Slashdot Mirror
Cryptographers Find Fault With Palladium
FrzrBrn writes "Whitfield Diffie and Ronald Rivest raised concerns about Microsoft's Next-Generation Secure Computing Base (formerly Palladium) at the RSA Conference in San Francisco on Monday. They are (naturally) concerned about vendor lock-in and having computers turned against their owners. See the story at EE Times."
...Cancer researchers found fault with Marlboro brand cigarettes. More details soon.
then someone finds fault with it later.
And now we're supposed to trust 'Trusted Computing'?
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
Diffie and Rivest have always held the idea that personal privay (and personal security) is a fundamental right. Their comments at this forum pretty much express that.
They're cautious for a good reason. Making every PC an Xbox with push content delivery just opens up an ugly vulnerability in your system. I can't wait for the distributed Palladium cracking project!
From accounts of Microsofts other presentations they are there primarily to advertise the future of their technology rather than to actually discuss the future of security with others.
Diffie and Rivest had better watch out! Microsoft could easily hit them with DMCA violation charges for questioning Palladium's encryption!
News Flash: "Blue screen of death kills computer and user, details at 9" - Kent Brockman
The inventors of the RSA algorithm (Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir, and Len Adleman) were awarded the Turing Award on Monday. This was announced at the opening of the RSA conference. More information can be found in this article.
Does anyone think Microsoft would have it any other way?
In Microsoft's NGSCB approach, users would have to consciously evoke a secure operating mode that would be turned off by default.
Now as we all can imagine, it won't take long before various applications will not work unless Paladium's controls are in effect. Anything that accesses potentially copyrighted works are the most likely to begin with. Windows Media player, E-Books, and later Office products will be the first to require this.
Microsoft is already pushing to get their media formats to be the default. Websites are frequently given discounted access to Windows Media creation software. Colleges and other low-budget places are frequently targets. They have to agree to use only those formats, not quicktime or MPEG, in return. This forces users to get Windows Media player to watch this content. Later MS will require these sites start saving in the newer, Paladium-only, versions, and we'll have our transition to lockout today.
What can you do to prevent this? Stay with open formats. Ogg-Vorbis. MPEG. XML/OpenOffice.org.
It'll be very interesting to see if this subtle push backfires or succeeds. Ten years ago, there's no doubt Microsoft would have been able to back us into any corner they wanted. But the last few has shown some strong distrust - people no longer take MS's word as law.
Let's hope that trend continues.
Which means it will only work on approved hardware - guess who profits from approving the hardware and drivers? Why would I need a secure framebuffer exactly when I'm already in full control of the code executed on my machine?
Seriously though, read the following:
"The right way to look at this is you are putting a virtual set-top box inside your PC. You are essentially renting out part of your PC to people you may not trust..."
Aren't people who download Kazaa already doing that, since Brilliant Digital's spyware is installed with the program and can use the computer's CPU cycles and hard drive space without warning? It seems that unless there is a big enough hoopla made about Palladium, unsuspecting customers will have no idea of "Trusted Computing"'s true effects and limitations on usage. Just ask a non computer geek Kazaa user if they're concerned that Brilliant Digital has so much control over their computer, and if they give you a response other than a blank stare accompanied with a "wha?" I'll give you a Gummy bear (It's warm from being in my pocket).
To understand why this is not a good thing, imagine if a commercial company had the monopoly of passport and driving license production, and were able to prevent you from using the ID they issued to verify who you were except in "microsoft approved" shops and venues (or countries).
IDs and trust systems should be standards based, not proprietary. They should be secure, and openly peer-reviewed or audited. And the ID should be under the control of the person being identified (or at least issued by a "neutral" government body, as passports are now).
But I've just started thinking about this... so I might change my mind some more. Would that make me a bad slashdotter?
Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
From the title, you would think there is some technical flaw in palladium, but the article just goes on about some thing about not having control of your PC etc...
/. spreads propaganda through misleading comments.
Im not saying there isnt a technical flaw, just
I.O.U One Sig.
Wittfield Diffie is an engineer at Sun Microsystems, one of the only corporations that can be considered a Microsoft competitor. Ron Rivest is a professor as his day job, but gets quite a bit of cash from RSA, and Microsoft isn't using any of the code that RSA provides (BSAFE, etc) in Paladium, so that's a big chunk of change that won't be coming his way.
We here on slashdot may realize that Rivest and Diffie are actually quite excellent individuals in their field, but these kinds of conflicts of interest are frequently what will be pulled out to counter an argument, rather than working from the facts themselves.
The headline of this story is misleading. Some people disagree philosophically with Palladium's goals, not its technical merits. It just happens that these people are famous cryptographers. At the moment, the technical details seem sparse, so we'll just have to wait until they are released (if ever) to see if the goals that are mentioned are actually met.
Didn't Asimov write up a list of directives for robots, and wasn't one of them that robots should always be subservient to humans?
1. Is palladium optional for the SO? Could Linux or Winshit98 be installed on a Palladium box w/ no ill effects?
2. Is palladium optional for developers? Can "Joe Shareware" still release his software w/out paying an evil corporation for the right to sell it?
