takes ONE getting major market penetration via an OEM to get that ship a big chunk, and maybe eventually exclusive use of the harbour. That means Windows on the desktop, and for many years, that meant [ick] Phoenix in the OEM BIOS.

      AMI is in a little different position in that it's a major player (but by no means a monopoly) in the clone motherboard market, which itself has a steady 40% of the PC market. Whether this position is strong enough that they'll listen when we clone buyers and builders scream about restrictive BIOS behaviour, that remains to be proven. If it's NOT strong enough, then they might well knuckle under in the name of keeping other big players happy. But there is hope, since consumer screams (mainly from the clone crowd) did nix the P3 UID thing. And AMI has, in my observation, generally been a sensible company (tho the annoying graphical BIOS interface was a glaring exception).

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    7. Re:Technology can be used for good and evil by jmu1 · · Score: 2
      /me Shudder

      Phoenix... boy did I ever dislike them.

      You are absolutly correct in that we haven't really enough strong alternatives, although that is changing(albeit slowly). Apple is one of those exceptional companies who has an exceptonal managment team. They have continually made money when they seemingly should not. They've done so by mostly listening to their current customers. Yeah, they've made some real bonehead mistakes, but it never really broke their stride(let's forget about ol what's his name and the death of the Newton). I do think that the OEM market is going to listen more to what the TCPA board and Microsoft have to say, however. Mainly because although a hoard of people use alternative operating systems(and other softwares even in the Windows environment), more run Microsoft's software than any other on the planet. That is a large constituency. If they don't cater to that market, they will lose out to those that will.

      As for the P3UID situation, that was at a time when civil liberties were becoming a household name. In the current atmosphere of fear, nothing is sacred. I wouldn't be surprised if congress didn't start sending signals to Intel to reinstate the UID program(if it ever did stop... I've not used an Intel chip in my own machine since they first announced that debacle). I just don't think that the public has quite the voice they once did.

    8. Re:Technology can be used for good and evil by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Didn't exactly thrill me when Phoenix ate Award, either :( Phoenix BIOSs have always sucked, and they've sure had some slimey ideas in recent years (no BIOS flash updates unless you pay $70 each; placing advertising in BIOS that can be updated via internet -- yeah, I really want unknown code being downloaded to my BIOS whenever someone else wants to do so!!)

      I actually trust AMD *less* than Intel, especially after some stuff AMD said about potentially incorporating DRM in their CPUs. Not helped by AMD's blatant dishonesty wrt the fatal bug in the Sept.98 batch of K6-2 CPUs (I had inside info on the bug, which they never publicly acknowledged). Anyway, I buy Intel CPUs exclusively, because of that and more for various technical reasons. My motherboards can disable CPUID in BIOS, and I'm inclined to trust that, having never seen any evidence to the contrary (and since Intel tends to clean up their act after a good public bitchslapping, better than do many other companies).

      But back to the issue at hand.. I think bigger companies are more easily swayed by public opinion -- they feel like they have more to lose if they piss off a big and proven marketshare, so diving into an unproven market seems less attractive. Whereas smaller companies are more in need of new markets, and more likely to grasp at straws (or at evil schemes like DRM) if they think that will gain them a new and exclusive market.

      Where AMI is in the market game remains to be seen.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  53. I'm a little blurry on the details here.... by Malor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If I understood the prior articles correctly, TCPA should provide a basic keystore, an authentication mechanism, and enough checking to insure that the boot sector is signed.

    If I want to install a new boot sector, do I generate my own key, install that, and self-sign the boot code? Or do the LILO or GRUB teams have to get a key issued and then sign things themselves?

    Who has ultimate control over the keys? CAN I install my own, or is it centralized somewhere? Who does TCPA *ultimately* trust? How can I be *certain* that it doesn't trust anyone I don't want it to? If I screw up and lose my key, how I recover access to the system?

    I assume there must be some master, uneraseable keys in TCPA; I just can't imagine that you'd ship it without implicitly trusting Microsoft, and I distrust Microsoft very much. And if there are recovery keys in there, do I have to ship my machine away to some lab to replace a lost key, or can I do it myself? And if there IS a master, unerasable key available for recovery purposes, why can't virus writers just sign their code with that key instead?

    1. Re:I'm a little blurry on the details here.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod this up you morons.

    2. Re:I'm a little blurry on the details here.... by BeBoxer · · Score: 3, Informative


      If I understood the prior articles correctly, TCPA should provide ... enough checking to insure that the boot sector is signed.

      I'm amazed at how common this meme has become despite the fact that it is completely false. TCPA in no way dicates what code can run on the machine. The "security" it offers works in pretty much the reverse fashion. The TCPA BIOS hashes the bootloader and saves that hash in a secure place. That allows the bootloader to verify that it really did run first. The bootloader can then hash some portion of the OS, and then load and execute it. The OS can then verify that the boot process really was TCPA-BIOS->Correct bootloader->Unmodified OS. And more importantly, the OS can have the BIOS give it a cryptographic "proof" of this fact to hand to other programs or web sites.

      What does this mean for Linux? Probably nothing. Linux could make use of this functionality, but my guess is it probably won't. The fact is that unless your code actually bothers to check the TCPA state of the machine, it just doesn't matter.

      On the other hand, Palladium might make some things a little trickier. Since the bootloader is part of the TCPA chain of trust, it's highly unlikely that Palladium will be able to enter it's "secure" mode if you are using LILO or grub. So if you are somebody who actually dual-boots you will probably have to have an official Microsoft bootloader on /dev/hda and LILO or whatever on /dev/hda1 (for example) and have the Microsoft bootloader pass control to your Linux bootloader. Or just don't run Windows.

      Could Microsoft abuse this to try to prevent users from dual booting? Sure. But they could easily prevent people from dual booting today if they wanted to. It's just that it would be such a blatantly anti-competetive move that even Microsoft would have a hard time pulling it off. They could refuse to boot thru LILO. They could complain and offer to "fix" any non-FAT or NTFS partitions at every boot. They could use browser version strings to control access to updates on their web site and bring DMCA charges against browsers which circumvent that by pretending to be IE. TCPA doesn't really make it easier to Microsoft to screw with people who dual boot. It's already trivial today!

    3. Re:I'm a little blurry on the details here.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      TCPA-BIOS->Correct bootloader->Unmodified OS

      LILO, Grub, and other bootloaders work by overwriting the boot sector with their own code. They then run other code which boots the OS. For instance, when you install a dual-boot Linux and Windows machine using lilo, lilo overwrites the boot sector with some code that presents a menu and then loads code from the head of a partition, into the same place that lilo was originally loaded, with essentially the same machine state. The end result is that the loaded code (eg, Windows boot sector) doesn't know that it was loaded directly from BIOS or from a separate boot loeader.

      With the scenario you describe, a cryptographic hash of the lilo boot sector would be stored in a secure location. When the Windows boot sector is loaded up, it checks this secure location to ensure that it indeed loaded directly from the BIOS. This check will fail, so Windows will know that it was not loaded directly from the BIOS, and I imagine Windows won't boot into "secure" mode and allow you to download/play your favorite MPAA wares.

      So, TCPA can be used to make dual-boot systems less useful, as Microsoft will not allow a dual-boot system to boot into a "secure" version of Windows (which eventually will mean that you won't be able to do anything at all on a Windows partition installed on a dual-boot machine).

      So far, all of this is a repetition or logical extension of what you describe.

      TCPA doesn't really make it easier to Microsoft to screw with people who dual boot.

      My question to you is: what use, then, does TCPA serve? If Microsoft uses TCPA through the methods you describe, then Microsoft will not be able to use the same features if loaded from a foreign boot loader. Certain features of Windows will only be available if you load directly from a MS-certified boot sector. You mention that MS would be able to do this today, which is true; however, why does Microsoft need TCPA if Microsoft is not planning to introduce features into Windows which are only available via MS-approved boot loaders? This would be an anti-competitive move, yes, but what possible use would Microsoft have for TCPA if not this?

    4. Re:I'm a little blurry on the details here.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But TCPA gives them the excuse they need to do it without getting dragged back in court.

    5. Re:I'm a little blurry on the details here.... by BeBoxer · · Score: 2

      My question to you is: what use, then, does TCPA serve?

      Microsoft(tm) wants to position Windows as the premier content viewing platform for digital media. One way of doing this is to get the media companies to "trust" Windows. Specifically, the media cartel want to be able to have some certainty that the end user hasn't modified the operating system from it's original state. Sure, Microsoft can include software checks but these are trivially circumvented.

      Enter TCPA. The BIOS acts as a "root of trust" (their term) which can be used to verify that the operating system has not been modified by the user. The TCPA BIOS will be audited, manufactured by trustworthy companies, and not easily modified by end users. The BIOS records the hash of the bootloader, which records the hash of the operating system loader, etc. etc. The goal being to force people who want to circumvent the operating system security to use hardware cracks. Presumably that's the only way to get the media cartel to "trust" your platform. And if all the online media is only available under Windows, that's big cha-ching for Microsoft going forward. Not to mention making things like product activation much more resiliant. Isn't that reason enough?

      why does Microsoft need TCPA if Microsoft is not planning to introduce features into Windows which are only available via MS-approved boot loaders? This would be an anti-competitive move, yes,

      Microsoft will introduce features which are only available thru a certified bootloader. That's the whole point! You can't very well pretend that the operating system is running in a known secure state if it's running inside of VMware, now can you? But like I said, at worst that will just mean that you'll have to the Microsoft bootloader to get to LILO. A pain perhaps, but not something that is likely to be seen as anti-competetive.

      Instead of getting our panties up in a knot, we should be trying to figure out how to make use of the new features TCPA will provide. Like how about a secure partition which can't be mounted/decrypted if you're computer is booted from a floppy? Or how about a distribution like Debian using this to ensure that package submissions only come from fully-patched up-to-date systems? Or for that matter, allowing clients downloading updates to verify that the server hasn't been rooted! Now that would be cool.

  54. Dear Brian by Rogerborg · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    How do you feel about having to correct editors that are so lazy and complacent that they don't feel the need to explain or even to link to an explanation of what "Usual interview rules" are? Further, do you see this as a sign that Slashdot has accepted that it can expect no new users, and that from now on it's just a sad slippery slope of sliding standards and shrinking, shrieking subscribers?

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  55. API to access TPM by metoc · · Score: 1

    Will there be specs and/or drivers to access the functionality of the BIOS and TPM.

    Basically if the TPM can process generate keys and execute crypto algorithms, can it also be used to speed up SSL, etc?

  56. Flash updates - still possible?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    I would like a BIOS that prevents niggers from using a computer.

    1. Re:Flash updates - still possible?! by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      I would like a BIOS that keeps Anonymous Cowards off of Slashdot

  57. TCPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given that the point of TCPA is to allow content-owners to control how that content is used, isn't it likely that any system that doesn't support TCPA would become effectively useless once TCPA is widely adopted? If you can't access content or information, then you're not going to get very far. And since open source software is not compatible with TCPA (in the sense that nobody would trust it since it can be easily modified), wouldn't that marginalize Linux and other open source OSes and allow Microsoft to further entrench its monopoly?

  58. Trust what? by peter.westerstrom · · Score: 1

    Only load trusted os?
    I don't trust MS os, so that means I can tell Bios never to load that os, and only load Linux ?

    In what way do I as a Linux user benefit from using a Palladium Bios motherboard? If not, why should I buy such a Motherboard?

    1. Re:Trust what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that would be "trusted OS" as in "trusted by Bill Gates".

  59. Get em! by mao+che+minh · · Score: 1

    Let's see the AMI spin doctor try to come up with believable answers to those questions! Thumbs up.

  60. Here's a probing question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Brian... when you bent over and took it in the ass for AMI with Bill Gates, did you actually feel it? I head his member is pretty small and flaccid (Micro Soft).

  61. Microsoft by AlgUSF · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Will you refuse to give M$ a key until their OS is trusted?

    --


    I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
  62. Why are BIOSes closed source? by mcelrath · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Having recently had a lot of trouble with my laptop's BIOS, on an issue that I could most certainly fix if I had access to the code... I started wondering what benefit AMI and other vendors have by keeping BIOS code secret? I can think of none whatsoever.

    An open-source TCPA BIOS might go a long way to alleviating the fears of the open source community, since we could see exactly what it is you're forcing on us. And hey, no doubt you'd get a few bug-fixing patches in return for your efforts.

    So, is an open-source BIOS a possibility? (TCPA or otherwise)

    -- Bob

    --
    1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
  63. OpenBIOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://www.freiburg.linux.de/OpenBIOS/

    Here is s solution for those not wanting to give up theyre hardware control.

  64. Editorial responsibility by The+Bungi · · Score: 2
    This is the text of the original article submission:

    An anonymous reader writes "American Megatrends announced its 'trusted computing' Palladium BIOS on Jan 6. It seems that the encrypted BIOS' integrity will be verified by a special chip or flash ROM, and will in turn verify the 'authenticity, integrity and privacy' of the boot loader and the operating system. Does that mean such machines may refuse to boot any other non-'trusted' OS? After all, the list of supporting corporations include AMD, Intel, IBM, and HP, of whom we heard quite favourable statements about Linux (just for example -- *BSDs will be equally affected) so far."

    Perhaps this should have been posted in the Ask Slashdot section instead of News. Or maybe it's time to create a new section: Unsubstantiated And Potentially False Rumors That Might Damage Reputations Of Companies And Individuals.

    Oh, and don't forget to browse the article with a +5 threshold. Let's hear it for informed, focused opinion floating to the top of the pile.

    A bit more editorial responsibility would have been called for here because this sort of thing is essentially libel, not to mention pure and simple FUD. Now AMI has to subject itself to a Slashdot interview so that the record can be set straight. Does anyone else find this slightly troubling?

    1. Re:Editorial responsibility by hutchy · · Score: 1

      The only thing that troubles me is that you are loose without a leash.

    2. Re:Editorial responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off turd! Linux 0wnz j00!!!! w33nd0es is the sUx0rZ!!!!!!!

    3. Re:Editorial responsibility by EpsCylonB · · Score: 2

      It's ok to have an Opinion.

  65. E-mail sent to marketing@ami by LarsG · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Brian,

    I sure would hate to be in your shoes right now. Putting yourself in front of a firing squad voluntarely takes guts.

