Palladium Changes Name

where's the source? by slugo3 · 2003-01-25 08:29 · Score: 5, Interesting

"Microsoft denies that they changed the name due to the criticism 'Palladium' has recieved, and released the source code to the core part of the software to show that the software is secure and does what they claim."

Released the source to who? I don't remember seeing this anywhere and a little googling comes up with nothing. Seems like you would want to post it to slashdot since open source users are the ones most concerned about the ramifications of pallad... Err next generation secure computing base.

Re:Hello? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-25 08:29 · Score: 5, Interesting

Becasue if you've ever been involved in large-scale IT projects from the early days, you tend to find engineers use their own pet names for them. One sticks, get's used as a codename while the project is in development stages. This usually gets released in initial publicity documents.

On the other hand, given that Exchange 2003 is code-named Titanium, I'd wager that someone's been looking at the periodic table.

I doubt Palladium was ever going to be used as a release name, something boring like MS MyVault...

Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-25 08:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

There is a certain kind of logic to all that. Call it Palladium, wait til everyone gets irate and associates the word Palladium with something they hate then change the name. And if you can change it to a name that's utterly unmemorable all the better. Then roll it out.

Is Palladium REALLY optional? by DickBreath · 2003-01-25 08:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

I keep hearing that TCPA is NOT the death of Free software. But how can that be?

Here's how I understand Palladium. It is implemented beginning at the hardware level. The hardware refuses to execute a boot sector that has not been digitally signed. Therefore, only "trusted" boot loaders will work.

From here, the trust is handed to the software, and the trust keeps expanding as more software is loaded. Some future version of Windows, let's call it Windows Secure User eXtensions, or for short, just Windows SUX, would be designed to cooperate with this trust model. The boot sector for WinSUX would be digally signed. So the hardware would load and execute the boot sector.

The boot sector loads an OS kernel from disk, the WinSUX kernel. Now the boot sector will not execute the kernel unless it is digally signed. So once the boot sector checks the signature, it passes control to the loaded kernel. The trust keeps expanding. Once the kernel is in control it can run only digitally signed device drivers, thus ensuring security of the hardware, and that only trusted hardware is used. WinSUX can also only run trusted applications, such as Windows Media Player, thus ensuring DRM. Untrusted applications could be run within a sandbox by WinSUX - with certain API's and raw access to the hardware being off limits. Thus only trusted DVD players, media players, etc. will run. There will be no CD audio rippers, because they, being unsigned and untrusted, won't have access to rip the raw bits from an audio CD.

Just as WinXP requires registration to use, WinSUX can do likewise. But with WinXP there are already numerous hacks to defeat the registration mechanism in WinXP. Not so with WinSUX. If you tamper with the code, you invalidate the digital signature, and the boot loader won't run the OS. Or if you didn't tamper with the kernel, then whatever trusted DLL or application you had to tamper with won't get run by the kernel because it's digital signature will now be invalid.

Being able to trust that WinSUX is trusted also allows Microsoft to ensure things that they cannot ensure today. They really could make WinSUX expire after two years and refuse to run. You could not patch WinSUX in order to continue running the OS you paid for.

So it seems like WinSUX does give security to Microsoft and to Hollywood, but not to the user. There still could be remote root exploits in WinSUX, thus allowing hackers to compromise running systems, steal credit card numbers, deface web pages, plant remote monitoring software, launch remote attacks, etc.

So far my analysis has not mentioned open source. Some would say, "If you don't like Palladium, then don't run WinSUX." But this ignores the fact that Palladium begins at the hardware. In order to run any bootloader, it must be signed.

There is no way that Microsoft is going to sign a bootloader like, say, LILO, the boot loader for Linux, unless it is trusted. Now LILO is open source, and Microsoft could say they will sign a "trusted" version of LILO. That is, if LILO is patched so that it will only execute a digally signed Kernel. So, LILO is patched, it is open source, Microsoft inspects the source, compiles it, and signs it. Now you can use the LILO boot loader and only execute signed Kernels. But all we've done is move the problem. Now I can only run signed Kernels. Maybe major distribution kernels such as SuSE, Red Hat, etc could have signed kernels. But what about Joe User who wants to compile his own kernel? What about developers who compile thirty kernels a day?

