Slashdot Mirror
Trusted Computing Rollout Hits the Desktop
Alsee writes "Previously appearing in a few rare laptops, ExtremeTech reports on the first major computer manufacturer making a full scale Trusted Computing rollout. Samsung will now install the Phoenix Core Managed Environment (cME) BIOS in every computer they make. Previous Slashdot reports on this BIOS include Phoenix Bios to Incorporate DRM and Microsoft Taking Over the BIOS."
How long do you think before this hardware gets hacked?
I would bet on 3 months.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Fujitsu, however, chose to install the FirstWare Vault software designed by Phoenix, a trusted application designed by the company. FirstWare Vault also creates a hidden partition on the hard drive. However, Fujitsu used it to store a backup copy of the OS, in case the user needed to reinstall. Fujitsu's strategy will eliminate the need to ship the OS "reinstall" disks that have begun to ship in today's PCs. The disks don't contain a full version of the OS, but just the files needed to reinstall it in case of an error. By hiding that reinstall software on a protected partition, the company saved itself the costs of distributing the media, Fujitsu said. Wouldn't this take up quite a hefty chunk of hard drive space? I mean, it says 'doesn't contain a full version,' but wouldn't this still be quite a bit? I'm not sure I want other people making those kinds of decisions for me.
First I have to mod my XBOX, and now my laptop. When will it end?
The problem with most "trusted computing" proposals so far is that "trusted" is an accurate description of them. It's just an imcomplete description. They aren't about insuring that you, the owner of the computer, can trust the computer or the software on it. They're about insuring that third parties (such as Microsoft, HP, etc.) can trust your computer to do what they tell it to do. The proponents omit that part because they know all too well that if they did say all of what they meant that the average consumer would scream bloody murder and refuse to have anything to do with it.
CMDRTACO CHECK YOUR EMAIL!
IBM has had thinkpads containing TCPA chips for years! On top of that, they provide a Linux driver for it on their website!
If I remember correctly doesnt the Record Industry have to label "protected" CDs?
Would be a good idea if these PC manufacturers labeled their PCs as using BIOS DRM.
That way an informed consumer can make a choice whether or not they want DRM on their system.
Just a thought.
.... ... }
int main (void) {
We're all going to be surfing the net with a government approved "conduct officer" standing behind us.
my windows 98 laptop has a backup of windows on it. this is nothing new at all (except that it's in a "hidden" HD partition).
sulli
RTFJ.
Good thing I build all my computers from components recycled from the dumpster bay at Texas Instruments in Austin.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
So this is the dawn of the Unpersonal Computer? One that hides things from it's users and gives control to other people.
Screw that idea!
...or treat this as impetus to finally make the switch to Apple-based computing.
Vote with your dollars, folks.--rc
I just refuse to believe that the Trusted Computer Initiative will deliver more secure computing.
The XBOX was an attempt at some kind of DRM and it got hacked to pieces because DRM is just impossible. Plus the fact that Microsoft write overly complicated software with bad tools and bad programmers.
But Microsoft bashing aside, they aint alone. I don't think there is any company or organisation capable of deliverying decent computer security at the moment.
The tools do not yet exist to manage projects containing millions of lines of code in a way that won't introduce security flaws.
Si.
It will never work until program encapsulation is implemented in the ISA. These silly software switches will be easily circumvented.
Repeal the DMCA!
please nip this in the bud
Spread the word: DO NOT BUY THEM
send a clear message of dollars (or lack of them) that we do not want "BIG BROTHER INSIDE"
Besides anti-MS statements and rhetoric about DRM, can someone actually tell me how this will affect what I can do with my computer?
I always save my last mod point to mod up a good troll. You people are too serious.
What really worries me is the unannounced DRM / Trusted Computing BIOS boards that will be coming out. Since this is an anti-consumer feature, and the BIOS companies know it, they don't want to impede their rollout with a consumer backlash.
I recall something about one of the Phoenix guys saying that the consumer was not their customer, the media companies were. DRM put directly into the BIOS, with no option to get a motherboard without it is going to be a real issue. Reminds me of when all the local banks in my area added thumbprint for check cashing on the same day. You couldn't bring your business elsewhere because they all did it.
So wants to start up a BIOS company?
OK guys, I think the time is come to buy one last decent computer before this whole TPC-NGSCB-hell breaks loose...
In general, I think that most /.ers would agree that invasive DRM practices are not a Good Thing(tm), but I wonder how the general public will see these initiatives, if at all. I think that either of two things will happen:
People inexperienced with computers will see the nice friendly keywords like 'safe' and 'trusted', and favor these products out of fear, which is obviously what the manufacturers want.
