Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Researchers Looking at Alternatives to Palladium

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the trust-and-distrust dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Some folks at Stanford have been looking at an alternative architecture for doing trusted computing (ala Palladium) based on using Virtual Machines. They presented a brief paper describing their work a couple weeks ago at the USENIX Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems . In their paper they also discuss a bunch of non-DRM applications of Trusted Computing such as distributed firewalls, improving P2P security, preventing DDOS, and even strengthening civil liberty protections."

19 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. There's nobody stoping... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anybody from trusting anybody else now. We could create distrib-firewalls if we wanted to.

    The fact is DRM takes away the PEOPLES' rights to choose who to trust.

    1. Re:There's nobody stoping... by Keeper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's a backwards statement.

      DRM lets you send stuff to people you don't trust, because you trust that the software will prevent the people you do not trust from taking actions you wish to prevent.

      It has nothing to do with defining who YOU trust.

    2. Re:There's nobody stoping... by interiot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      DRM in the hands of monopolies is a way to take things away. DRM in the hands of corporations who value control above anything else is a way to take things away.

    3. Re:There's nobody stoping... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually what keeps you from trusting just anybody now is the total openness of the PC architecture.

    4. Re:There's nobody stoping... by Jordy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, corporations want to control what you do with the works they sell you, something copyright nor first sale doctrine does not give them the right to do.

      For instance, a book publisher can not sell you a book you're not allowed to resell. They also can not forbid you from reading a book more than once or reading the book to your child.

      DRM enables copyright holders to completely eliminate used sales and move the entire world to a pay-per-view world. Even more, it allows the copyright holders to have a perpetual copyright; one that will never expire for as long as the work is encrypted.

      You will not "own" anything. Sure technically you own your DRM'ed digital music downloads, but just try to resell them.

      The "value" of DRM'ed goods is significantly less than physical goods, but people won't realize that until laws get put in place forcing retailers to mark these goods as such.

      --
      The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
    5. Re:There's nobody stoping... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, it refers to your trusting the system, because you MUST trust it. It has nothing to do with how you feel about it. Here's an analogy: I give you my car keys. You drive away in my car. You are a trusted person. Are you a trusted person because I gave you my car keys? Not in this terminology. In this terminology, you are a trusted person because you HAVE my car keys, and I have no choice but to trust that you'll bring them back. Basically, trusted systems are bad. If you have zero trusted systems, you have zero points of failure, and 100% security.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  2. a Good Thing by trans_err · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Rather this alternative to Palladium does or doesn't work at the fact that OTHER companies are looking into creating this kind of system makes the future of Palladium-esque systems look a lot better. Competition is a Good Thing and handing the reigns to microsoft with out look bad is a bad thing, microsoft or not a company should not have that much power. If this market becomes more diversified we will see better products, rather from microsoft or not, and people will start listening to the peanut gallery ranting for a better system.

    --

    transmission_err

    1. Re:a Good Thing by Knife_Edge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "microsoft or not a company should not have that much power"

      Microsoft does have the power to do whatever they want with their operating system. Yet, for some reason that does not matter to me. I am not forced to use it, see? As long as there are some alternatives (and there are right now if you are willing to learn), I will be fine. More people need to be made aware of the alternatives, is all.

      And to everyone who says, but what if Microsoft and some media companies get together to make some kind of system that ensures that content distributed in this system could only be used in extravagantly restrictive ways?

      Well, darn, I guess I will not buy that content. I suppose I will just continue consuming media in all the other ways it is available to me that are easier and cheaper.

      Some guy asked a better 'what if' recently in another discussion on Palladium. What if systems using this technology are required to access the Internet?

      Oh, Microsoft controls the Internet now?

      This is just another silly copy protection scheme, nothing more. As are any alternative silly copy protection schemes. Take the tinfoil hats off, folks.

  3. Too bad... by PS-SCUD · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One is proposed by some folks in Stanford, the other is proposed by Microsoft and Intel.

    Guess which one is going to matter?

    --


    "Much work is lost, for the lack of a little more." -Edward H. Harriman
    1. Re:Too bad... by Knife_Edge · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "One is proposed by some folks in Stanford, the other is proposed by Microsoft and Intel.

      Guess which one is going to matter?"

      Neither.

    2. Re:Too bad... by El · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, that's why we're all running Microsoft Bob instead of the X Window System -- 'cause a big bad corporation can set a standard, while a Univerity can't?

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

  4. Palladium,DRM = no trust or rights by AtariAmarok · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What misleading terms they are. How can Palladium have anything to do with "trust" when they violate trust and anything else by intruding into my computer and controlling my content?

    How can DRM "protect rights" when it denies basic rights of fair use?

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  5. Which would you choose. by xA40D · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So from MS we get Trusted Computing where "trusted" means trusted by big corporations who want to sell you stuff without any chance of copying.

    From these guys we get Trusted Computing where trusted means trusted by the guys building the network.

    So, which would you choose?

    --
    Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
  6. Real meaning of trusted computing! by AtariAmarok · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is it called "trusted computing" after all, when it violates trust?

    The problem is we are looking at the wrong definition of trust. Most of us have in mind the primary definition: "Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing" or "Custody; care"

    You have to look down the list to find the definition of "trust" that fits perfectly with Microsoft, RIAA/MPAA and the Palladium idea:

    "A combination of firms or corporations for the purpose of reducing competition and controlling prices throughout a business or an industry."

    Might as well called it "monopolized computing". Means the same thing.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  7. MPAA refuses my money by AtariAmarok · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "If the Riaa and Mpaa do not trust people with the media, why show it? They, in effect, release the idea to everybody when they put some show/song in mass media."

    Not only that, but the MPAA commonly encourages piracy.

    Let's say I want to see "The Two Towers". It is no longer in theatres, can't go there. It is a LONG time before they sell a DVD; so I can't pay them that way by buying a DVD. The only alternative is to obtain somehow a pirated DVD copy of "The Two Towers".

    No way should they whine about money-loss to piracy when they aren't selling it in the first place! There is a demand for their product, and in this example, they refuse to meet it in any way.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:MPAA refuses my money by murdocj · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Let's say I want to see "The Two Towers". It is no longer in theatres, can't go there. It is a LONG time before they sell a DVD; so I can't pay them that way by buying a DVD. The only alternative is to obtain somehow a pirated DVD copy of "The Two Towers".

      So if someone won't sell you something you want, it's ok to steal it? For God's sake, grow up! Learn to wait a couple of months for the dvd to come out.

  8. That is not DRM, that is encryption! (nt) by Hobbex · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...

  9. OK, So Let Me Get This Straight by istartedi · · Score: 1, Insightful

    OK, So Let Me Get This Straight... When MS does it, it's Pure Evil (TM). When Stanford does it, it's Happy Fluffy Bunnies. I'm glad we're all clear on that.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  10. DRM != Trusted Computing by hughk · · Score: 3, Insightful
    DRM is just one application of a trusted platform. The others are benign, ensuring that only software that you trust can take certain actions like intercepting keystrokes or sending Email.

    The problem is that the trusted layer *must* be small so that it can be completely verified. Applications can't be so easily verified and it would still be possible to compromise Outlook, for example to send unwanted EMail. All the signature does is to say that the software hasn't been modified, but we know that applications don't need bad code to misbehave, they only need the right kind of bad data. Once the code has been signed, it must be signed again verey time it is patched. A far from simple logistical problem.

    OTOH, smaller code may be more easily verified - so a driver for a Smart Card reader could be protected, as could SSL. However a programmer can still make a mistake and allow the code to be compromised.

    --
    See my journal, I write things there