Of course, I'm sure Microsoft will find ways to make their own internal kernel developers lives easier. In fact, this becomes one way in which Microsoft can make external OS developers lives more difficult, and give their own developers an advantage.

The fact remains that the only way you're going to get a Kernel signed is if it is trusted. This means inspecting the source to make sure it doesn't have any naughty bits, and promises not to ever execute any other naughty bits. Signing kernels also becomes a new revenue stream for Microsoft.

But some would say: "But Palladium is optional, if you don't like it, just don't use it." Do you really expect me to believe that it will be optional? If it is optional, then all of its benefits completely disappear.

If Palladium were optional, then the following scenario would be possible. Put LILO into boot sector of hard drive. Boot up a specially crafted loader which loads the WinSUX kernel, patches it to bypass its security, and then start execution of the compromised WinSUX operating system. Once a compromised WinSUX can be executed, then all security bets are off. I could compromise its ability to run only signed device drivers. I could compromise its ability NOT to run an MP3 ripper. Compromise its registration mechanism, thus allowing pirated copies of WinSUX. Compromise its ability to quit running when it has reached the expiration date. It would even be possible to compromise WinSUX to allow the reading of material which Microsoft might consider "subversive", such as what you are reading right now.

Does anyone really believe Microsoft would go to so much trouble to ensure security only to turn around and make it optional? Optional means that the entire security of WinSUX and other future versions of Windows could be defeated. (Of course this is true on any non-Palladium hardware, such as a hardware emulation like Virtual PC.)

Let's continue with the analysis of getting open source programs to be "trusted". Maybe Microsoft runs a service where they will inspect another OS kernel to make sure it is trusted, and then they will sign it, so that the trusted LILO will run it. A trusted Linux kernel would have to be trusted not to execute any naughty code. Linux is trusted as long as it does two things: (1) only executes signed LKM's (Linux Kernel Modules), and (2) keeps certain API's off limits to untrusted user space programs. (You'll note that this is just how I previously described WinSUX.)

A Visual Basic programmer could write his own toy programs. But he could never write code that did anything naughty, such as play DVD's. Or he could do so only through secure COM components. System level programming would now become something that only a special "guild" could do. Ditto for device drivers.

Would Microsoft relax these restrictions? If I could run arbitrary LKM's, then all bets are off. I just write a Linux Kernel Module that holds interrupts, wipes memory clean, loads WinSUX, patches it, and then starts the compromised WinSUX running on the hardware. The LILO-Linux-LKM just becomes a means to an end of running compromised patched WinSUX code.

So in short, Palladium cannot be optional. If it were optional, then why bother at all? It guarantees nothing to the user. It only makes guarantees to Microsoft and to Hollywood. By making it optional, then these guarantees disappear.

If Palladium is not optional, then who holds the keys to sign programs? If just anyone can get any arbitrary program signed to run on the hardware, then the entire point of Palladium disappears. (I just need to get a special loader-patcher signed to compromise WinSUX. Or get some other program signed that will run my loader-patcher on the raw hardware.) If only trusted Open Source operating systems can run, then this effectively destroys open source. But Microsoft gets to play the PR game of saying that Open Source is welcome to participate in Palladium.

How can they pull this off? Just require all hardware to implement Palladium in order for it to run WinSUX. Most users will happily buy a computer with WinSUX preloaded. So the public will not understand that by allowing Palladium hardware to become widespread that they have just cemented Microsoft's control over what software that you can run on your computer.

--

I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.

Re:Is Palladium REALLY optional? by NSParadox · 2003-01-25 09:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

But it is optional. Just disable the security (hardware manufacturers have promised that you CAN disable it), and then run an unsigned kernel. You won't be able to run a secure OS, secure apps, or secure media, but you can run anything you want.

Which is why OSS isn't going to be affected at all by this, but piracy will, so this is a Good Thing for those of us who sell software or content for a living.