    I sent an e-mail to marketing complaining about AMI supporting TCPA, and got the standard reply in return. My answer is below, and I am still waiting for a reply.

    Umbertina E. Vezzani wrote:

    Hello Laars,

    You can already find TCPA-enabled products on the market but they have a different BIOS.

    I am perfectly aware of that, and that is why I don't buy IBM laptops any more.

    The Security subsystem is intended for those users who want an extra security protection that is valid even outside the OS.

    The motherboard and system manufacturers will specify their system features, so I believe you will certainly be able to choose the features you want. I really don't think you will buy a motherboard with a hidden feature or "fritz".

    I am not afraid of hidden features. TCPA is merely the scaffolding which enables building "trusted applications"/"trusted clients". What I am afraid of, is how software vendors and the content industry will (ab)use TCPA.

    As for the reference to "fritz" - I think Ross Anderson went a little bit over the top in his critisism of TCPA. A much better overview of some of the technical problems with TCPA can be found here (I fully endorse Mr. Arbaugh's suggestions):
    http://www.cs.umd.edu/~waa/TCPA/TCP A-goodnbad.pdf

    TCPA is meant to answer to a demand of security from users, not something else.

    What demand exactly? TCPA doesn't solve any of the major security problems.

    TCPA only answers the question "has the basic components of this system been changed?", and makes it possible for 3rd parties to verify the state ("trustworthiness") of a system.

    The majority of security problems are on the OS or application level - macro/scripting vulnerabilities, virii, buffer overruns and similar. TCPA doesn't provide a solution for any of those. In fact, a software sandbox like Java or running certain applications in vmware virtual machines provides better protection against those real world problems.

    What exactly is TCPA supposed to solve? Don't give me some marketing fluff about "enhancing security for the user". I want cold, clear, technical examples of real world security problems that TCPA is supposed to solve.

    Also, which users are demanding TCPA? Users want protection against virii and similar, but TCPA doesn't solve those problems. Who are the end users that demand something like TCPA?

    I also believe that, if there is a solid foundation to the concerns for privacy people is expecting, the TCPA itself will improve its specification to address those concerns.

    So there is a real chance the next revision of the TCPA spec will include proper anonymous certificates a'la Chaum instead of the current "please trust the privacy CA" solution?

    It must be noted that AMI has not announced support for Palladium. Palladium is an initiative by an OS entity that is slated for the future.

    I know that. I also know that there is considerable disagreement going on between the Palladium and the TCPA proponents.

    To be honest, TCPA is a better specification than Palladium. However, TCPA does provide the scaffolding required for building "trusted systems" - i.e., that a 3rd party can control what is happening on my computer. TCPA is a Pandora's box - if abused, it could have a devastating effect on both innovation, privacy and consumer rights.

    Regarding the limitations of a system with TCPA I would offer the link below to the public specification for further information on compatibility with different OS's, and hardware. Based on that spec we can tell you that it does not limit the ability to run Linux (or any other open source solution).

    How is that supposed to make me feel good? I know that it is possible to disable (most of) TCPA. I know that my computer will continue to work even if the TCPA subsystem tell other computers out there that my computer has zero "trustworthiness".

    However, once digital commerce, streaming media and other online content start demanding TCPA enabled clients you are effectively a second rate citizen on the 'net and are locked out of a lot of content if TCPA is disabled on your computer.

    So:
    1) TCPA does not provide true anonymity (you have to trust the privacy CA).
    2) The scaffolding provided by TCPA can be abused by those who want to disable the Turing completeness of computers and instead turn them into locked down interactive content delivery platforms.
    3) The market effect will force people to use TCPA and TCPA enabled "trusted clients" even if they don't want to.
    4) TCPA is advertised as a security solution, but does not solve most of the real world security problems.

    With kind regards,
    Lars Gaarden

    --
    If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
  66. Platform owner by briancnorton · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Since microsoft is kind of vague on details about Palladium, I will hit you with a TCPA question. In the TCPA FAQ, it states that "Platform Owners" will decide which software runs on their platform. Who exactly is a "Platform Owner" and does microsoft have a simmilar "feature in palladium"

    --

    People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.

  67. Tell me why I should change my mind again? by TrekCycling · · Score: 1

    What I'd like to know is why something is called a "feature" if the users don't need it/want it. It's pretty clear that TCPA is only going to benefit media companies that want to control digital rights and that the hardware makers are buckling for fear of regulation. It's obvious what Microsoft's interest is in this. Eventually they could become the only usable (by the common man) OS that was "certified" to run on TCPA hardware. So why should I not go by my "last computer" and vow never to buy from you again? Please convince me to change my mind, because as it is I'm considering the x86 computer world dead and blood is on your hands in part.

  68. I gotta ask... by salesgeek · · Score: 2

    Who does AMD see as it's customer? Is it end users or computer manufacturers? Do end users care about DRM? What about computer manufacturers?

    $G

    --
    -- $G
    1. Re:I gotta ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know; you might want to ask the AMD rep that. This is the AMI rep.

  69. Authentication for palladium by briancnorton · · Score: 2

    What is the authentication scheme for palladium? Is it something like MS passport? How does the motherboard gain authentication from the OS?

    --

    People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.

  70. Once this becomes mainstream by Professor_Quail · · Score: 1

    Once (and if) Palladium and TCPA go into effect, and become mainstream, what's to stop large companies forcing upgrades by not allowing 'trusted' computers to access their networks and so on? For instance, say I'm still hooked on Win98 and see no reason to upgrade -- could my ISP, in cooperation with Microsoft, tell me that I can no longer use their service unless I upgrade my machine to Palladium-enabled hardware and OS?

    1. Re:Once this becomes mainstream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, PPP will always be PPP. What you have to worry about is the Application layer for such things as ICQ. I still use ICQ99a. Thanks to the fucking-over AOL gave ICQ, most of the clients in the world are incompatible with mine, as well as the ICQ servers. Why they would want to break their own servers is beyond me, but I know my version is the correct version, and I'm sure they'll wise up fix their servers and remove advertisements and spyware from their clients any day now.

  71. Do you see mandatory TCPA and/or Palladium by dpilot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is it, in the fewest words. Others have danced around the question, but IMHO this is really it.

    I understand that if I want to play MPAA or RIAA content, I may need to have a DRM OS, probably Palladium, and it will need to be on a system with a TCPA BIOS.

    But what if I want to just boot Linux (or trusty old Win98SE) to program or play games?

    Will I be permitted to run an "untrusted" computer, or is it only a matter of time until the only new computer is a trusted computer that will only run a trusted OS?

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  72. So why SHOULDN'T we boycott AMI? by StevenMaurer · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I am a bit concerned that the information you provided misled your readers into thinking AMI was promoting Palladium or taking some sort of anti-open-source stance.

    It plainly is anti open-source.

    TPM has no benefit to end users. All it does is give Microsoft an argument to use with ISVs as to why they shouldn't develop products for open source platforms. They can say: "If you ever release your product for Linux, some people will disassemble it. But with our "trusted" OSes, you'll never have to worry about crackers, because we don't let our customers control their own machines".

    It's a powerful argument. There may even be a few ISVs stupid enough to fall for it. (Most ISVs don't go out of business from cracks, they die when Microsoft itself uses its monopoly power to sieze the market the ISV developed.)

    But it's all a moot point. Why shouldn't we be trying to nip this in the bud? Why shouldn't we be spreading the word to everyone we know that people who buy AMI will very soon have to accept whatever draconian "Clickthrough" is on the software package, giving up their legal rights for no consideration whatsoever?

    In short, why shouldn't we be trying to drive AMI out of business?

    Sounds like a plan to me.

    1. Re:So why SHOULDN'T we boycott AMI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AMI Rep: All your bios are belong to us.

      I'm so very sorry.

  73. A marketing question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What steps, if any will be taken to insure that any OS, not supporting Palladium will be marked as inferior in some way?

    Or what steps will be taken to inform comsumers of what Palladium will and will not allow them to do?

    Is the registrations scheme for Windows XP the base method which will be used to implement this, where any hardware changes are tracked?

  74. Working as a developer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to work in the smart card business. And the "trusted" computer concepts seem very related to the way things worked there.
    Please tell me if these things would be true.

    As a developer, in order to deploy an application so it can read trusted data, it would be necessary to have your app specially signed?

    if so, who would control the tools needed to do the signing and how much would they cost?

    will an application need to be resigned every time it is modified and recompiled?

    How do you expect to accommodate the need for people to do multiple re-complies daily but still be able to test and see if the applications they are working on can read trusted data after they have been changed?

    Do you envision a system where the key issuer has an NDC signed by everyone who develops programs that deal with trusted content as is standard in the smart card industry?

    most smart card models are based on the idea that the vendor / bank controls what applications are loaded onto your card.

    Do you think that most users would find a model like this ( where vendors control content and functionally of there computers) acceptable?

    Vendors ARE the ones who have keys correct?

    how does this differ from trusted computing control of data?

  75. Specs, API, drivers by metoc · · Score: 1

    Will there be specs and/or drivers to access the functionality of the BIOS and TPM?

    If the TPM can generate keys and execute crypto algorithms, can it also be used to speed up SSL, etc?

    1. Re:Specs, API, drivers by CoolVibe · · Score: 2

      BIOSes are slow by nature, don't bet on it.

  76. Rules by bperkins · · Score: 1

    (Usual Slashdot interview rules.)

    Ahh crap.

    (Hides rubber hose, lubricant, and yak.)

  77. Please take to +5 by sulli · · Score: 1

    Excellent question.

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
  78. I dual boot... by (H)elix1 · · Score: 2

    I dual boot my box to run a couple different flavors of Windows and Linux. (removable hard drives). Will the BIOS auto detect something that supports the Palladium and turn it on, or will I have to drop into the BIOS and change the 'enable palladium' settings every time. I expect a future cut of Windows to require such a thing to be enabled before it runs.

    In short, if the boot sector is not 'trusted' by AMIBIOS will the default behavior be boot with a warning or not boot until the BIOS changes?

    (Disclaimer: For the record, this is a feature I want to see die the same way Intel's CPU identification did. I'll be one of those dragging my feet making existing hardware and software last longer than I usually do hoping the market corrects the situation.)

    --
    +++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
  79. Wow, how'd they do that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's a simple one... (Score:5, Redundant)
    by Sheetrock (152993) Alter Relationship on Mon January 13, 09:06 AM (#5073396)

  80. Why is AMI selling out? by borgheron · · Score: 1

    Why should I buy your products when you are conspiring to hobble future technology to limit us?

    I will help with the development of an Open BIOS to drive people like AMI out of business.

    GJC

    --
    Gregory Casamento
    ## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
  81. OMFG, Splendid karma wh0ring dude! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly the same cut & paste from last Palladiumrelated discussion.. Congrats!..

  82. "War Is Peace," [snip], "Trust Is Vulnerability" by DuckDuckBOOM! · · Score: 1

    Wow. I had no idea George Orwell had been a DoD consultant.

    --
    Life is like surrealism: if you have to have it explained to you, you can't afford it.
  83. Can you trust your computer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Can you trust your computer?

    - By Richard Stallman -

    Who should your computer take its orders from? Most people think their
    computers should obey them, not obey someone else. With a plan they call
    "trusted computing," large media corporations (including the movie
    companies and record companies), together with computer companies such
    as Microsoft and Intel, are planning to make your computer obey them
    instead of you. Proprietary programs have included malicious features
    before, but this plan would make it universal.

    Proprietary software means, fundamentally, that you don't control
    what it does; you can't study the source code, or change it. It's not
    surprising that clever businessmen find ways to use their control to
    put you at a disadvantage. Microsoft has done this several times: one
    version of Windows was designed to report to Microsoft all the
    software on your hard disk; a recent "security" upgrade in Windows
    Media Player required users to agree to new restrictions. But
    Microsoft is not alone: the KaZaa music-sharing software is designed
    so that KaZaa's business partner can rent out the use of your
    computer to their clients. These malicious features are often secret,
    but even once you know about them it is hard to remove them, since
    you don't have the source code.

    In the past, these were isolated incidents. "Trusted computing" would
    make it pervasive. "Treacherous computing" is a more appropriate
    name, because the plan is designed to make sure your computer will
    systematically disobey you. In fact, it is designed to stop your
    computer from functioning as a general-purpose computer. Every
    operation may require explicit permission.

    The technical idea underlying treacherous computing is that the
    computer includes a digital encryption and signature device, and the
    keys are kept secret from you. (Microsoft's version of this is called
    "palladium.") Proprietary programs will use this device to control
    which other programs you can run, which documents or data you can
    access, and what programs you can pass them to. These programs will
    continually download new authorization rules through the Internet,
    and impose those rules automatically on your work. If you don't allow
    your computer to obtain the new rules periodically from the Internet,
    some capabilities will automatically cease to function.

    Of course, Hollywood and the record companies plan to use treacherous
    computing for "DRM" (Digital Restrictions Management), so that
    downloaded videos and music can be played only on one specified
    computer. Sharing will be entirely impossible, at least using the
    authorized files that you would get from those companies. You, the
    public, ought to have both the freedom and the ability to share these
    things. (I expect that someone will find a way to produce unencrypted
    versions, and to upload and share them, so DRM will not entirely
    succeed, but that is no excuse for the system.)

    Making sharing impossible is bad enough, but it gets worse. There are
    plans to use the same facility for email and documents -- resulting
    in email that disappears in two weeks, or documents that can only be
    read on the computers in one company.

    Imagine if you get an email from your boss telling you to do
    something that you think is risky; a month later, when it backfires,
    you can't use the email to show that the decision was not yours.
    "Getting it in writing" doesn't protect you when the order is written
    in disappearing ink.

    Imagine if you get an email from your boss stating a policy that is
    illegal or morally outrageous, such as to shred your company's audit
    documents, or to allow a dangerous threat to your country to move
    forward unchecked. Today you can send this to a reporter and expose
    the activity. With treacherous computing, the reporter won't be able
    to read the document; her computer will refuse to obey her.
    Treacherous computing becomes a paradise for corruption.