3. Is there any way whatsoever in which this would help Joe User or Joe Hacker(not to be confused with Joe Cracker)?
4. Will this be integrated on Sparc and PowerPC or just PCs? Is AMD accepting this BS or just Intel?
5. Who will be in charge of licensing keys for palladium software?
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Just as a note, contrary to what most people's initial reaction is, the article does not talk about any cryptographic flaw in the system. Diffie is arguing the merits(or lack thereof) of a system that the user doesn't hold the key to; Palladium itself hasn't been proven insecure(yet).
It's not much of a change from now: you don't own your copies of windows nor do you own your XBOX
You missed Part Two: you can't get your hardware approved if you don't agree to keep the operational specs under lock & key. So, in order to sell display devices to the monopoly market, they have to be Microsoft-only display devices. Et cetera.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Is there any way whatsoever in which this would help Joe User or Joe Hacker(not to be confused with Joe Cracker)?
The excuse given for the CBDTPA, which may apply to Pd as well, is that more authors would be willing to publish works in a digital restrictions management system than in a system that grants all fair use rights by default.
Will I retire or break 10K?
They found fault with the way the computer has more control than the user. They didn't find a crytographic fault in any of the protocols.
It is well worth a read giving an insightful historical perspective and with translations to a number of other languages available.
Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!
Going to a DRM OS will change how personal computers work. People aren't always happy with change, and if forced to, they will review their options. That would be the perfect time for a Linux distro that does a painless install/conversion for Windows users, and installs a "best of breed" set of packages that are either compatable or equivilent to MS Office and friends. (If you really want 101+ different editors, make it an option.)
With the right package at the right time, the MS DRM "trusted" OS could be Microsoft's PS/2.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
but due to DMCA laws cannot tell anyone about it, and therefore the faults will never be fixed, because the schmuckos the programmed the damn thing are too damn stuborn, and full of themselves to admit to there being faults in their code, and refuse to fix anything without proof of the faults first.
Damn good point. Your comment gathers up and bundles rather nicely the hard cold facts. And of course, once MS has made this REQUIRED to use any software of any consequence, I am sure the price of Windows will jump again.
THIS is EXACTLY why I am working very hard to learn Linux on the Desktop and hone my *nix server skills as well. It isn't a matter of 'bad old MS' to me as much as it appears that they are on the verge of imploding, and they don't realize it. Its a simple matter that I think Linux will end up overtaking MS not on merit, but by simply having less DEmerits at the same time it becomes 'as good enough as'. When the change happens, I want to be up to speed, and ready to capitalize on it. (read: make $)
Free people don't like this kinda shit, it sounds so, well, unfree (as in speech). As the computer gets cheaper, windows gets more expensive, Linux gets better (RH9 is about as good as win95 to me, which is a compliment) it WILL put pressure on windows. Unlike others, I do NOT think that Linux will gain a percent of market share here and there. I think that it will happen in a very short period, BANG, and over 2 years, half of everyone is no longer using MS. History shows this is the most common method for change.
This is why I am not a MS basher (Really, I use Windows). I don't have to be, they are becoming their own worst enemy, and beginning in 2 or 3 years, they are going to be very shocked in a very short period of time.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
In spite of the imagined throngs of doe-eyed deer-in-the-headlights otherwise thoughtless "consumers" out there, it's going to come to pass that Microsoft and their greed will overextend itself. The lock-out we-control-your-security methodology will only work until even the more moronic people have been bitten by it. Perhaps too late for their immediate circumstances, even the most ignorant and go-with-the-flow types will realize they have to leave this Microsoft environment. I believe what we are seeing is two things (a) desperate paranoia-fueled greed and (b) the beginning of the end for anyone so foolish to be so exclusive to the world's computing community. Here on this forum, I keep hearing people talking in little boxes about Intel, Microsoft, AMD, Linux, PCs and all of this shit in this little world we have encased ourselves into. I used to be one of those people. While now I'm working much of my time in Linux (although Windows world stuff still pays some of the bills and mainframes pay the rest) I have gone to a point from being immersed in the Microsoft environments to now being largely outside of them. People? Notice that we are the majority. And we can choose whether or not to be consumer cattle thoughtlessly following the loudest noise. We can choose our own directions. But mental and philosophical freedom is hard work. Not going with the large groups of clueless cattle to slaughter means a lot of effort. If this philosophy of "security" is a bad thing, and I sincerely believe "Palladium" is a very bad thing, don't follow it. Just. Don't. It will have some nice bells and whistles, but recognize a gilded cage and a machine under perpetual remote control and remote authorization for what it is. Don't sit there whining about how Windows 98 or Linux is your favorite OS of choice--please get your egos out of this and start working on some of the deeper principles of your liberty and facility with your own data on your own computers. If it means developing GPL-equivalent hardware, open design microprocessors, and a true open and truly standard machine architecture, done somewhere in the world, then accept this as the direction. Locking people out means locking yourself from them. We have a greedy minority of producers locking out and constricting a vast majority of consumers. Linux demonstrates that we as people can produce, but most of us are in the software or user spheres. People? If they are so intent on locking us out with these obviously evil "security" schemes--let them! But don't let yourself ever be locked in. Linux and OSS is one way to freedom (like Richard Stallman's idea of Freedom as liberty--not lack of cost or price). But perhaps leaving Microsoft, Intel, "Wintel", and going to newer, more open and honest architectures is the way to go. Wintel is rotting and dying. Linux and it's philosophies of openness will succeed because they allow people freedom and the proliferation of new and open idea. Wintel is like the dinosaurs in a sense of being widespread and formidable in the small computer market. This chapter of overreaching greed is the first few pebbles of the beginning of a meteoric shift. Look for freedom and reject this and all attempts to hijack and tyrannize computing.