--
Unless mankind redesigns itself .... robots will take over our world. (Stephen Hawking)
Re:Is Palladium REALLY optional? by SiliconEntity · 2003-01-25 11:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

The hardware refuses to execute a boot sector that has not been digitally signed.
Many people have posted to explain that you are all wrong about this. The bigger question is, where did you get your misinformation? Was it perhaps from the TCPA/Palladium FAQ? That FAQ is full of misinformation! You can't trust a word in it.
Someone yesterday posted that TCPA had good uses. They were accused of spreading FUD! And yet people post all kinds of totally incorrect information about Palladium and TCPA and nobody objects. People don't seem to mind when they are lied to, as long as the people doing the lying are on the same side. But lies which promote your goals are just as bad as lies which oppose them! In the long run, lying hurts you because eventually the truth will come out.
More and more, people are learning the truth behind Palladium (excuse me, the Windows next generation secure computing platform - boy, that just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?) and TCPA. It's not great news, but it's not nearly as bad as some of the doomsayers were claiming. Let us rededicate ourselves to dealing with reality, to getting the full facts about these technologies and not believing every net.rumor that someone is mongering.
Re:Is Palladium REALLY optional? by Hobbex · 2003-01-25 11:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

TCPA is more like pgp than like ssl, i.e. there are no "root certificates". The chip contains a key, and can store signatures. So, when you install a system, you sign it, and install the signature in the chip. The boot loader only has to be trusted by you.

Not quite, you should have read the documents you linked to more carefully. What TCPA does is that it hashes the boot sector, and stores that hash. It can then provide that hash, signed if need be, later. And that the TCPA chip only contains the keys you generate is in fact not true: it contains a pair of hardwired keys called the "endorsement" keys that are set by the vendor. What the DRM applications will require is the boot sector hash of "trusted" operating system, signed by an "endorsement key" from a vendor that it trusts. It can then be sure you are running an OS that will not let you control your machine.

To repeat myself, here is a paste from something I posted yesterday:

The trick is that you cannot modify the OS software, because each layer of it that is loaded verifies the next, down to the boot loader, which the TCPA chip takes the hash of. So a modified OS means a modified boot loader, and the DRM service will ask for the current boot loader hash signed by the TCPA chips "endorsement key" (which is set by the vendor.) If the hash is not one recognized as a "trusted" OS (ie, one on which the user can't have root) then no go. Nor can you open files you downloaded previously, exactly because the TCPA chip won't decrypt stuff if the boot loader hash is different (boot viruses my ass).

Of course, this might prevent you from dual-booting Linux and MS, since MS might make their system refuse to install unless you put their signature into the chip, but I have an easy solution to that. I just install Linux, and don't run anything from MS. :)

You are right that we will probably be able to simply ignore this by running Linux for the forseeable future - but we will not be able to ignore it if user hostile clients become the norm. I figure we can all live without whatever annoying overpriced services the record companies are thinking up, but what happens when M$ has the bright idea of making a "trusted" version of IE that respects a "do not display source" tag in the HTTP reply? All it would take is the simple addition of a field containing the signed boot loader hash to the HTTP request to prove that the data is going to a "trusted" browser and not "untrusted" mozilla which should be locked out (until it implements the same "feature".)

Yes, it is a good thing that those of us who understand that user hostile applications are pestilence can simply choose to turn them off - but we also need to be vocal in our opposition, because a LOT of people are being LIED TO regarding the purpose and function of these technologies in order to lead them down a path they may not have chosen had they been told the truth.

Re:Before we have any Knee Jerk reactions... by sean23007 · 2003-01-25 08:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

Isn't that exactly what everyone said about IBM and TCPA? "It isn't DRM. It only gives you more security over your documents, and just because DRM can be built on it doesn't mean that it should be criticized with DRM. That's for Palladium..." I've heard all this before.

--

Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.

Re:My friends work for MS! by Mdog · 2003-01-25 08:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

I've often thought about how much "damage" a mole could do. Let's say I go to work for MS with the intention of putting in little bugs and/or giving confidential information to the open source community.

--
Slashdot 's editors are dickheads

That's probably deliberate by Andy_R · 2003-01-25 09:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

All our efforts to get "palladium = bad" into the heads of non-techies are wasted.

"next-generation secure computing base = bad" is a more complex a message that does not make a neat soundbite

--
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a

How to lampoon an uncatchy name? by melquiades · 2003-01-25 09:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

Until now, we've had a nice and concise name for lampooning this thing, as in this lovely sig I spotted the other day:

Palladium: Just where the HELL do you think you're doing today?

But this new name just doesn't have the same ring to it. How do you make up a catchy slogan -- any slogan -- containing the inconceivably awkward phrase "next-generation secure computing base"?!

The resistance needs catchy terminology, even if the Evil Empire doesn't.