    Word processors such as Microsoft Word could use treacherous
    computing when they save your documents, to make sure no competing
    word processors can read them. Today we must figure out the secrets
    of Word format by laborious experiments in order to make free word
    processors read Word documents. If Word encrypts documents using
    treacherous computing when saving them, the free software community
    won't have a chance of developing software to read them -- and if we
    could, such programs might even be forbidden by the Digital
    Millennium Copyright Act.

    Programs that use treacherous computing will continually download new
    authorization rules through the Internet, and impose those rules
    automatically on your work. If Microsoft, or the U.S. government,
    does not like what you said in a document you wrote, they could post
    new instructions telling all computers to refuse to let anyone read
    that document. Each computer would obey when it downloads the new
    instructions. Your writing would be subject to 1984-style retroactive
    erasure. You might be unable to read it yourself.

    You might think you can find out what nasty things a treacherous
    computing application does, study how painful they are, and decide
    whether to accept them. It would be short-sighted and foolish to
    accept, but the point is that the deal you think you are making won't
    stand still. Once you come depend on using the program, you are
    hooked and they know it; then they can change the deal. Some
    applications will automatically download upgrades that will do
    something different -- and they won't give you a choice about whether
    to upgrade.

    Today you can avoid being restricted by proprietary software by not
    using it. If you run GNU/Linux or another free operating system, and
    if you avoid installing proprietary applications on it, then you are
    in charge of what your computer does. If a free program has a
    malicious feature, other developers in the community will take it
    out, and you can use the corrected version. You can also run free
    application programs and tools on non-free operating systems; this
    falls short of fully giving you freedom, but many users do it.

    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 developer. You could
    not run free applications on such a system. If you did figure out
    how, and told someone, that could be a crime.

    There are proposals already for U.S. laws that would require all
    computers to support treacherous computing, and to prohibit
    connecting old computers to the Internet. The CBDTPA (we call it the
    Consume But Don't Try Programming Act) is one of them. But even if
    they don't legally force you to switch to treacherous computing, the
    pressure to accept it may be enormous. Today people often use Word
    format for communication, although this causes several sorts of
    problems (see
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments. html). If only a
    treacherous computing machine can read the latest Word documents,
    many people will switch to it, if they view the situation only in
    terms of individual action (take it or leave it). To oppose
    treacherous computing, we must join together and confront the
    situation as a collective choice.

    For further information about treacherous computing, see
    http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/tcpa-faq.html.

    To block treacherous computing will require large numbers of citizens
    to organize. We need your help! The Electronic Frontier Foundation
    (www.eff.org) and Public Knowledge (www.publicknowledge.org) are
    campaigning against treacherous computing, and so is the
    FSF-sponsored Digital Speech Project (www.digitalspeech.org). Please
    visit these Web sites so you can sign up to support their work.

    You can also help by writing to the public affairs offices of Intel,
    IBM, HP/Compaq, or anyone you have bought a computer from, explaining
    that you don't want to be pressured to buy "trusted" computing
    systems so you don't want them to produce any. This can bring
    consumer power to bear. If you do this on your own, please send
    copies of your letters to the organizations above.

    Postscripts:

    1. The GNU Project distributes the GNU Privacy Guard, a program that
    implements public-key encryption and digital signatures, which you
    can use to send secure and private email. It is useful to explore how
    GPG differs from treacherous computing, and see what makes one
    helpful and the other so dangerous.

    When someone uses GPG to send you an encrypted document, and you use
    GPG to decode it, the result is an unencrypted document that you can
    read, forward, copy, and even re-encrypt to send it securely to
    someone else. A treacherous computing application would let you read
    the words on the screen, but would not let you produce an unencrypted
    document that you could use in other ways. GPG, a free software
    package, makes security features available to the users; they use it.
    Treacherous computing is designed to impose restrictions on the
    users; it uses them.

    2. Microsoft presents Palladium as a security measure, and claims
    that it will protect against viruses, but this claim is evidently
    false. A presentation by Microsoft Research in October 2002 stated
    that one of the specifications of Palladium is that existing
    operating systems and applications will continue to run; therefore,
    viruses will continue to be able to do all the things that they can
    do today.

    When Microsoft speaks of "security" in connection with Palladium,
    they do not mean what we normally mean by that word: protecting your
    machine from things you do not want. They mean protecting your copies
    of data on your machine from access by you in ways others do not
    want. A slide in the presentation listed several types of secrets
    Palladium could be used to keep, including "third party secrets" and
    "user secrets" -- but it put "user secrets" in quotation marks,
    recognizing that this is not what Palladium is really designed for.

    The presentation made frequent use of other terms that we frequently
    associate with the context of security, such as "attack," "malicious
    code," "spoofing," as well as "trusted." None of them means what it
    normally means. "Attack" doesn't mean someone trying to hurt you, it
    means you trying to copy music. "Malicious code" means code installed
    by you to do what someone else doesn't want your machine to do.
    "Spoofing" doesn't mean someone fooling you, it means you fooling
    Palladium. And so on.

    3. A previous statement by the Palladium developers stated the basic
    premise that whoever developed or collected information should have
    total control of how you use it. This would represent a revolutionary
    overturn of past ideas of ethics and of the legal system, and create
    an unprecedented system of control. The specific problems of these
    systems are no accident; they result from the basic goal. It is the
    goal we must reject.

    Copyright 2002 Richard Stallman
    Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted
    without royalty in any medium provided this notice is preserved.

  84. Will you take the pledge? by Royster · · Score: 2

    Will AMI pledge not to make DMCA claims against Open SOurce projects? If you do not, why should we believe a word you have to say?

    --
    I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
  85. Re:Missing Idea (mod parent up) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod this one up!! Although not being able to run Paladium on my latest 5.3GHz Athlon XP2-64 home-built, water-cooled system wouldn't make me cry, I would like to at least have the choice to do so.

  86. In plain English (so my mom would understand) by paranoic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just what problem is this trying to solve?
    Why can't my computer be trusted?
    Is this trying to fix a fundamental flaw in operating systems?

  87. Real Questions by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1) What does it take (steps,costs including any IP licensing fees) to make OS Foo boot on a TCPA computer?

    2) What does it take (steps, costs including licensing fees) to make application Bar run on Foo? On any other OS?

    Ignoring rampant paranoia, these are the questions that will actually affect open source development. It comes down to how much will it cost for us to run our programs?

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    1. Re:Real Questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 1) What does it take (steps,costs including any IP licensing fees) to make OS Foo boot on a TCPA computer?

      It won't cost anything. Promised. Your LILO/GRUB/BSD bootloader will work exactly as before.

      You see, no problem.

      The catch is that the Windows located on your other partition that is booted via LILO/GRUB will not trust hardware (because its boot sector would have been tampered with), so will be basically useless. But don't expect AMI to tell you this.

  88. Yes, hopefully. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But we might have to buy imported hardware components on the black market.

    1. Re:Yes, hopefully. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Won't do you any good. M$ will coerce ISP's (various ways they can do this, don't know which one they're planning to use) into modifying their user agreements such that you will need to maintain a "trusted" platform in order to connect to the net. Therefore, even if you could buy black market hardware, you could not connect to the internet.

  89. OKay how about a reasonable question by linuxislandsucks · · Score: 1

    My question is about the relationship between TCPA and Pallidum adn your company and the DARAP BIOS porject with similar aims..

    Where does AIMSBIOS stand as far as getting a root certificate to run any Opensource OS or program under this new BIOS.. I believe under the DARPA project which btw already has run linux and BSd under its bios that youc an get a free root certificate to run any OS...

    Does AIMSBIOS believe inthe same poplicy or are we going to see OpenSource held hostage!

    --
    Don't Tread on OpenSource
  90. TCPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    It seems like everyone is missing the point. Yes you will be able to run Linux etc. However even if your version of Linux is signed it doesn't mean that say Time Warner will work with it. Time Warner would say 'Yes we know exactly which pieces of software are running on your system and yes they are secure, however since your OS doesn't implement Time Warners set of consumer restrictions you will not be allowed to download our movies.'

    Linux user would be frozen out because content providers simply will refuse to work with software unless they both 'trust' and that the software also implements the consumer restrictions that the content providers want.

  91. My Question: DO YOU LIKE TO EAT DICK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dont mod me up, I have enough karma.

  92. Access to HARDWARE by Windcatcher · · Score: 2

    If I run an alternative OS (Linux, DOS, etc.) will I have complete and unfettered access to MY HARDWARE on the PC that I OWN? This includes access to motherboard peripherals as well as total access to ALL peripherals on the PCI/Video/other bus.

    If the answer is no, or if I get a wishy-washy "well, sort of, but..." then please enumerate those components I will not be able to access and WHY I CAN'T BE TRUSTED TO ACCESS MY OWN HARDWARE.

  93. YES YES YES by a7244270 · · Score: 1

    this is a damm good question.

  94. Why? by NigelJohnstone · · Score: 1

    Why?

  95. Re:Rules -- WAY OT by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1

    (Hides rubber hose, lubricant, and yak.)

    OK, I figured out the rubber hose and the lubricant. But the yak? WTF were you going to do with the yak????

    Disclaimer: This disclaimer provides compliance under the Americans with Disabilities Act. For the humor impaired, yes, I know it's OT, but it is a joke.

    --
    Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
  96. Open Firmware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you guys ever considered pushing the PC into the modern age by giving users the option of Open Firmware? Obviously the OS needs to expect it, but don't you think it'd be in the industry's best interest to finally break ranks and not boot a machine in 8086 mode?

    Surely you could do this and still provide basic fallback for when people want to run their old DOS boot disks and whatnot. Perhaps a menu where the user could check 'boot in legacy mode' where the CPU would drop back to 8086 mode before loading that first bootsector? At any rate, it's high time that this gets fixed and since you're one of the few organizations that could spearhead that, what are your thoughts on it?

    1. Re:Open Firmware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.freiburg.linux.de/OpenBIOS/

  97. Chosen questions, chosen answers. by mmol_6453 · · Score: 2

    You can't intellectualy accept a company's published "stance" because said company has the ultimate option of misleadingly rewording, or even omitting, information that the public would find unappetizing. In a popularity-based publication, asking a specific list of questions usually attempts to lock them down into responding with a very narrow range of answers. Some political talk shows go so far as to re-ask the question if they didn't get the answer they want. (This is what they call "playing hardball.")

    While you have to take what is said with a grain of salt in any case, some organizations, such as Republicans, Democrats and Microsoft, are in high enough positions to reword questions to a less damning, or even advantageous form. As an example, have you ever heard an interview where the interviewee was asked a piercing question, and he made it sound like the interviewer was a foolish idiot?

    --
    What's this Submit thingy do?
  98. I can see it now... by AlgUSF · · Score: 1

    Since you are not running a "trusted OS", whenever you try to listen to a copyrighted song from CD, the BIOS shuts down the hard drives and CD-ROM drives. When you ask the BIOS manufacturer they will say "It works, as long as you don't try to open copyrighted material on an untrusted OS".

    --


    I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
  99. Orwell cannot be applied to EVERYTHING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It does make logical sense - if a system can't harm you, it's not trusted because it's not *anything*, it's not part of the equation at all.

    To say that something is 'trusted' says that it does in fact have the power to harm *but won't do so*.

    That is the definition of "trust", whether you like it or not. It's not entirely a 'positive' connotation.

  100. Question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you suck cock for cash?

    1. Re:Question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He probably doesn't... But I have it on good information that you and your mom do. And cheap too. $.50 a suck

  101. Migration Path by Glonoinha · · Score: 1

    >Is there a migration path of I have decided to move my components from a DRM enabled machine to another vendor's bios ?

    Sure is :

    0. Linux hacker. -- you are here.
    1. Unlawful combatant.
    2. Indefinite detainee.
    3. Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Prison.

    --
    Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
  102. In one word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    perhaps.

  103. Just out of wondering... by MickLinux · · Score: 2

    ... way back in the days of Windows 3.1, I noticed that my AMIBIOS code for interrupt 9 (I think it was that... keyboard direct hardware service, anyhow) was byte-for-byte identical to significant sections of Windows' keyboard.drv code.

    Now, I used that similarity to find a gap, where I could put special codes in my notebook computer's keyboard code to disable the keyboard while my scanner took data [it was a bug workaround]. But to this day, I wonder: did AMIBIOS know about this? Did they license it to Windows? Or was this just a case of "no, we didn't know, but they stole it"?

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  104. File formats!!! by Windcatcher · · Score: 2

    There's another lurking evil, and I really think this is the big one. Microsoft wants to protect their MS-Word near-monopoly (near? who an I kidding?) and TCPA+Palladium is a way of locking people into MS Office forever. Want to read that document that you converted to Palladium Office? You'll have to use a Microsoft product, because Office will require TCPA and it just used your motherboard to encrypt that file so that no other office software can read it.

    What? You work for Sun and want to get StarOffice to read the new, improved, .DOC files? Forget it. They're encrypted with a key, and obtaining that key without Microsoft's permission is a DMCA violation. Oh, but you can license the ability to read those files, for a huge fee. What? You want to edit them too? Prepare to pay a king's ransom.

    Want to edit documents on your Palm(tm)? You must buy Microsoft Office for Palm, as Documents to Go won't work any more. Or maybe MS will tell you to go pound sand and buy a nice, new pocket PC that's running a Microsoft OS. Flip a coin on that one...it depends on how bad MS might want Palm out of business.

    IMHO, that's the real purpose of TCPA+Palladium. Anti-competitive tactics on steroids.

  105. Compatibility with Garage "Hacks" by Catiline · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm a hobbyist who builds his own computer, writes his own software, and (on rare occasions) will build hardware components (as in: with solder and chips). What assurance do I have that your "Trusted Computing" initiative won't interfere with my projects? Interference here is defined as reducing the operational capacities -- including networking features -- of the computer or reducing my ability to develop to my needs. In a way this is four separate questions: how software, Trusted vendor hardware, pre-Trust vendor hardware, and home-built hardware integrate into the "Trusted Computing" architecture.

    --
    Do you like Japanese imports?
  106. Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does your BIOS essentially take instructions from a TCPA-enabled OS that could disable certain hardware on the motherboard (any hardware) on command? In other words, if an untrusted DVD player was installed and the OS told your BIOS to disable the video and audio cards until that program was terminated... would your BIOS comply? If that is so (a lot of ifs, I know), what prevents a new generation of viruses from sending fake TCPA messages to the BIOS causing damage to your hardware and making all your software unable to be used by you?