Alternatively, Joe User, who neither knows nor cares about security will simply ignore such concerns as fine print, since any kind of technical explanation is of no interest.
Unfortunately, I think the principal outcome may be that, like it or not, these Trusted Computing initiatives may propagate, either from adoption by fearful masses, or simply by sliding under the average consumer's radar.
...and consumers will buy it because it's a "feature". This wonderful new "trusted computing" will give you access to all sorts of places, simply because we're not going to offer access to anyone else. See?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Case in point : DIVX.
It wouldn't hurt for slashdotters to educate people when the chance comes up. To be effective, try to be informed, not shrill.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Why this is going in the BIOS beats me since most modern OSs (certainly linux) and even windows use the bios as something to boorstrap their boot
loader whether it be LILO or NT loader. After that the bios is bumped out of memory and ignored. Windows may well use portions of this BIOS if it suits MS but linux and other
OSs can just happily ignore it and nothing will change. Or have I missed something?
I would like to see whether this is, indeed, trusted computing. The article was somewhat vague in some ways. If it is the full-fledged hardware portion of the Pallidium initiative, as part of the article implies, it's very, very bad. If, instead, it's a way to save money on a system restore disk by having the hardware hide a portion of the hard drive from normal software, it's annoying, but probably fine, depending on how it is done (if there's a PKI, that's bad, but if it's just read-only, that's fine).
If trusted computers do appear in your area, I would suggest the following strategy for making them go away:
This assumes the companies have a 30-day no-questions-ask return policy (which is usually the case). You can even say that the "trusted" computing was the reason you returned it. Once they start losing tons of money, it'll go the way of DiVX (not the codec -- the old DVD standard which needed to call home to get authorization). It was pushed by Circuit City, which had a ton of people do this to them, so they introduced restocking fees, and lost a lot of customers who knew nothing about DiVX. Eventually, Circuit City backed off the DiVX thing.
If you want to be illegal (which I don't recommend), some people have a modified scheme:
This costs them a heck of a lot more, and gets around the place of returns without restocking fee. If you need to buy a DRMed product, you can also use this to make sure the company pays the manufacturing costs for 2 of 'em instead of one, and loses money on the sale. It is, however, illegal, and probably unethical.
who the hell would buy a Samsung computer anyway?
I was gonna buy a Samsung monitor, DVD drive and floppy drive. Now i'll be getting a Phillips, Lite-On and oem brand. Let them know with your wallets people.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
This is Bob Barker reminding you to help control the spam population and have your operating system spayed or neutered. (patch patch patch!)
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
I think Microsoft and Sony are locked in a struggle right now (hence the XBOX, Microsoft's shot accross Sony's bow), so I can't see Sony going along with this.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Got it 2 weeks ago while travelling to South Korea. The Samsung desktop was pretty heavy to handle in the return trip, but I think it was worth the trouble. Now I have a computer that can only run the software that Microsoft allows, so no viruses or open source suspicious code will run on it. This feature is what I was waiting for. Now I won't need to run antiviruses and firewalls just to make my computer safe, while taking over resources from other applications. I wonder if Linux will be able to copy this feature, or if its developers will steal code as they did with SCO.
ever use one of these machines at home. Flat out I don't agree with it. It would be the equivilent of car makers telling me what I could do with my engine, or what kind of tires I could put on it. Then enforing that by saying if I don't my car won't run.
I don't think that the majority of business will look at this situation and care, and even *IF* consumers reject it, I think that we will see it in the work place is some form at some point, however we didn't *really* have control over our workstations anyway. If my company chooses to give control of my workstation to Microsoft (or anyone else), I guess that is their choice.
However one of these machines has no place in my home. I thinks its a bad idea, but I'm not sure that people will see it (buisness minds anyway) until its too late.
-Adam C. Greenfield
is great and all but without a massive movement that information doesn't always flow upstream very quickly. In other words speak with your wallet and with your voice. Email is still free (mostly) so everytime your specifically purchase a non-DRM product over theirs write and tell them! Let them know how much $$$ they're losing on a sale-to-sale basis. Companies live and die by numbers and having another level of data tells them even more forcefully that, yes a boycott is in progress, and they're actively losing our money.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
So what makes an application "trusted" is that it has been blessed by Microsoft, ie. any software publisher with the funds to pony up the fee to Microsoft to get the trusted seal of apporval I suppose. So that's supposed to make computing more secure... and what is a "secure" computing environment anyway? Most of us define a secure computing environment as a desktop we can work at where our data is secure, private, stable, and uninterupted by rogue applications that pop up in your face unexpectedly refuse to be ignored... this is where "trusted" vendors are trying our patience. It has become more common for every Windoze desktop application sold today to hag nag screens popping up for any number of reasons: "Do you want to check for updates?" ... "Do you want to register now or be reminded to register in the next 15 minutes?" ... "Would you like to see some exciting new offers? I'll just go ahead and add them to your bookmarks menu anyway..." ... and all this happening when the offending application is not even running! Desktop software is becoming increasingly intrusive and interupting the workflow process.