I suggest, as a start, that "next-generation" is superfluous:

Microsoft secure computing base: Just where the HELL do you think you're doing today?

Perhaps even the word "base" is as well, as long as the "Microsoft" is still in there:

Microsoft secure computing: Just where the HELL do you think you're doing today?

This presents the problem, however, that people may confuse the already-meaningful phrase "secure computing" with digital rights mangling.

One safe route, perhaps, is to insist on calling it "DRM", even as that phrase takes on an increasingly negative connotation and Microsoft attempts to disown it.

correct me if im wrong here.... by tx_mgm · 2003-01-25 09:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

...but other than saving the riaa, what is "next generation secure computing" going to fix security-wise? am i correct to assume that this scenario can take place?
NGSCserver: incoming request! are you a NGSC computer?
NGSCcomuter: why, yes. as a matter of fact, i am!
NGSCserver: great! what can i do for you now that i know you are a trusted platform?
NGSCcomputer: i would like to exploit one of your bugs, causing you to blow your brains out and bring you to a screeching halt.
NGSCserver: okay! youre the boss!
::crash::

--
Gentlemen...BEHOLD!
-Dr. Weird

Re:correct me if im wrong here.... by spitzak · 2003-01-25 13:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yes! EXACTLY this scenerio can take place. MicroSoft is relying on all the morons who don't know how computers work to think that this piece of hardware is going to enhance their "security" and stop all the proglems we have today. Everybody should be told that it will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! It will have absolutely zero effect.

But it enforces stuff at the hardware level! they will claim. I will make a counter-claim: I believe Windows as it is does not have any bug that will allow a non-Administrator to turn into an Administrator. It could very well be *perfect* and you could publish papers showing how utterly impossible it is for a user program to compromise a machine running Windows. And it really is as impossible to do as if there was hardware enforcing this. However this has absolultely no effect on all the bugs that cause exploits, as those bugs lie in programs running *as* Administrator (or root for Unix).

What it does is enhance *MicroSoft's* "security". It does nothing for bugs except "sign" them and say they are "trusted".

NO! by A+nonymous+Coward · 2003-01-25 09:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

I don't want a key locked to my machine, because it becomes useless if I switch machines, if the old one breaks, or I simply want something better.

Why is it so hard to understand that what is wrong with private keys is that I don't have complete control over them? If it's my private key, it's mine, not something hardware generated that I can't keep or delete or copy at my whim. When it goes out of my control, it's somebody else's, not mine, and I don't want it!

--
Infuriate left and right

Change those META-tags NOW! by jakobgrimstveit · 2003-01-25 09:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

To all those of you who have published pages with a realistic/pessmisitic view of the Palladium security platform: Update those page's META-tags NOW include any or all of the new terminology created by the Microsoft Marketing Department (r). Or else those search-engines will fail miserably to find anything relevant when those company executives tries to find information about the-next-great-thing from Microsoft which has been told to be oh-so-secure.

--
Jakob Breivik Grimstveit
"I love deadlines. I love the whooshing noise they make as they go by."

Re:Because.... by geekee · 2003-01-25 10:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually, about 95% of the population want "a computer that has all its data secure, is immune to hackers, and runs only Microsoft products."

--
Vote for Pedro

Re:Before we have any Knee Jerk reactions... by Billly+Gates · 2003-01-25 11:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

No palladium is DRM. Here is an example.

The pics on the site particularly shows a document being access and permission from an agent is needed to view it. Now what is the diffinition of DRM ?

Could TCPA be used for drm? The answer is yes and no but that is what its not designed. There are no apps I am aware of that use it. Its just a soldiered on encryption chip. Its also an industry standard and highly documented.

Could palladium be used for drm? The answer is a certain yes. How do I know? Look at Bill Gates comments, the discussion of the next generations of Windows, and the link I gave above. Palladium was designed as a proprietary drm solution from the ground up to turn a pc into a cable box to applease hollywood and cut down on piracy. You have the next generation of Windows that has everything to the filesystem encrypted and even all the peripherals are encrypted. Everything is setup as a trust relationship? You have to ask yourself why is a whole trust relationship needed for simple encryption?