  107. Multiple OS by dugy · · Score: 1

    How will it all work when you are running multiple diffrent OS from one machine? Specifically when one OS is protected and signed and the other isn't required to.

    Will there be any affect on bootloaders?

  108. Software Testing. by lynx_user_abroad · · Score: 1
    Can you explain how a TCPA-enabled motherboard would benefit software development engineers and their employers over a non-TCPA-enabled version? In order to test my TCPA-requiring features, I will obviously need to be testing only on TCPA-enabled hardware, but won't I also have to have every alpha, every beta, every nightly build, every proposed patch, etc, TCPA evaluated and signed in order to run my testcases? Or will there be a mechanism whereby an 'un-certified' build will be treated by the hardware as being certified (even though it's not) to facilitate software testing?

    And doesn't the availability of that feature place the security of the whole TCPA platform in question?

    --

    The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.

  109. Windows by Aknaton · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    If Palladium is designed to provide a secure environment then how come it lets the user run Windows?

  110. Technical Explanation of BIOS Settings by doppleganger871 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have been doing research on BIOS settings for many years, and I have found good articles on what the settings do, and how to tweak them for the best performance/stability mix. But, I would like to know if the BIOS manufacturer itself would be able to provide an in-depth manual of all the BIOS settings, and what exactly they do. All the manuals that come with motherboards are very short on explanations, and I would like to see someone within the company actually explain to us hardware enthusiasts the down 'n dirty, nitty gritty, dirt under the rug, needle in a haystack type of information that we could use to make our computers run the absolute best they can. Because, as we all know, optimizing software and firmware is a lot cheaper than upgrading parts.

    -Jay

    --
    -- Liberalism is a mental disorder.
    1. Re:Technical Explanation of BIOS Settings by anonymous+cupboard · · Score: 2
      I guess one of the issues is that the BIOS settings go together with the chipset so interpretations vary depending upon the motherboard.

      However, I agree with the point. Someone should provide this information and I'm certain a lot of it already exists in the documentation provided by the BIOS manufacturer to the motherboard manufacturer.

  111. How do you feel about TCPI? by stinkydog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Will the next computer you personally buy implement these features?

    Who will you give access to your machine (Microsoft, RIAA, MPAA, Homeland Security)?

    When the thought police come to round up us 'Criminals' that will not give up our 'untrusted' systems will you be able to sleep at night?

    SD

    --
    âoeWho knew something as harmless as willful ignorance could end up having real consequences?â
    1. Re:How do you feel about TCPI? by Reziac · · Score: 2
      You say,

      "Who will you give access to your machine (Microsoft, RIAA, MPAA, Homeland Security)?"

      Erm... I believe you meant to say,

      "Who will give you access to your machine (Microsoft, RIAA, MPAA, Homeland Security)?"

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  112. I wondered what happend to "George Tirebiter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    the former editor at LinuxToday who was caught astroturfing his own publication. Now I know.


    What does the term "Trusted Editor" mean? An editor who breaks his trust?

  113. Biblic implications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    As a Christian, I would to ask if you can make
    any comparison with the events that we are strarting to see, and the facts previewed in the Apocalipse book.


    If I remember well, the book written several thousand years ago, says that near the end, the evil master will implement many technical ways of controlling people, using a number in the right hand (finger print) or in the head (eye iris).


    The book also says that it will be impossible to buy or sell anything without using the evil word.


    When I read this I think about what things like Palladium and Passport, might turn in the future.

  114. Why should we trust you? by bshowalter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Palladium and any other DRM-enabling doodad are products that are inherently designed to enable vendors who do not trust their customers to exercise some degree of control over how those customers use the vendors' products. At the same time, those vendors expect customers to trust that the use of DRM products will not result in side effects that may be detrimental to users' freedom to use legally obtained products as they see fit provided such use is within the law.

    Since AMI appears to be taking the side of those vendors who feel they cannot trust their customers, why should we as customers trust AMI to create products that do not infringe upon our rights as customers? Why should we not take our business to vendors who are willing to trust that we will not do anything illegal with their products, instead of assuming up front that all customers have some sort of illegal intent?

    1. Re:Why should we trust you? by kevinank · · Score: 2
      Since AMI appears to be taking the side of those vendors who feel they cannot trust their customers, why should we as customers trust AMI to create products that do not infringe upon our rights as customers? Why should we not take our business to vendors who are willing to trust that we will not do anything illegal with their products, instead of assuming up front that all customers have some sort of illegal intent?

      I'm frankly amazed that anyone can make the baldfaced claim that Palladium is only about security for the users and expect to be believed. The applications for limiting user control of computing devices are inherent in the technology, just as security is not. Take a couple of hours to compare Palladium's feature set against last year's CERT and Security Focus alerts, and count how many of them would have been averted by Palladium.

      Buffer overflows? No help from Palladium. Scripting abuse? No help from Palladium. Distributed denial of service attacks? No help from Palladium. Exploitation of bugs in web applications? No help from Palladium. Burying trojan horse code in the build scripts of popular security programs? No help from Palladium.

      Just what is this supposed security platform supposed to be secure against?

      --
      LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
  115. Clarification by Rayonic · · Score: 2

    The poster partially answers his own question:

    > Who are these customers? If this a case where customers are not the same as users?

    AMI sells to motherboard manufacturers, not to end users. But the question still stands, who are these companies that are asking AMI for these features?

    --
    [PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
    1. Re:Clarification by koan · · Score: 1

      Microsoft, as you can see from the growth and profit line they are going under, they can't afford to have *any* piracy as it could destroy this wonderful company they have built...I mean it's not like they let the piracy thing go fo years so that their product would become a dominate force in the industry.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  116. User Signable Programs by SuperFrink · · Score: 1

    Firstly I'm not familliar with the implementation details however I'm noticing that there is a fear that what is "trusted" to run on a person's PC will be choosen by companies who sell software and not the PC's owner.

    What is the feasability of adding a mechanism such that the PC's owner will be able to generate a key pair and sign thier own programs (or even programs they download from the net)?

    1. Re:User Signable Programs by SuperFrink · · Score: 1

      I should also ask if it might be possible for me as the PC's owner to disable certain vendor's programs?

      Is there any method of revoking trust? For example suppose some software has been signed but it is later discovered that the program has a malicious virus/trojan/etc.

  117. Simple. by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2

    Either
    a) It's signed by you
    b) It's signed by someone you trust

    I don't see this BIOS as being a major problem if it allows for self-signing with a), and for you to choose who is on your b) list.

    i.e. if Sourceforge has a signing authority, can I add them to my list of trusted software sources? Or must all software be signed by Veri$ign?

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  118. Re:"War Is Peace," [snip], "Trust Is Vulnerability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had no idea George Orwell had been a DoD consultant.

    Shouldn't it be obvious? After all, it's called the Department of Defense despite the fact that almost all of its budget goes not into defending the US but rather into attacking others. It should be called the Department of Offense.

  119. Net weight by King+of+the+World · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Often people describe the control that Microsoft has over office file formats as one of massive legacy. They have the 90% of the office market and in practice it's impossible not to deal with the format.

    Palladium claims to have the freedom to choose whether you want to connect to another palladium machine. This freedom is at an individual level, in the same was I can choose to use Abiword.

    If Palladium achieves mass market how will my freedom not to use Palladium be possible? Will it be like having the Freedom to speak Esperanto?

    --
    --Giving to trolls for the benefit of us all
  120. AMI Outreach. by lynx_user_abroad · · Score: 1
    Does AMI plan any "community outreach" programs to help explain to the Linux, BSD, etc (non-proprietary, non-commercial) operating system community the benefits of developing for/using TCPA-enabled hardware? It would seem that TCPA is designed to prevent the small developer from playing on the same field with the "big boys". Is this the view AMI is taking ("you little folk aren't worth us wasting our time") or is there a place in the TCPA-only world for a small developer to play?

    Or, maybe rephrase that as "Why shouldn't the average Linux user respond as if AMI just declared war on us?"

    --

    The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.

  121. TCPA by 9jack9 · · Score: 1

    The TCPA organization does not make its membership publicly available. Why is that? How was that decision made? Was there a vote? Did AMI participate in that decision? If so, how did AMI vote? What are the benefits to AMI in being a member of the TCPA? Can you give us a list of members?

  122. Are the concerns of William Arbaugh considered ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These are mainly regarding privacy issues and
    valid for TCPA ( ie. no palladium involved )
    Introduction from the page below linked below:

    We are all aware of the criticisms that the TCPA has received. Ross Anderson did a good job of explaining the problems in an abstract fashion, but I felt that there were some things left out (Privacy concerns). I also wanted to see if the TCPA could provide the good things- mandatory access control, integrity protection, and secure storage without the bad things. What I found will appear in an article in my security column of IEEE Computer next month. However, I wanted to briefly mention the findings before hand.

    http://www.cs.umd.edu/~waa/TCPA/TCPA-good nbad.html

    And it ends with:

    The TCPA as it stands now is unacceptable. But, technology such as TCPA offers great promise for improving information security. I hope that the TCPA technical committee listens to these suggestions and/or others, and takes action to improve the specification so that we can have the good, but not the bad.

    /mi-ke

  123. why is this a problem? by nusuth · · Score: 2

    I would know my woody isn't signed anyway, no problem there. But I'd rather have bios telling me my new ArkLinux 4.2 is really signed or not.

    --

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

  124. My question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cut your hair?

  125. Is TCPA/Palladium is making de facto-contracts? by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What I find most interesting is how Palladium is advertized as having features like letting content creators (e.g. a person sending you an e-mail) control what you can do with it (automatic deletion, no forwarding, no printing).

    However, we never get a say in this, we never agree to any such "contract". If your company is producing a product as part of a system designed to disempower me in favor of a machine, does it really surprise you that I don't like it?

    TCPA/Palladium has never been about how I, the end user can come in control of my machine, because I am already in total control (up to the limitations of my tools). TCPA can for me, at best, be a hardware version of a "sandbox", where I control what resources are availible to a given program. But such programs already exists in software and has no need for hardware backing.

    Many people have compared TCPA to being a program running in Ring -1 (Ring 0 being the OS kernel). The only thing it can control in addition to what the OS already can control, is what runs in Ring 0. So why do you need to control what runs in Ring 0? Answer me that.

    Because you can't trust me, isn't it?. Isn't that what it's all about? Having a trust chain that I can't break. So the content, and my machine can negoiate a deal, without me ever getting a say. So that they two can decide, regardsless of rights granted by law (like fair use and first sale), when, how, where and what I can see, hear, use and do. And you don't find that offensive?

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  126. Who owns the keys? by Nkwe · · Score: 1
    It sounds like we are talking about installing a lock in the bios. This lock will prevent the machine from booting without the proper keys. This lock will also be a bit smarter then a physical lock, it will be able to answer the question when the operating system asks: "Yes, I was unlocked by the right key."

    My questions are:

    Who owns the keys?

    How much do the keys cost?

    How much will it cost to verify another user's key? (Will this be a subscription service?)

    When whoever owns the keys decides they don't like me or what I am doing, can they turn the keys off?

    What happens when the lock breaks or gets frozen in the winter?

  127. Ahh but it's software by grahamsz · · Score: 2

    Hang on a second - I'm not 100% sure but I strongly suspect that you license you bios software from AMI (much like any other software you never actually buy it).

    This is no different than when a manufacturer only ever supplies a machine with windows preinstalled. I think some people have actually had refunds because they never used the installed os.

    Should be interesting to see if AMI abuse their monopoly position to try and stop manufacturers supplying machines with alternate bios's

  128. Palladium alternative for security by TarPitt · · Score: 1
    What about alternatives to Palladium for providing hardware-based security? For example, trusted code of various crypto algorithms along with perhaps certain trustworthy public keys (CA signing keys, etc.) might be nice. One could run something like Tripwire using unhackable hardware based crypto. If the code and APIs were open, then open source developers could make wide use of this.


    Despite much criticism of Palladium, I do think there is a need for a trusted security function built into hardware (so it will resist Trojan horse programs and kernel compromises).

    --
    If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
  129. Cheezus, I should be an editor... by Kjella · · Score: 2

    ...I don't even proofread my own headilnes. Also, "regardsless" should be "regardless". What? You mean there's a preview button?

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  130. How will this promote open source? by xwinter · · Score: 1
    I am a bit concerned that the information you provided misled your readers into thinking AMI was promoting Palladium or taking some sort of anti-open-source stance.

    My question is how you would believe that enabling these features in your BIOS promotes open source. So to phrase it in a form of a question: Are there any ways an AMI TCPA enabled BIOS will promote open-source software? My gut tells me no way, but I am curious if you see any benefits of TCPA to open source software.

  131. Is this just a public relations excercise? by The_Rift · · Score: 1

    I'm sure a lot of people with much better technical knowledge than I will be raising some very valid points here. My question is, will you be reporting back these to your managers? Will AMI be taking these points into consideration or is this just a temporary public relations excercise towards the geek comminity.

  132. You don't watch UK news by DrSkwid · · Score: 2

    Jeremy Paxman wins a Royal Television Soceity Award for his grilling of Michael Howard when in 1997 he asks Howard [the incumbent Home Secretary] the same question 14 times over the Derek Lewis prison affair, complete with interruptions and increasing impatience in his voice. I was watching it myself at the time with glee.

    MH: I was entitled to express my views. I was entitled to be consulted.

    JP: Did you threaten to overrule him?

    MH: I was not entitled to instruct Derek Lewis and I did not instruct him. And the truth of it is . . .

    JP: Did you threaten to overrule him?

    MH: And the truth of the matter is Mr Marriott was not suspended. I did not . . .

    JP: Did you threaten to overrule him?

    MH: I did not overrule Derek Lewis.

    JP: Did you threaten to overrule him?

    MH: I took advice on what I could and could not do . . .

    JP: Did you threaten to overrule him, Mr Howard?

    MH: . . . and I acted scrupulously in accordance with that.

    and so on

    The BBC web archive of that interview in .ram format

    They met again in 2002

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  133. An answer. by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Of course. All my answers will be the [...] truth. No editorial input will be applied [unless deemed strictly necessary to guarantee appropriate standards of presentation -- Ed] between the time that [I] write the article and the time that [I] send it to [its recipient]. The PR guys promised. [No, we didn't.]