So I ask you, what's worse: having a malicous virus annoy you and interupt your workday or having an application you paid for essentially behave even worse? At least virus authors don't nag you to register.
So my point is "secure" and "trusted" computing is obviously a joke when the companies driving this initiative are more intrusive and disruptive to the average work day than most virus authors.
Hey all,
While it's easy for us geeks to be upset by this, do you think that it's just the media companies that want this sort of thing?
For instance, Lotus Notes (used by corporations "serviced" by IBM the world around) has a nifty feature whereby should a sender wish, they can block access to many client features like, oh, printing or forwarding. Making an unpopular/possibly illegal move with your company? Do it by e-mail! No whistleblowers (save the truly geekiest that can get around this sort of thing) will bother you. Being subpoenaed by the FBI (like Microsoft has been over and over and over again via e-mails)? Have your trusty computer eat it! Simple!
The geeks, for our part, must take a stand and make sure people who buy this equipment are appropriately punished for it. This includes our friends and family -- if they buy something containing this sort of embedded DRM, refuse to help them with anything and everything regarding the cursed device. Assuming you'll be able to get around the DRM and help them to begin with...
Bah. Paranoia sucks.
C
The Sun is proof that we can't even do fire properly.
DRM becomes prevalent, and Gator learns how to use the DRM features to make itself uninstallable. And every GD spamzombie worm soon follows.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
These things are all now flashable anyway, right?
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
Really, I think the first customer of these Samsungs is going to be some giant corporation that will pick up a pile of these and deploy them all over. Perhaps the Attorney General's office in California will grab some. :P
Companies like Verisign, Network Solutions, and Microsoft have shown that those who are supposed to be trusted, can't and shouldn't.
How is 'Trustworthy Computing' supposed to work when you can't trust the providers of the technology?
Think of the software lock-in and stranglehold that licenses are going to have on these machines - or the uselessness of a boat anchor when it gets hacked by a virus that will be allowed to run on it during its rollout period, or when it gets hacked.
Ugh. Keep your old machines, geeks! (Sorry, wives and girlfriends...)
Now I am compelled to take measures to ensure that no potentially illegal activities (corporate) are able to be hidden by this DRM nonsense. I will have to bring a digital camera into my workplace as soon as I start running into unprintable emails, documents, etc. As soon as I get any document with an expiration/self-destruct date. I will start taking steps to ensure that all such items are "documented" via digital photography, if need be, so that I can safely be a whistleblower as required. I will not, under any circumstances, EVER be party to illegal activities by any corporation for the sake of money. I will not be party to unethical activity of any kind. If I come across such, I am compelled to blow the whistle and if M$ and other corporations feel the need to try to cover their unacceptable, illegal, unethical behavior via DRM crap, then I WILL sidestep it one way or another. I am honor-bound to do no less.
On a personal note, it is automatic that I will never ever again purchase any system that contains a phoenix bios chip in it. Old or DRM-enabled new, phoenix has ceased to exist as far as my money is concerned.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
People are saying that these computers are likely to be hacked very quickly.
I agree.
I also predict the reaction of the companies will be to
(1) make it even *more* draconian.
(2) Whine that the entire computer industry as we know it will be destroyed (and the terrorists will win!) unless Congress enacts laws that will make it illegal to break into "Trusted" computers which given the way Congress usually drafts laws will probably be so vague and broad that merely open the case of any computer (w/o a government sanctioned license) will count as infringement worthy of 5 years jail. (Maybe we should call this the Patriot Computing Act?) And if they are really good, enact laws force everyone to upgrade to Trusted computing within say 5 years or else via legislating that within 5 years every new computer sold in the US has to be a "Trusted" computer.
Remember, in the field of "intellectual property" and anything associated with "computers" or "digital" or "internet", if something fails, it's not because it's a technological impossibility, your business model is failing or your customers plain don't want it or even hate it. It's because you just haven't made it draconian enough, your customers are your enemies who need to be punished and made to toe the line and you need draconian broad-based legislation otherwise the economy will collapse, WWIII will happen and of course, the terrorists will win.
The question should be :
:
How long before this BIOS is hacked...
And, more precisely, hacked and shipped whithout the extensions, or even funnnier,a modified bios with specialised settings to fry the mobo/cpu/Security chip....