TCPA is an open standard while palladium is secret and in combo with the DMCA illegal for anyone but Microsoft to use! In palladium every component has an encryption chip and the nexus chip on the motherboard only views the keys from the application agents and other the peripherals. Bill Gates called these agents using the nexus chips "bouncers" back in 2000 when discussing some of microsofts research with secure computing. Bouncers?? He also mentioned during the 1990's that he wanted china to becomed hooked on Microsoft products so during the next decade he could find a way to "make them pay".

So lets summarize here:
1.)Instead of a master encryption chip, the master in palladium (nexus)deals with trust relationships between all the different keys in the peripherals. To make sure nothing is tampered with. It also only partially decrypts the data. All the other peripherals like the hard drive and video decrypt the rest. Yes even the video card is encrypted to prevent you from recording movies!

2.)Bill Gates calls the software agents that communicate with the nexus "bouncers".

3.) Microsofts own pics show documents being "trusted" to view on a pc.

4.)Micosoft mentioned that NTFS will go away and be replaced with an encrypted filesystem so palladium can take advantage of it. Yes palladium ready hard drives are already on the market! My guess is even the hard drive will be palladium ready to make sure the user can't read it.

Folks if this is not drm then I do not know what is. Hell, coding for your digital cable box might be easier then coding for your palladium machine. That is unless you use Microsoft tools only. This does assume that it can not be turned off. TCPA can but since palladium is only vaporware right now I can not say.

Please TCPA please take over before palladium. Macs are expensive and I do not want to switch. However if Windows only works with palladium then I guess its time to start the voodoo Steve Jobs worship. If you read my other comments you will notice I am pro TCPA. I just do not trust Microsoft. Microsoft wants apple out of the multimedia market for years and directX really did hurt them but they are still there. Infact directx was made according to an insider soley to hurt apple. Hollywood, content makers, and the porn industry, backing palladium might just kill it out of its core market and seal its fate.

The big consorturium of TCPA likes Linux and has no intention to find anyway possible to kill competition. I am sure they will be more lenient in regards to signers and gatekeepers.

--
http://saveie6.com/

Re:Hello? by Zeinfeld · 2003-01-25 11:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

They do not cost millions. Not even close. I can have an international search run by my IP attorney for a few thousand dollars. Microsoft has them internally.

If you want to exclude all posibility of collision you do. Trademarks are complex, you can have different companies using the same trademark on different categories of product.

Microsoft probably did do a cheapie thousand dollar job, I would not expect that type of search to preclude any possibility of a claim.

I doubt the case gets too far however since Microsoft never sold anything under the Palladium brand. Attempting to trademark an element name is difficult in any case. Kind of like trying to enforce a trademark on windows...

--
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/

Actually the opposite... by commodoresloat · 2003-01-25 11:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

They changed the name because people who care about such things do know what Palladium is. MS is likely betting that Joe Sixpack is less likely to be interested in finding out the threats "next-generation secure computing base" poses to his privacy and ability to use technology. Whereas "Palladium" is something much easier to pay attention to. Seems like the semantic equivalent of security through obscurity.

In other news, does anyone else think it interesting that they are releasing the source code to part of Palladium? Cnet was a little thin on details about that though.

Re:future is good by Billly+Gates · 2003-01-25 12:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

But how will you run Linux? The oems will tailor to %97 of the market. They need to be Windows NG^&*^ certified" in order to sell Windows! To be certified means being palladium complaint! They have to use palladium or they go out of bussiness. Only a monopoly can pull a scam like this off and force OEM's to do this.

Also corporate customers love Palladium because they can timebomb all their documents and secure important data and bring down support costs but eliminating virii. Enron for example would love something like this.

Macs( only linux platform left) will be avoided since they can no longer read email or word docs, or produce "protected" images for the companies "protected" websites.

This will also squeeze unix out of the server room since everything will be an encrypted .net nightmare. All the clients will need to have a trustworthy server to run their trustworthy apps. It doesn't matter if Linux is better. If it can't run on standard hardware then its useless as the cd its been cut on.

Remember that it was the corporate world that wanted a one standard monopoly. They chose Microsoft. In 10 years the doj will be all over Microsofts throat for allowing this to happen. They and the judge f*cked up bigtime and we will see the result of the ruling with this.

--
http://saveie6.com/

trademarks by Tibe · 2003-01-25 12:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

common star-trek go claim trademark of next-generation then they have nothing to stand on

sig. /. what not

21 of 348 comments (clear)