    Come on, who're you kiddin'? Any reply from this guy, or anyone else writing on a subject so obviously controvserial, is going to be screened seventeen times over by PR weenies before it gets out into the wild.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  134. Not a good sign by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

    When someone starts out by claiming "the information you provided misled your readers" there's little hope of getting any honest answers. Rather than offer himself as a "Slashdot interview victim", Mr. AMI Sales Engineer should have simply presented us with an explanation of:

    What are AMI's plans and intentions

    Why do they think we need or want this

    How many consumers who use AMI products are actually asking for this "feature".

  135. Honest answers? by Erpo · · Score: 2

    I don't think we can expect honest answers from AMI, or any other company pushing Pd. In response to a comment warning about the unfriendly nature of TCPA/Pd on a listserv, an MS employee had this to say:

    Scarey, maybe. Correct, not :-).

    There is a lot of speculation here which is not based on facts. PD will
    give you the capability to protect some subsets of your system from
    damage. Imagine having a fire proof safe in your house. Your house can
    still burn down and your safe will still protect your documents that are
    stored in there. Having the safe does not enable the people who sold
    you the safe know what is stored in there. And if you don't want to
    have the said safe, then don't use it! Same is true of PD.

    As to the original comment regarding privacy, you are seeing our attempt
    to document any and all aspects of the system that could concern anyone.
    So you are going to see us telling a lot more about the capabilities of
    the player and this can appear overwhelming at first. The good news is
    that you have full knowledge of what we do and the choice to turn one or
    more of these off if your privacy is more important than the
    functionality. Competitors probably do the same thing but fail to warn
    you explicitly about them (and burry the detail in long EULAs).

    Here is a write-up from CNET on our privacy approach in media player:
    http://news.com.com/2100-1023-955514.html . As you see, it is being seen
    as a very positive move and not negative at all. Here is one quote:

    "If the final build looks like the software (that CNET News.com)
    described, the implication is that Microsoft is taking consumer privacy
    very seriously indeed and marks a big change for the company," said
    Jupiter Research analyst Michael Gartenberg."

    ******
    Microsoft

    The "product" and "player" referenced above are the Windows Media Player. This came from a WM-centric listserv.

    I expect similarly placating (and untrue) answers from AMI. It is my opinion that the best course of action in this case is to punish AMI as severely as possible for even taking the first step towards creating a component that conforms to either TCPA or Pd. There are two simple things any computer literate person can do to hurt AMI:

    1. Don't buy their products.

    2. Let them know you bought from a competitor because they dared support TCPA/Pd.

    3. Let their competitors know that you're not buying AMI because of their unacceptable actions.

    TCPA/Pd requires hardware and software to work. I don't think anyone is going to be convinced to stop using windows because it takes away his or her freedom (at least any more than they have in the past), and I don't think MS is going to be convinced to leave Pd out of its OSs. As I see it, the most effective way to prevent TCPA/Pd from advancing is by setting up a business environment in which hardware manufacturers are terrified at the prospect of producing TCPA/Pd compliant hardware. That, and user education, are the two things that I think have a hope of stopping TCPA/Pd.

    I wrote a rather long response to the above comment, so I won't paste it here (Mozilla chokes if I try to paste 18KB into a text box), but I do plan on submitting it to the Pd faq maintainer as there are some important oportunity for MS to abuse it's power in a TCPA/Pd system that aren't covered. (e.g. MS not signing drivers for hardware devices that support competing technologies [OpenGL v. Direct3D, MPEG4 v. WM].)

    1. Re:Honest answers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your trade your privacy and liberty for a common social reference.

  136. The death of WINE by Windcatcher · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here's an interesting scenario:

    - Office Palladium will require TCPA

    - Linux, as an untrusted OS, won't be able to provide Office Palladium proper authentication, and Office will refuse to run under WINE.

    - Windows users become reluctant to migrate to Linux since they can't run Office. (Believe it or not, Office is still the killer app for most folks).

    I'm telling ya, the Office division is behind this at least as much as the content industry.

  137. Slightly OT - New Linux/BSD users? by McGarnacle · · Score: 1

    This isn't really a question for the interviewee, but, it seems to me that those of us who have been using Linux/BSD/whatever for long enough will likely have no problem getting around this stuff. Those who will be affected (and this would ultimately affect us all, if growth were to drop off), are new users who are just getting to the point where they can install Redhat, Mandrake, or one of the other desktop oriented distros without too much trouble. It seems likely that if TCPA or Palladium enabled BIOSes become widespread, there will be a hack to get around it. It might not be a hack, it might just be something as simple as disabling some setting in the BIOS - regardless, it will be another frustrating roadblock for a new Linux user to overcome. I fear to see the day when multitudes of people appear on usenet or IRC asking for help getting around their BIOS to install linux. (or the many more who will say "oh forget it" and go back to windows)

    Out of curiosity, what benefit do we as customers (both windows and linux users) receive from buying a system with a TCPA-enabled BIOS? What benefit does AMI receive for selling them? Considering the fact that I can't think of even *one* good reason why any PC user can benefit from this, it sounds suspicious to say the least.

    --

    I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to tell such LIES!

  138. What is the driving force behind this? by theLOUDroom · · Score: 3, Insightful
    My question is:
    Why is AMI doing this?

    Do they think people want their OS to be able to lock them out of certain parts of their machine?

    You see, I can't really see any application for TCPA / Palladium besides taking control away from the owner of a computer. Any of the other "security" features TCPA/Palladium provides can/have been easily implemented in software. The only application that requires BIOS/hardware level modifications, is one where you are trying to prevent the person who owns the computer from have full control over it.


    Lately I've been beginning to notice that some companies have internal conflicts of interest that cause them to do stupid things, which are not what consumers want. (Stupid because, they loose money because consumers go elsewhere to get hardware that isn't crippled and any piracy that was going to happen still happens anyways.)
    Sony, for example. Being both a hardware company and a media company, they seem to have an internal conflict of interest: To many RIAA/MPAA types CD/DVD burners are synonymous with piracy, this must lead to internal pressure on the hardware branch of the company to try and control what people can do with Sony hardware. Ex: It's rumored that Sony DVD burners can burn Xbox games but not PS2 games, Sony Discmans have often had sub-par CDR playing ability, Sony Minidisc recorders had an annoying copy protection flag that prevented you from making many digital copies of a minidisc.


    1. Does AMI have any such internal conflict of interest that is leading them to do this?
    2. Or is it pressure from outside sources, and who are those sources?
    3. Or does AMI think Joe-sixpack actually wants this?


    This whole thing reminds me very much of the whole CPUID debacle. CPU manufacturer X starts putting unique ID numbers inside their CPU. They claim it will allow increased security for web transactions blah, blah, blah. The problem was there was not good reason why your average computer user would want a unique unchangable serial number for his computer. There was a tremendous potential for violation user's privacy and no good reason why they needed it in the first place. Why? A unique id could be implemented in software. The only reason to have it in hardware is to prevent the owner of the computer from changing /disabling it.

    People didn't want them, and CPUIDs failed. Why does AMI think this is any different?
    --
    Life is too short to proofread.
  139. Multi-part question by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Two parts. The one I'm really interested in seeing answered: I've noticed while disassembling PC BIOS that it all appears to be very old-school style code, for instance registers are cleared by XORing themselves. How much of that tendency is from legacy code from the days when that mattered, and how much of it is just programmers doing the right thing (tm)?

    Second part, and less important, what is the story with firewire booting? How hard is it to graft additional boot code onto a BIOS and present a device as a reasonable boot device to the rest of the BIOS?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  140. DING DING DING, we have a possibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there is the truth, and much like the dvd codes got out, how long before a certified compiler is found in 'the wild'. Then they will have to either give up the scheme or be constantly re-issuing codes and revoking them. The truth

  141. Usual interview rules apply.. by gatekeep · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now, I've been here a while, so when phrases like 'Usual interview rules apply' are tossed around, I understand the meaning.

    But it occurs to me, there's probably many who don't. Why not have a page outlining the usual interview rules, and link to it when saying something like that?

  142. Vulgarity is the realm of the limited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All that factual knowledge, and such a limited ability to express disdain. What a tragic waste of living space.

  143. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  144. More Key Questions by Slackrat · · Score: 1

    As discussed in this comment:
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=50262&cid=5050 378

    The thread discusses loading a virtual machine such as Bochs on a TCPA-enabled machine, which would then emulate the functionality of the fritz chip in software, allowing it to bypass the trusted hardware. Such a method would allow the computer to return any result it wanted for software verification requests. It was discussed that a private key embedded in a tamper proof chip could be used to frustrate such an attack. How would you go about preventing such attacks? A single private key on every chip? Unique private keys on every chip? Please discuss.

    1. Re:More Key Questions by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 2

      Yes, the TPM (Fritz) chips are tamperproof (to an extent) and each one has a unique private key.

  145. Open firmware by Boatman · · Score: 1

    I was musing the other day that an MP3 player would be really convenient to own *if* it had pitch control. If player firmware was available, somebody would have likely already written a patch, or I could do it myself.

    Similarly, the linuxbios folks have gone to a great deal of effort to write a free PC BIOS from scratch - because nobody had the features they needed (like serial console support).

    What will it take to get companies to start releasing firmware as Free Software?

    --
    --Just the place for a snark!
  146. It was partially a good question by nurb432 · · Score: 2

    Instead of the refund avenue, the question of if you can install your own replacement IS a good question. On both techincal and legal grounds, can we? Or are we FORCED to use the bios ( ie 'trusted' ) that is supplied to us.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  147. Upgrading/flashing the BIOS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm curious how the BIOS upgrade/flash process works with TCPA. With TCPA enabled, will the user have to be booted into a TCPA-compatible OS to be able to do this via a proprietary utility of some sort? Will there be some kind of public/private key exchange method available for floppy-based flashing if desired?

    On a related note, if a TCPA-enabled BIOS gets corrupted (eg, no longer functions properly and can't be re-flashed using available methods), will it be possible to forcibly re-flash the BIOS to a clean state (also possibly non-TCPA enabled)?

  148. what are the benifits to Open Source? by glitchvern · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The tcpa spec states that the TPM (Trusted Platform Module) contains hashing (SHA-1), random number generation (RNG) , asymmetric key generation (RSA), and asymmetric encryption/decryption (RSA). What advantages can open source projects such as openssh and openssl take by using the TPM implementation of these algorithims instead of normal software implementations? What potential uses can open source software get out of TCPA?

  149. Uhm, actually (Re:So why SHOULDN'T we boycott AMI) by twl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Trusted operating systems can be a GREAT thing, it's merely a question of who controls the TORA [trusted operating root authority]. IMHO, if I control the TORA, it gives me power over my computer that wouldn't normally be possible, even with the various mandatory access control systems available across different platforms.

    All of these are software, while the TCPA system's hardware-based system, if properly implemented, will be much more resistant to attack than any software-based solution.

    If you've ever typed ctrl-alt-delete on a PC, you've used a 'trusted' feature, since it generates an interrupt which cannot be trapped by usermode software. Last time I checked, ctrl-alt-delete didn't present a clear and present danger to the operation of my computer -- merely my sanity.

    We should focus on the real issues -- ownership of the TORA, as well as the distribution of simple methods to regain control of your computer's TORA through simple hardware hacking, much like the chipping of games consoles that still goes on fairly freely even in these dark days of DMCA, SSSCA, etc.

    [standard disclaimers: not a hardware expert, info above is provided to the best of my knowledge but details may be incorrect...]

  150. yes would be a fantastic result by DrSkwid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If applied across all executables and scripts.

    Especially if it could be fine grained down to a per user basis. i.e. a system wide policy of who can run what.

    Then you could have root to be only available in single user mode.

    Stick that up your rootkit.

    hmm it's starting to sound like plan9

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  151. Why is only the PC industry pursuing this? by atlantis_tin · · Score: 1


    There is no component in this technology that did not already exist for a long time. If it was so useful (security, etc.), other platforms like servers and mainframes which are usually years ahead of the PC industry would have implemented it long ago. Why is it that only the PC industry is pursuing it?

    --
    I copied this sig.
  152. How could it be otherwise? by gsfprez · · Score: 2

    How could TCPA and Palladium NOT be intertwined?

    By the various definitions of what TCPA and Palladuim calim to be and what they claim to be able to deliver to "customers" - the hardware and the software must validate each other.

    If either the software or the hardware was "untrusted" in a TCPA and Palladium world, then by definition, neither can actually do any of what they claim to be able to do.

    If i can run "untrusted" software on a TCPA - then TCPA couldn't be very effective.. and if i could run "untrusted" hardware with Palladium - then Palladium would be just as ineffective.

    Rouge hardware and rouge software are not allowable - by the definition of trusted software and trusted hardware.

    I guarantee you - much software and much hardware will never be trusted. Either because of who made it (w4r3z d00d, Apple, etc.) or who didn't make it (Intel, Micro Soft, etc.).

    This is why these concerns arise.

    --
    guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
  153. Bootloading BIOS by wiswaud · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As flash storage drops in price, especially wrt motherboard costs, and the way i see it, there isn't _that_ much more functionality to add to the BIOS, when will we see a nice bootloader being integrated in the BIOS (from the manufacturer), or why won't we see it?

    i'm talking about integrating the equivalent of grub in the BIOS, along with maybe 16MB of flash to hold a few kernels and ramdisks. You'd also (of course) include utilities for changing the menu, loading/deleting files to/from flash, for most OSes (as this would be relatively simple code: do a nice GUI for windows but a simple command-line utility could be written that easily recompiles in linux, *BSD (including OSX), etc. - we'll do the rest and slap a GUI to call the cmdline program).
    I would LOVE that, and it really doesn't seem that hard - there are indeed a few projects doing it already, it should be quite cheap for you to do, so we'd see it in motherboards off-the-shelf...
    I agree it might not be able to load windows, but .... who cares. it would at least be able to include a menu item for it, if it can't hold the 'windows kernel' (however big that is - haven't got a clue).

    Why stop there? why is it that there still isn't a minimalist linux system with busybox in every modern BIOS, which would allow booting a diskless station into enough functionality to at least re-partition a hard drive? That's a whole single MB of flash!

    my question really is: i would have expected that by now, why don't i see it?