Palladium cannot stop viruses at all unless all "trusted" programs that could be told to execute the virus instructions actually can't do anything, which would mean the computer is useless. Outlook viruses work by doing things that the "trusted" program Outlook thinks are perfectly benign, the actions are harmful either due to bugs in Outlook or mistakes in it's design. All palladium does is "sign" the bugs in programs and then claim they are "trusted" as though that magically made the bugs go away. It provides no more help than the kernel-mode bit that is already in the hardware and is used by Linux and Windows and does not seem to have stopped viruses on either one of them.
The purpose of Palladium is for Digital Restrictions Management (DRM). There is NO other reason for Palladium. NONE. It's purpose is to make sure that certain programs (everything not written by MicroSoft) does not run on the machine.
The "target" audience is MicroSoft themselves. They are trying to make a machine that is acceptable for playing digital content, with a design that guarantees that alternative operating systems are totally unable to play this content. Far more reliable DRM systems (hardware cards) that would work under Linux are discouraged because of the bogus promises of Palladium.
The number of bits in the key is not the issue. In fact, most secure protocols like SSL use a decent size so that brute forcing is not worthwhile.
The point actually is that any theoretical construct like a cryptographic scheme or a TCP protocol needs practical implementation in code. And this is where the bugs creep in. And with things like Microsoft, those bugs are as common as snow in Greenland. And so all these hackers/crackers out there working their fingers on their keyboards and peering into bright screens into the fading night can 'hack' Palladium.
Microsoft has taken on itself to make errors wherever possible and remain as human as any one of us. Trust them to repeat their humanity and come up with enough holes in their Palladium implementation to let most hacks through.
This sig is empty.
Ummm, exactly WHY do you think the NSA seems to have suddenly stopped contributing code to the NSA security enhanced linux project?
;)
I suppose the NSA stopping all development on SE Linux is the reason that they just posted updates one week ago to SE Linux, as well as in January 2003, December 2002, and October 2002, all of which took place after this article reported them dropping the project (August 2002).
Not to flame, but just check your sources first next time
**AA: a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes
When you read that the user doesn't hold or control or own the keys to his computer, you naturally assume that someone else does. This is not true. No one owns the keys.
The keys are generated internally in the secure hardware. They are public and private keys, and the private keys never leave the chip. Neither Microsoft nor the user nor the chip manufacturer can get at those keys.
These keys are used by the secure hardware to lock data and to report a hash of an executing "secure" program. Because no one else has the key, neither the user nor Microsoft, no one can forge such a message (modulo the issue of breaking the hardware security).
This is how Trusted Computing has to work. If anyone could get access to the secure keys, then they could misuse them and make false statements with them, and there would be no trust and no security. Only by embedding the keys in a well-defined piece of hardware, with predictable and known behavior, can the keys serve to transfer trust to other software.
So when we see these complaints about the users not controlling their own keys, keep in mind that the point is not to put control in someone else's hands; it is to make it possible for the hardware to make trustworthy and believable cryptographic statements. The keys can't be owned or controlled by anyone, for this to work.
From TCPA / Palladium / NGCSB / TCG Frequently Asked Questions:
This means that this whole Palladium/TCPA monstrosity requires support from both hardware and software. It is entirely up to the end-user whether or not he wants this. However, senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina is working on getting a law that will make TCPA mandatory, see here. Until such time that this bill becomes the law:
1. Don't buy the hardware. Unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Well if you are working for the military then go knock yourself out.
2. Don't buy^H^H^H lease/rent/license/WTF the software. There is no compelling reason to do so.
It will only be compelling to use Palladium/TCPA software and hardware only if it becomes illegal not to use it.
Secure computing is not the aim of Palladium/TCPA. Its aim is to provide a way for software peddlers like Microsoft and content pushers like Disney to monitor what you run on your computer and assert control over your computer. In the long run, it will provide them a way to assert control over you.
Secure computing can be achieved through a combination of secure computing practices, secure operating systems running secure applications, and plain-old common sense.
If Intel, Microsoft and their cohorts push through with this stupidity it could spell the end for them. Just think, why in the hell would I want to run this sort of crap? Unless it's mandated by law, there's no reason for me to do so. With the recent slew of news about stupid laws being implemented in the U.S. it's a real possibility.
0xB00F, stands in front of Bill Gates, raises hand, extends middle finger.