    (please, don't flame me with "it exists already" - i want to hear the manufacturer on this! most people would never dare re-flash their BIOS with something else - they barely have the courage to flash BIOS updates from the mfgr!)

    1. Re:Bootloading BIOS by mmu_man · · Score: 1

      This thing already exists, it has a command line, and all drivers available as forth modules to be used directly by the OS... and that's called OpenFirmware.
      Macs use it, Sun stations use it...
      But of course PC makers are to tied up to obscure and featureless BIOS.

    2. Re:Bootloading BIOS by mmu_man · · Score: 1

      so instead of making a better BIOS compatible with OF they waste time incorporating antifreedom "technology" (please, PLEASE, don't use this word ever again, it has lots all its meaning, now even a bread toaster is "technology... that's really a shame to me) inside.

  154. How much will it cost... by Travoltus · · Score: 2

    for a priest to come and exorcise this child of satan (DRM support) from an AMI Bios motherboard?

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
  155. why should RHat be treated differently? by DrSkwid · · Score: 2

    open source OS companies (like RedHat)

    as far as I can see Red Hat is a for-profit company just like any other. If they want to call a tune they have to pay the piper just like anyone else.

    The volume of computing means that non "trusted" machines will be available. You don't think people like Yahoo will suddenly switch from FreeBSD to Windows because they can only find motherboards with an AMI bios?

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  156. Alternative OSs by mikefocke · · Score: 1

    Will the AMI version of their BIOS (once Paladium is implemented in the hardware/BIOS) allow the execution of an alternative OS (not Linux, not Microsoft) with no changes to the existing OS? What changes will have to be made to the OS to make it boot and execute is it would today but on a Paladium-empowered platform?

    In other words, can I just turn the thing off in the BIOS? Or are you changing things so radically that today's I386 OS won't work without change?

  157. Linux Bios one of a few by DrSkwid · · Score: 2

    http://www.linuxbios.org

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  158. Which is MORE important? by MissMyNewton · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A user's rights?

    OR

    A "content provider's" rights?

    Please don't bother answering if you're going to waffle.

    --

    ---

    Information wants...you to shut your pie hole.

  159. Okay, Brian, serious question. by Windcatcher · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You've said that AMI has nothing to do with Palladium. Of course, that's true. One is a BIOS, and the other is an operating system made by another company. I have no issue with that.

    However, we ALL know that Palladium will run in TCPA trusted mode, and TCPA functions will be active.

    So here's the question (ahem):

    If:

    - I, as a Linux user, want to BUY the next version of Microsoft Office(tm) and run it on my Linux box under WINE, and:

    - said version of Office requires that it be run on a trusted platform (i.e. it requires TCPA authentication),

    WHAT WILL HAPPEN?

    I'm sure you think this is a loaded question. It is, and it isn't. It is in the sense that I suspect what the answer will be, but I want to hear you answer it. It isn't, in the sense that this is a very serious issue and has enormous ramifications for the entire industry. You see, I think that TCPA+Palladium are really schemes for killing Linux by denying it the ability to run Microsoft applications. To that end, I don't consider you accomplices, but perhaps dupes. I ask you the above question in all seriousness, and I challenge you to prove me wrong.

    1. Re:Okay, Brian, serious question. by Worf+Maugg · · Score: 1

      Could merely wishing to open a file created by the latest version of MS Office also at some point require TCPA authentication?

  160. Another loonie without a gun. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Not convinced, and it seems illegal. Making laws to make it legal/illegal seems illegal.

    The proper way would be a reverse class action suit, for all the media, software, etc. on my computer that isn't paid for, I should be forced, including court costs to buy what I have used. There are a few ways to do this and do it cheaply but my disposition inclines me to withhold.

    These laws that were bought out of ignorance are/and will become an assault on every american within their own home. These laws can and will be used to stifle any home start-ups, as well as keep hollywood in hollywood. I shudder to think they're applications when the 'digital age' acutally begins. This response go far and beyond what is remotely necessary.

    Think long and hard to what you're doing: a few weeks ago I heard a comedian make some cracks about a sleeping giant being awaken, not yet, but your closer to doing that then bin laden or saddam ever could.

    "The first internet virus could be described as The Declaration of Independance" --a modest mis-quote, Project Gutenberg

  161. What do you think about Linux BIOS? by lanner · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Dear AMI BIOS Developer

    At first, I was going to ask you about how you have cooperated, if at all, with the Linux BIOS project. After all, you often have historically cooperated with Microsoft and Novell. What are you doing to help Linux?

    But then it occurred to me, if Linux BIOS was successful, it would put AMI out of the BIOS software development business. Linux BIOS is a competitor of AMI.

    What is your personal perspective about Linux BIOS, and what does AMI think about it?

    Thank you

    The LinuxBIOS Home Page
    http://www.acl.lanl.gov/linuxbios/

    Slashdot | Linux BIOS
    http://slashdot.org/articles/00/06/14/211020 9.shtm l

    # Jesse Molina

    1. Re:What do you think about Linux BIOS? by lanner · · Score: 2


      Hi again

      My apologies for the introduction of "Developer". It is my understanding that Brian Richardson's current title is that of a Sales Engineer.

      A better term would have been, "representative."

      My bad!

  162. TC explanation? by rudy079 · · Score: 1

    Could someone out there be kind enough to explain what exactly "Trusted Computing" is, or point me to some information on the web. I understand it will be used somewhat to limit the playing of pirated music/video files, but beyond that I am clueless. Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

    --


    Grass-roots web hosting.We are poor colleg
    1. Re:TC explanation? by Chexsum · · Score: 0

      Do you live on an island or something? :P

      http://www.google.com/search?q=trusted+computing.

      NB. or if you like an original explaination; http://www.intertrust.com. ;)

      --
      Pixels keep you awake!
  163. So tell me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much *does* a soul fetch on the open market nowadays?

  164. Who does TCPA envision the "Owner" to be? by BeBoxer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The TCPA standard talks a lot about the "Owner" of the system, and how the "Owner" can initialize a new system so that it will begin generating keys and such using a password set up during the "ownership" process (See Section 2.6 of the Standard). My question is: who would the "Owner" of a system normally be in plain english? The actual end-user (or their administrator)? Or would the TPM get "owned" by the hardware vendor (Dell, HP, etc.) Or the OS vendor? Or the motherboard manufacturer?

    Second, will it be possible to completely reset the TPM to a non-owned state to allow used hardware to be sold "as new"? Or would the hardware refuse to allow a new owner?

  165. opensource ? by mmu_man · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Will you opensource your BIOS so _we_ (so-called users of trusted BIOS) will be able to verify that your product doesn't harm our privacy or infridge our legally own rights (whichever country we come from) ? So that WE can trust YOU ?

    1. Re:opensource ? by Chexsum · · Score: 0

      It is opensource, learn to read $ARCH machine code and fire up a hex editor *or disassembler*. :P

      Itd be nice if there were BIOS Monitors (aka debuggers) *sigh*. Or, at least more specifications of hardware... Whatever happened to getting a manual with things *oops, I realize my PC is only an appliance and not a computer - I wont wonder again*?

      --
      Pixels keep you awake!
  166. Supply & Demand by Markusis · · Score: 1

    I don't understand why companies are supplying something that has zero demand from consumers. I can understand that big companies and bad bad associations (MPAA, RIAA) are also customers. But, in the home-based desktop systems market, does anyone really want this trusted computing business? Who is this for? Does AMI see customers choosing one board over another based simply on the 'feature' of trusted computing? I see myself upgrading my computer to the newest and best that it can be right _before_ this palladium flood begins and sticking with it until the end. I guess that I had better start looking.

    --Mark

  167. Brian, please explain to us... by bani · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...exactly why AMI's TCPA cannot be abused by corporations to harm/lock out Open source.

    Please explain to us why AMI's TCPA is a good thing for Linux.

  168. What do consumers get out of it? by ShatteredDream · · Score: 1

    Let's cut the marketting double-speak. We all know that Palladium will not enhance the ability of consumers to secure their systems. It will only raise the barrier to entry for small and free software developers. What reason do I have to buy such a system? I have heard of nothing similar to this BIOS from your competitors and as someone who often doesn't use Microsoft products and has the financial means to buy a high end PC, why should I buy a motherboard with your new Palladium BIOS? Like most educated, principled people I am not willing to sacrifice freedom for a little security. So what overwhelming advantage would your product really be giving me?

    --
    Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
  169. whats next for cracking/hacking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dns host spoofing, and redirection to your own personal key server (which unlocks all media flags) that was written by a 15 year old in russia. just seeding ideas...

  170. Concerns re: Trusted Computing by E1ven · · Score: 4, Informative

    One of the most interesting posts I've seen regarding this subject was found at Microsoft.com

    I'd love to hear how you'd address some of the points he brings up in the article.

    In case the site goes down, or is changed, I've mirrored it at sq7.org/media/ms.html

    --
    Colin Davis
  171. My question: by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    WTF is a "sales engineer"?

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:My question: by forkboy · · Score: 2

      Haven't you ever worked in the industry? A sales engineer is basically a tech that comes along with the sales droids to field any questions from customers that require an iota of brain power or technical skills. They also generally assist in installation/configuration of the product once someone buys it.

      Sometimes this term is used on sales people that have technical skills themselves (or techs who are roped into becoming sales people) but usually the two skill sets are mutually exclusive.

      --
      This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
    2. Re:My question: by Chexsum · · Score: 0

      From Dict.org;

      Sales Engineer \Sa'ol*s In'gin'e*r\ ,

      1. A person skilled in the science of selling products. [syn: Bullshit Artist]

      NB. IM KIDDING! =)

      --
      Pixels keep you awake!
  172. Whats wrong with that? by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    So, they'll basicaly be saying: "set of data is verified as secure by HP, we won't cover any modifications, run them at your own risk."

    It seems totaly resonable to me, and you can still share bit-perfict copies with their signatures.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  173. Re:Uhm, actually (Re:So why SHOULDN'T we boycott A by StevenMaurer · · Score: 1

    I disagree - strongly. Operating systems are already "trusted" in this sense. They already implement "user owned" TORA. That's what the permissions system is there for - which your "CTRL ALT DEL" example illustrates admirably. If I'm running Linux as a normal user, download a virus, and run it, at most all it can do is screw up my account - not the OS, not my configuration, nothing else.

    The only reason why anyone would want this kind of permissions placed into the BIOS (including, quite tellingly, implementing on-chip encryption) is if you were trying to remove the user's ultimate ability to control his own machine. Period.

  174. Trust? by koan · · Score: 1

    I don't need this I don't want it and it does not in any way benefit me, it will however, benefit corporations once this type of hardware takes hold.
    It will not benefit the end user in any way that I see as worth while.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  175. 2 fundamental flaws by Krueger+Industrial+S · · Score: 1

    Palladium/TCPA/etc have 2 fundamental flaws that its supporters will not admit:

    1. They must be mandatory and you must not be able to defeat them or turn them off, otherwise what's the point.

    2. They are based on a lie. The Lie being used to sell this crap is the claim that content providers must be able to secure their content form "theft", "piracy" and other evils. This is a blatant lie.

    The true purpose is to eliminate Fair Use and, even worse, the eliminate the private ownership of property.

  176. That would be great for security, but... by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    I don't see how that could possibly be the case. It would be great for security, IE preventing breakins and the like, but it wouldn't really give anyone any DRM protection, because you could just install the public keys of cracking teams.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  177. Benifits of TCPA by CognitiveFusion · · Score: 1

    Can TCPA be used to the benifit Open Source software? How?

    --
    Fools ignore complexity; pragmatists suffer it; experts avoid it; geniuses remove it. ~A. Perlis
    1. Re:Benifits of TCPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes nobody will use tcpa and everybody linux with hardware made in china ;)

  178. Like: American Megatrends Int.Basic In-Out system? by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    That one's a laugh riot...

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  179. Uses besides restriction by keller999 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Say I'm an average user who knows what I'm doing on a computer. I've read enough to know that I don't like the idea of a company deciding what I can and can't do on my own system, whether it be Windows or Linux based. What specific benefits will your new BIOS give me without forcing me to do anything I don't want to that I can't get from a non Palladium-enabled/DRM capable computer?

  180. Just a short question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The TCPA consortium currently tries to enforce the chips by not telling the people (is the TCPA chip marketed in the IBM notebooks sold?)

    First of all how do you thing things will not backfire as soon as TCPA is enforced

    a) Users dont really like to have taken away what they are used to

    b) Developers (and Im talking about the myriad of developers working outside of the 150 TCPA companies) dont really like being pushed out of the market by not being able to develop anymore without having to pay possibly ridiculous amount of money for a developers key

    c) How do you plan on getting new developers by closing the whole thing down so that only a handful of people in the worst case are allowed to develop on the machines, you basically drive out the next generation of people working for you.

    d) If TCPA currently can be turned off, how do you ensure that in next gen machines TCPA will not be enforced strictly by having it turned on all the time

    e) How do you prevent the desaster a full blown attack on the central TCPA/Palladium servers with all the keys stolen can cause?

    f) With 90% of the worms currently being scripting worms using security flaws in a well known email client, how do you prevent that without closing every third party programming? So you want to sell the stuff over security? How does that fit into the scheme?

  181. international issues ? by nu-k-ar · · Score: 1

    what u think about the international issues of enabling tcpa in your products ?

    i know that if senator fritz hollings bill is accepted by america u (ami, n other vendors) have to incooperate tcpa in your products.
    when u dunnot wanna get in jail.

    so what u think will be the reaction of the rest of the world, let's say europe,asia-pacific. i don't think ( just me ) it could be a great value to your company cause the laws in europe are totally different. and i don't think it's an goal of european. asia-pacific goverments to switch to an trusted enviroment, as long as the trust isen't in their own control.

    i can understand that palladium and tcpa are two different technologies, and palladium is more on the drm/licencing (thnx lucky green) side as on the trusted site.

    but i dunnot see an advantage over an pki solution

    i don't think european home-users are very enlighted about this step.
    as home user u don't need that security, for what ( that 4 letter's and some porn site u surf, no never )

    for small-medium company's @least in europe it MAY be a way to go.(cause pki is sooo difficult), and maybe the buy the 10 new server's which is their infrastructure.

    for big company's there's is no way to migrate such a thing, cause u're mainframes won't be trusted ( in the palladium sense )
    so maybe some r&d departments ( which allready use pki ) could make something out of it. but if whinWhatever ( longorn ) uses external trust , why should they do it ?

    so wth...

    so the copyright protection laws are also slighty in an other sense than america.

    i personally think it will be a win-win situation for linux here ( cause of palladium (winWhatever, migrating trusted data when it's encyphered with trusted private key on the f#### chip and you'r os NUB )

    how u wanna migrate such stuff, if that box isen't trusted anymore, n u're os key is on the blacklist ? )

    and u don't even have the os NUB when by accident some box is untrusted and u must recover the data.

    i think it should be a cash cow for mickey-clickey s,iira,dmca and other stupidity's

    i mean
    as european im very delighted about that, that tcpa is soo secure , but its illegal for americans to patch the red-hat security patches

    instead u'll have too enable tcpa, u're data will be harder to migrate, the drm stuff will make live much more easyier, we have no dcma so we do not get in jail if we programm interoperable programm's.
    and maybe, maybe the next big software distro will not be red-hat , maybe it will LSB ( suse , mandrake , connectiva ) , but this may be illegal for u too use (just joking , but u never know ) ;)

  182. A little credit for the GNU/Linux folks by Blingin'+AMD · · Score: 0

    C'mon folks, they _made an OS_, one that is better in many ways than Winblows. They cracked an Xbox (MS-ware) and ran Linux on it. Seriously, they will look at Palladium, TCPA, and DRM and collectively annouce "wtf!?! lmmfao!"

    --
    Now watch this drive.
  183. Security? by landrocker · · Score: 1
    "Making a TCPA-compliant version of GNU/linux (or Apache, or whatever) will mean tidying up the code and removing whatever features conflict with the TCPA security policy. The company will then submit the pruned code to an evaluator, together with a mass of documentation for the work that's been done, including a whole lot of analyses showing, for example, that you can't get root by a buffer overflow."

    Does this mean that MS will have to 'prune' their OS and applications as well to make them secure enough to be signed?
  184. Existing Users by knuth · · Score: 2

    If the powers that be at AMIBIOS are hellbent on doing this, will users of your company's BIOS be able to upgrade/update without being forced to include the Big Brother "features"?

  185. Who signs? by shyster · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Who will be the "trusted" signers of this code? What hoops (and dollars) must be jumped through?

    Most importantly, will a system admin be able to sign code as trusted (whether his or another coder's) for all machines in his control? By extension, will an individual be able to do the same for machine(s) under their control? Or will only Verisign, Thawte, etc. be trusted?

  186. Coming full circle by Mongo222 · · Score: 1

    I truely hate the entire TCPA/Palladium concept, and the direction it's going. I've hated microsoft years.. back in the days when the term "It's not done, till lotus wont run" was coined. They are a bunch of evil bastards, and we all know it. Most users don't though. They just don't care enough to look at the company that makes thier computers work. TCPA/Palladium is the perfect tool to bring that dark infected core out into the open where even the most disinterested user can see it. After seeing the near universal hatred that the messages on the boards have brought to light I now belive that this move will do more for putting Linux, and an open source BIOS, on the desktop than anything else that has come before. I can see the dicussion now... MotherBoards R us V.P. - "So how many boards have we rolled off the assembly line with the new TCPA features?" Lacky - "6.7 million sir!" MotherBoards R us V.P. - "Fantasic! How many do we have sales orders for?" Lacky - "umm... Seven"

  187. Well stated... by Archfeld · · Score: 2

    It would be nice to have this option for certain cirumstances, say online gaming,or maybe electronic voting, but the loss of control far out-weighs the potential gains, and to top it off NO MATTER what assurances I was given by a for profit corp. or the current elected/appointed official we all know that given a penny potential for profit they'd sell their own children.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  188. why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's obvious every computer user with a clue does NOT want this "feature" in their hardware. So why on earth would AMI or any hardware company add support for TCPA? Why add ANY feature your customers do not want? Secondly, don't you think it's in everyone's best interest (hardware manufacturers, developers, end users, and even AMI's best interest) to keep the PC open, the way it is now? Why do anything that could potentially help Microsoft increase its control and power in the PC industry?

  189. Cars and trust by Cato+the+Elder · · Score: 2

    You do have a trust relationship with other drivers on the road. It's not 100% reliable, but law enforcement is supposed to ensure that everyone is: insured, licensed, sober, and driving a reasonably maintained car. In the cases where this is likely to break down (early morning new years, cities with high rates of uninsured drivers) I tend not to drive.

    I feel the same way about computing. No, I don't have to trust every other machine and every piece of code out there, but I don't run random code or let random machines connect to mine.

  190. Opensource BIOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not release the source code to earlier BIOS versions (e.g., from motherboards before 2001 or 2000)?

  191. The real question should be... by dolson · · Score: 1

    ...will this allow Microsoft operating systems to actually install???

    And what about Internet Explorer? How will it check if IE has a nasty hole in it that will allow someone to format my hard drive just by visiting a webpage?

    And Microsoft Office? Will it let me install that?

    Will it let ANY Microsoft software be installed at all?

  192. Anti-competitive tactics 101 by Windcatcher · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have to wonder:

    - Introduce a new version of Office that introduces a new default file format. This is key, since in five years this file format would be ubiquitous, and the new version of Office would be required to read these files. Forget about sticking with Office 2k/XP. It isn't an option.

    - Either use TCPA to encrypt the new .DOC files to disk (thus making it impossible for 3rd party apps to read them) or, if a judge won't allow it, obfuscate the file format as much as possible and use patents+legal threats to protect them (once again, to lock out 3rd party apps). The point here is to make the new version of Office indispensible. It is important to note that, even if there is a lawsuit over this against Microsoft, it could take 8 years or so for it to come to a head, and the judge may side with MS in the end anyway.

    - Make this shiny new version of Office require a "trusted" platform (i.e. TCPA mode) to run with full functionality. You've just locked out Linux+WINE and made it very hard for vendors to sell or offer PC's without Windows, since they will not only be unable to run Office, they won't even be able to read the new .DOC file format.

    Voila! You've managed to use your Office software monopoly to preserve your OS monopoly. Switching to Linux+WINE a few years from now will make it impossible to read documents in the new Office, without perhaps exporting those documents to some other format (which would of course by design lose some vital formatting information). It makes it really hard for companies to switch, and dissuades people from migrating since they'll have to not only leave Office behind, but their Office documents as well. It also totally breaks the ability to share documents between the Linux and Windows worlds, without first changing to a (likely inferior) common format first. While you could probably convert back to the new .DOC later, the damage will have been done as the original .DOC formatting would have been damaged or lost.

    I wish I felt wrong about this, but I really believe that this is Microsoft's strategy to kill Linux. IMHO TCPA really is that dangerous--the whole thing about online music and movies is trivial by comparison (maybe it's a smoke screen).

  193. Is this an option, or mandatory? by dacarr · · Score: 2

    When the article came up, I suggested that you guys would wind up plugging this in as an option set to "On" as a default. If (God forbid) Palladium were implemented, or as far as our current TCPA bit, would this be implemnted as said option that one could turn off or on as needed, to avoid conflicting with hardware?

    --
    This sig no verb.
  194. LinuxBIOS and OpenBIOS by LinuxOnEveryDesktop · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Presumably, the TCPA-specific parts of your new AMIBIOS8 will be intellectual property that your company will guard closely, and if not, working around it to get a LinuxBIOS/OpenBIOS working will surely be a violation of the DMCA. So how will this affect the LinuxBIOS and OpenBIOS projects?

    --
    http://ward.vandewege.net/blog/
  195. Question: by shepd · · Score: 2

    Is this an attempt to prevent motherboard manufacturers who have, in the past, pirated your BIOS, from continuing to do so?

    [ If so, kudos to you! ]

    --
    If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
  196. What? by twitter · · Score: 2
    You wish to ..be able to, say, install my own set of public keys in the BIOS so that I can have a system that will only boot the software that I have signed?

    I'm missing something, what are you after? Why not just use the bios password feature? This would prevent the causual attacker from say booting off a floppy. If someone else already has your machine physically, they can do anything they want with the disk. If what you are after is simply to restrict code from being run, why not just use chmod? What exactly do you wish to acheive that you don't already have?

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  197. Forgive me if this one's already been asked... by handsomepete · · Score: 2

    Will AMI, for the forseeable future, be producing only TCPA-enabled bioses, or will a TCPA-free (as in without TCPA) bios version be available to companies who want it? If, for example, a motherboard manufacturer says, "We would like to produce this motherboard. There will be one revision called the K8-XVG-T which will have TCPA and one just called K8-XVG which is normal." would you be able to provide that or would they have to go a different route?

    I'd also like to ask when a major visual overhaul of the ami bios is due, because I'm getting tired of seeing that same old menu setup, but I have a feeling the answer will be never :) I wish I hadn't gotten here so late...

  198. Interpreted Languages by mewphobia · · Score: 1

    Maybe I'm missing something, but as far as I can see, TCPA is lending itself to interpreted languages.
    A signed binary (the interpreter) is running the code.

    A compiler could do the same thing, compile your c/whatever code to a library, and then jump into the library, effectively running your application.

    if say, and ELF loader was signed, isn't it effectively able to run any application with unlimited permissions? How would other applications over the network know that you aren't running a signed application?

    Please explain what i'm getting wrong because folowing this line of thinking TCPA seems pretty useless.

  199. What potental abuses do you see in this system? by bonewah · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Lets say you work for microsoft and its your job to think of ways to abuse all this technology, both technologicly and legaly. Given that, what abuses do you see as possible?

  200. Your Company by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 2

    Can you describe what the atmosphere was like at your company after the initial post on Slashdot? Why has your company chosen Slashdot as your forum of choice? Does this mean we're your demographic?

    --
    This guy is way out there
  201. SE definition depends on company by billstewart · · Score: 2
    Depending on the company, sometimes an SE is also involved in post-sale configuration, or helping the customer deal with installation problems, or free or paid consulting on how to solve the customer's next project or problem, or hand-holding or repairs after somebody screws up something. In some companies, those are separate functions, done by separate people, but they're also part of making the next sale in an ongoing relationship.

    Fortunately, I can and do believe in the products and services I do SE-type work on :-), and to a reasonable extent, I've got a good understanding of their limits. I wouldn't do it otherwise. Ethics are a critical part of engineering. The alternative to "moral flexibility" is that you have to understand your products, and your business, and your industry, and your customer's needs, and sometimes be creative about finding solutions to problems that aren't a close match to what you'd like to sell.

    That doesn't mean I think our stuff is perfect, and when there are limitations that affect the performance a customer will get from them, I'll be happy to tell them; most customers that have their engineers at meetings appreciate this, which is why the sales people bring me. Sometimes it means telling the customer's engineer "Yes, we don't handle the third left-hand flow-control-bit the way you'd like, but that's really only a 1% performance difference, and you can have your purchasing guy haggle with our sales guy over whether to buy a bigger circuit or give you a bigger discount on the price, but remember that we're handling the right-hand flow-control bits in ways that give you N% better performance than the old network did."

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  202. related question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why do bios's help files suck so bad? (e.g. when you press F1 to get information on parameter X with options A and B, the "help" is "parameter X: option A or B") i understand memory constraints but daaaamn have i seen some crappy "help" strings...

  203. Linux would not need to be signed? by p7 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I took a look at the TCPA and TPM faqs and from the looks of it, the trusted computing features can be turned off so it functions like my current system? Am I mistaken that Linux could run with out having to be signed? And Apps running under Linux could be programmed to use the TCPA certificate?

  204. Music CD copying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since it is possible I could be secretly copying and distributing illegal copies of music CDs do you think it would be reasonable for law enforcement to search my house without a warrant to see if this might be so?

    Folks don't be fooled. This is what Palladium and TCPA is all about! Asking users to *continuously* prove they are (a) not doing something illegal (as defined by the content creator) and (b) do this without there first being any evidence of a crime being committed (the potential is *good* enough!).

    Think hard about what freedom means -- it means we tolerate the potential for criminal activity lest we infringe on the rights and freedoms of law abiding citizens.

  205. BIOS settings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just want to know why motherboard manufacturers refuse to document all the damn BIOS settings!

  206. If DRM and Pallidium... by The+Analog+Kid · · Score: 1

    If Pallidium isn't equated to DRM, then why are they always associated together. When one is talked about, why is the other. Apparently if you are promoting DRM then you are promoting its software extension Pallidium. The thing is both can be turned off, on with hardware, one with software(probably a registry entry :) )

  207. Very nice. by Mashiki · · Score: 2

    Please post a response as soon as you have one from AMI.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
    1. Re:Very nice. by LarsG · · Score: 2

      Please post a response as soon as you have one from AMI.

      I'm kind of hoping that Brian will answer it.

      --
      If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
    2. Re:Very nice. by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Time will tell, but if he does it will more then likely be censored or cleaned up by the marketdroids.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  208. The important one by onShore_Jake · · Score: 1

    Have you now, or have you ever been, a member of the communist party?

  209. I'll give you your files in exchange for SEX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can see this system being abused in this
    unusual manner, and more. Image.

  210. Use it to our advantage! by mewphobia · · Score: 1

    Can't you just run it under wine with TCPA turned off? who cares if the application is signed if TCPA is turned off. This is actually an advantage for linux. We can run any software we want. The problem is the internet enabled software that connects to servers requiring TCPA enabled verification/certification.

  211. Different Laws? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whilst most of this debate is driven by American laws, not all countries are quite so rabid in terms of rights management. For example, in both France and Australia, DVD region coding is illegal.

    Do you intend to release standard versions (ie. without any trust/DRM features) of your BIOS if you are compelled to do so by the laws in a given country?

  212. TCPA may not be Palladium but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is not whether TCPA is Palladium but whether it will be abused in the same way and gives the same power over products we own to Microsoft as Palladium does. Can you provide a contrast and comparison of the two and, in plain factual statements why TCPA is different and why we should trust it in the hands of Microsoft and Intel?

  213. legacy-free BIOS ? by mmu_man · · Score: 1

    We all heard about the "legacy-free PC" concepts from wintel, or how to dump functionnal, documented and supported ports such as RS232 and centronics from the PC in favour of supposedly newer and incompatible, undocumented, licenced (= $$), patent-encumbered ports (USB, but also this "debug" connector which will take some years to be itself debugged and which you don't know how to wire a vt100 on).
    Now what I would call legacy is really this TCPA thingy...

    So the question is:
    Will you provide legacy-free BIOSes to custommers who ask/need them ? (That is the version without TCPA) Will this version be available directly to customer at shops ? or will we have to ask you for a replacement flash file ??

    Will we even be able to flash our own (and owned !) BIOS ??? (and flash it again with the TCPA-enabled once we want it without loosing any signature ?)

    Finally put in a simpler way will we still be able to _own_ the things we buy ???

  214. Assuming backward compatitibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Does TCPA essentially consist of a group of routines which the kernal may or may not call. Once it does call these routines, the os cedes by the encryption and related functionalities within these routines. Whoever has these keys then has effective control.

    2) Assuming the answer to the first question is yes, and that TCPA thus doesn't force linux to do anything, isn't there still a hidden problem.

    TCPA is implementing a functionality which Linux will never call, thus it creates an implied "lack" in the kernal.

    How can this be good or desirable for us?

  215. And how about older Windows, or even DOS? by Reziac · · Score: 2

    And for that matter, how about OLDER Microsoft OSs? Win95/98 are still in very wide use, and even DOS (both M$ and other flavours) still has a solid user base -- even among people buying NEW systems.

    I've always preferred AMI BIOSs for a lot of very good technical reasons, and having an AMI BIOS has always been a prime criterion when I look for a new motherboard. Please don't make me change my mind!!

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  216. What happens when the OS crashes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happens when the OS or apps crash and the user is locked out because the TCPA thinks that something unauthorized is being done from an untrusted source?

    Sounds like a can of worms gets opened for troubleshooting: OS support blames the bios manufacturer which blames the application developer which blames the hardware manufacturer which blames the add-on components. In the meantime, your stuck with a computer that has to be wiped clean and loaded from scratch until the same thing happens..... Can't wait!

  217. LinuxBIOS by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 2

    Does the LinuxBIOS project even show up on your company's radar? That is, is there any concern that x86 BIOS will be (further) commoditized, and hence decrease BIOS profit margins? Where would your company go next if the bottom fell out of the BIOS market?

    As an example of the decreased relevance of the BIOS in modern computing, consider how Linux (the kernel) ignores the BIOS wherever possible and goes straight to the hardware, relegating the BIOS to the boot sequence and (usually buggy) power management.

    -Paul Komarek

  218. Not in my house! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Palladium, M$, TCPA, RIAA, MPAA, and all the other money changing parasites can kiss my ass sideways and go straight to the seventh level of hell.

    Screw all of it! I'm going back to my VIC-20!!!

  219. Did AMI know what they were getting into? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Posting anonymous so my moderations don't disappear.

    his company is not the one with for the plan --they are merely dragged into it, and I think they can't do squat about it.

    The fact that he offered himself up for questions tells me he doesn't understand the issues. His offer sounds like he plans to come back and debunk a bunch of myths. This issue has been debated over and over. It's the TCPA's rhetoric which has been debunked time and time again.

    Since this guy doesn't actually understand the issues, his company probably didn't know what they were getting into. Who decides if AMI's BIOS will be signed? I doubt it's AMI. Who decides what conditions AMI must meet before their BIOS is signed? Probably not AMI. Unless AMI has control of the keys, TCPA is just as bad for them as it is for us.

    I suspect AMI put their company in someone else's hands without even realizing it.

  220. NOOOOO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nooo, oh please why is everyone missing the point ?

    The idea is the same as proprietary file formats :
    you know when a few years ago some people where forced to use word just to be able to read their .docs. Well they COULD choose to use something else, they were FREE to use something else. There just wasn't anything else.

    Here with TCPA the question is : what will happen after most people start using it ? you know what will happen : you'll be forced to use TCPA too, just to read what these people are producing.

    And in that case it'll be useless to have a NON-TCPA bios. You can already disable TCPA options.you CAN choose.

    But you'll be forced to choose YES, I WANT TO CONTINUE TO INTEROPERATE WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD

  221. Why do we even have a BIOS anymore? by ChrisJones · · Score: 2

    My question is, why do PCs even have a full BIOS anymore? Since most OSes seem to do their very best to completely ignore the BIOS (so many of them being buggy and unreliable), why do we even need them to go and initialise devices, only to have the OS rescan all the busses and initialise everything again?
    Surely by now the BIOS can be reduced to something simple enough to kick off whatever bootloader is in use.

    --
    Chris "Ng" Jones
    cmsj@tenshu.net
    www.tenshu.net
  222. Simple Question Really by SpaceJunkie · · Score: 1

    For anyone buying computers with this tech enabled- whats in it for us? Beyond not being given the choice (Ie Roll out of TCPA only Mobos etc) - why else would we choose this?

    --
    OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
  223. Palladium is Not TCPA; TCPA is worse by billstewart · · Score: 3, Informative
    Palladium is a set of Microsoft software capabilities that lets application programmers content providers have some control over what the operating system will do with their stuff and lets Microsoft provide some control over what you can do with your Microsoft-Operating-System environment. If it wants to avoid hackers working around its limitations, it also needs some hardware support, but you only get Palladium if you install the corresponding Windows versions, and you only care if you've got data files that are in Palladium formats, like whatever music/movies format MS can negotiate. If you're a Linux user, you're used to this problem; nothing to see here, you can move along.

    TCPA is a different issue - it's a set of BIOS features that will only let the machine start up if it's running a certified operating system configuration (which the hardware validates as unmodified), and a set of features that let an operating system and application programs check that the system is running in TCPA-approved mode (that's a bit similar to Palladium, but still fundamentally different), and a set of things that the system won't do if it's not running a certified system. Depending on which version of the spec and proposed followons you're reading and how aggressive the implementation is, there may be things that you'd like to do that you can't do on a non-certified system - like use the sound card, or maybe the _video_, or maybe it won't boot at all, or maybe it just won't let you load kernel modules, plus it obviously won't tell the software that you're running in Trust-Us mode if you're not.

    Obviously, an aggressive implementation won't fly for many Linux users, but it may still be usable by Linux _consumers_. The best case is somewhat like having a car with the hood welded shut and a security system that disables it if you mess around; you can paint it any color you'd like, and put whatever you want in the trunk, but you can't start the engine unless your seatbelt's on and you blow in the breathalyzer (which is hard to reach when you're wearing your seatbelt, of course), and if you take the radio out, the radio won't work and the car won't let you put a different radio in, so the RIAA knows you're not playing MP3-CDs in your car, but at least it isn't always tuned to MS-NBC, though if you're playing a non-RIAA-certified CD, it only plays on the tinny little mono speaker in the dashboard, not the four-way tunable woofers or the heads-up display system, and if you do tune to a different radio station, it only uses the right-hand speaker if Rush Limbaugh is on, and only uses the left-hand speakers if it's National Public Radio, and I'm sorry but you can't play Free Radio Berkeley at all...

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  224. Re:Uhm, actually (Re:So why SHOULDN'T we boycott A by twl · · Score: 1

    Fair point. My issue is really that these protections implemented in software can always be screwed up. Properly implemented, hardware can't be without interference with the hardware itself.

    Without the trusted components, I can never be certain which level of my computer's systems I'm interacting with.

    Besides. TCPA will happen. Best that we concentrate on subverting what will most certainly be put in place!

  225. Reading through this the big question is why? by ninthwave · · Score: 2

    I have read through the comments and over and over again see the question of why is AMI doing this and what does this do for the end user?

    No answer given on this technology has answered that question for people. Until that is answered without untruths a large section of the community is not going to even look towards this technology.

    So can you sum up what the benefits/drawbacks are of this tech for AMI and contrast and compare with the benefits/drawbacks for the users.

    --
    I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?" - Chris Knight (Val Kilmer)- Real Genius
  226. AMI BIOS OR NOT by pne · · Score: 1

    ROTFL!

    --
    Esli epei etot cumprenan, shris soa Sfaha.
  227. A sales engineer is... by Jadecristal · · Score: 1

    Someone with the technical experience that they can answer questions relating to sales, like whether something can or can't be done with a product, and to provide advice.

    If I understand right, they keep the market-droids in line, so that the product sold actually kinda meets the customers needs, rather than just causing the largest windfall for the sales team.

    Thus, while a sales engineer will work in the sales department, and closely with the sales-people, they are at least partially a techie.

  228. Please send your updated comments to marketing@ami by Tom7 · · Score: 2

    Well, it sounds like we may be getting through to them -- consumers who understand the issues won't stand for it. Why would anyone want "features" that reduce the usefulness of a computer by giving more control to bit content-owning corporations? Send your comments to marketing@ami.com (address on the initial press release web page). Here are mine:

    Just to clarify my earlier comments: It is in fact TCPA, and not just Palladium, that upsets me. Computers are just fine as they are, and you and I both know that operating systems can already implement the kinds of features ("virus protection") that TCPA claims will benefit consumers. The only use of TCPA preventing a computer user from modifying his *own* system in order to bypass "digital rights management," the software that intends to make it impossible for consumers to exercise their fair use privileges and other freedoms that we currently enjoy. I do not want to be enslaved by content owners!

    Therefore, I will always buy from the last manufacturer to sell general-purpose, non-TCP-enabled computers, and I think any consumer who understands the issues will, too. I really hope this turns out to be the marketing disaster that it deserves to be.

    Spinmeister Brian Richardson wrote:
    "I am a bit concerned that the information you provided misled your readers into thinking AMI was promoting Palladium or taking some sort of anti-open-source stance. This might be due to the fact that TCPA was mistakenly equated to Palladium, or questioning how Linux would run on a TCPA-enabled system ... or by the horde of angry Slashdot readers telling us they would never buy an AMI product because we were forcing standards on them."

  229. Misled by orcwog · · Score: 1

    "I am a bit concerned that the information you provided misled your readers...This might be due to the fact that TCPA was mistakenly equated to Palladium"

    Then perhaps I am misled. I was under the impression TCPA and Palladium go hand-in-hand. What features does TCPA provide without Palladium or Palladium-like software? If its function is to merely check the authenticity of any arbitrary OS that I choose to install, of what use is that since I am the one to install it?

  230. Will we have a choice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we still run Linux on a "Palladium" machine without using the "security enhancements" (read shock control belt) of the "Trusted system" (read RIAA/MPAA's trusted system)?

  231. The beginning of "Open Source" hardware, homebrew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Makes me wonder if all this security stuff actually gets installed and makes everyones computing experience miserable, will there be an initiative to build a sort of "Open Source" hardware community? A resurgence of the homebrew computer clubs of the 80s.

    Communities of computer gurus buying (and occasionaly making their own) components to design and distribute computers and OSes to their own liking, circumventing "3rd party" manufacturers who support TCPA, DRM, & Palladium.

    I'd buy one. An Open Source computer would be great.

  232. This is what is wrong with moderation. by DAldredge · · Score: 1

    I just received notice that my above comment was moderated down 72 hours after it was posted. Aren't there better things to use mod points on?

  233. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  234. Doesn't this all depend on public adoption? by c0d3h4x0r · · Score: 1

    Everyone seems to assume that TCPA/Palladium will become commonplace, and that in that world all consumer/user rights will be lost. That's a really big assumption.

    What makes any of these hardware makers (or even Microsoft) think that these egregious violations and restrictions on consumer/user rights will simply be happily adopted by the general public? Why do people on Slashdot assume this will be the case?

    In general, the public is willing to accept getting reamed when they are deriving more benefit than pain from the experience. Such is the case with DVD movies -- customers get better quality picture and sound, more special features, longer-life media, etc, etc, which for most people outweighs the minor irritation of having region encodings or being forced to sit through the intro/preview/ad tracks.

    But the whole Palladium and TCPA movement won't fly, in my estimation, because it holds absolutely zero appeal to any average person. The only people who derive any benefit from it at all are the hardware and software makers, not the consumers/users. When there's no benefit to be had, then it doesn't even matter if you stop offering current-generation technology completely and offer the public no new alternative but your DRM-managed crap -- people just won't buy it. They'll keep using what they've already got, because it already does what they want and even does it WITHOUT all the ridiculous restrictions.

    In short, I think all this panic and paranoia is misplaced. The general public may be composed mostly of ignorant sheep, but when something bad enough is done on a large enough scale, people notice and they don't tolerate it, and it fails pretty darn quickly.

    --
    Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
  235. Summarizing some questions. by Harbinger · · Score: 1

    Hi Brian,

    Thanks for volunteering to answer some questions.

    I am not well versed in the specifics of TCPA and its Palladium implemetation, but I've seen some questions raised in this discussion and I want to focus things if I can, summarize the concerns I see that concern me.

    BIOS Specific:
    1. Will I be able to boot any OS on an TCPA-enable board if that OS is not cryptographically signed? If yes, I will have to disable TCPA support?

    2. Will I be able to sign things that I trust? Personally, I think this may be absolutely necessary is signed code is necessary to do useful work.

    3. Will I be able to disable TCPA support on the board?

    Larger concerns, and where I'm coming from:

    Most people agree that computers are pretty useless without being able to participate on a network. My concern is that I and applications that I write must be able to participate in the network community. I must be able to build, say, a custom OpenBSD kernel, write and run my own code, use a custom-compiled web-browser, and have my system interact with others (intelligent agents doing work in the background, do my banking in my web browser, mount a share from my wife's Windows PC, ...)

    I have seen these types of concerns raised here and many people are under the impression that the TCPA spec does not protect against these kind of restrictions. The related questions:

    Are AMI and other BIOS implementers such as Phoenix, Award (do they still exist?) going to ensure that your technology will not be used to limit my ability to participate in the community?

    Is AMI (or an alliance of the BIOS and mainboard manufacturer) interested in and able to take action and demand the spec be worded so that freedoms be protected forever? (we are a self-regulating industry, right?)

    Thanks for your time. Best regards,

    David M

    --
    Be smart and work to create. Don't ride on the backs of others.
  236. Spread Spectrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For years, I've seen an option called "Spread Spectrum" in my BIOS. I've looked all over the web on documentation for what it did, but nothing told me. What the heck is it?