Bios viruses existed at one time, when bioses where few... Having everyone using the same secure bios from one vendor (phoenix) could bring some interesting results in the long term...
+ On the side, I seem to remember that some chips makers use "windows only" application to upgrade the firmware of hardware, and that some others try to get the same thing to update the bios from within the Windows OS...
Knowing the high level of security provided by windows, the next betting question
how long before the first worm designed for modifying the "secure bios" on a worldwide basis (install the virus, if it install from windows do it now, if needing out of Windows execution, mark the bios modifier to launch at next windows startup, using a sort of dos mode and a blank and/or fake "microsoft testing HDD" screen , or defeating the "trusted computing" security thingy by wiping out all the partitions on disks including the hidden ones...
This idea patented, if you do it, I'll reclaim a large sum to be taken from the "Wanted!" announce made for your head by Microsoft... 8p
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
Please do buy only hardware which lets you choose your OS.
This situation sucks because the only way we can fight it is by being Good Consumers - but since non-MS users are in a minority, the value of our informed consumerism is limited.
GNU/Linux is proof that if freedom only requires hard work, people will work for freedom - now the proprietary world realises that freedom must be made either illegal or obsolete.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
Go with apple and full vendor lock in. I'm replying here since this is the top comment I could find saying this. How is apple the solution?
The penchant around here for apple is proof to me that more linux geeks are interested in being a part of an 'exclusive' minority than in being involved in things that are open and free (as in speach).
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Speaking with your wallet is great and all but without a massive movement that information doesn't always flow upstream very quickly. In other words speak with your wallet and with your voice. Email is still free (mostly) so everytime your specifically purchase a non-DRM product over theirs write and tell them! Let them know how much $$$ they're losing on a sale-to-sale basis.
Excellent point, but it does not go far enough.
Each time you make such a purchase, tell NOT ONLY the DRM manufacturer why they lost a sale, be sure to also tell the DRM-Free manufacturer that you bought their product specifically because you value consumer rights and resent their competitors. In other words, give positive feedback to the people who are doing the right thing as well...lest they be befuddled by the likes of Microsoft as well.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Unethical, though? Think about the future we'll all have to deal with if this comes to pass. I don't want to live there, do you? These corporations don't have the right to do this to humanity, or even to make the attempt. Therefore, they lost their right to make a living, to own property, or to continue to exist as organizations when they started doing this.
They aren't taking away our rights with just bad hardware and software, that wouldn't be a threat. They are taking a two pronged approach, making the bad hardware and software and changing the structure of laws and legal rights to make the alternative illegal. (If it was just the former, I wouldn't care.)
The sad thing is, where this is really being lost is on the legislative front. Everyone brings up DIVX, but these companies all learned from DIVX. DVD is hardly purchaser-rights friendly, but it has won.
What we really need is some way to attack this problem that is as effective as the GPL was for software, but part of the problem is that the GPL was based on previously existing copyright law, not custom crafted laws created by the adversaries themselves.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Remember "eXistenZ?" It's like that - half the world's computers are under the control of anyone willing to run regular nessus scans and a few backdoor control panels. So.. yeah, maybe some in the linux crowd resent this because the boon won't last more than a few more years. But honestly, something HAS to be done. If that means creating software and system that then set the precedent of forcing corporations to become responsibe administrators of the systems they market on wide scale, so much the better.
This doesn't mean I have to buy one, or that there won't always exist other mechanisms for connecting to the public internet. But most people don't know a fucking thing about free specch - hell, many of them believe "free software" is illegal in any form. All they want is a terminal in their home that feeds them the latest buzz from aol and msn and ebay - and the internet is a fucking mess today because of these users and their five year old Windows 98 and ME security siphons.
The internet exists well outside the US, and many countries are making a giant leap in the direction of OSS. Combine that with a giant push toward obsoleting those fucked up "legacy" systems and we all move closer to a more secure AND more usable internet for everyone.
Sorry... I'll go put my chicken little costume back on now and join you all back at the shack...
No, that paper is a basically a bunch of mis-leading propaganda designed to obfuscate the truth that TCPA exists solely for the purpose enabling Palladium and Palladium type DRM and user controlling mechanisms.
Read the EFF report to see why if TCPA were not designed with user control in mind, they could have implemented some very simple changes (user override) to make sure that the user had access and control over all aspects of his own machine. They didn't: instead they opted for to create a system whereby the TCPA chips can be used exactly for the things they claim they have nothing to do with (shipping them with so called "Endorsement keys" which are vendor signed, user inaccessible keys that can verify to third parties that you are using an Operating System that they like).
The logic of the rebutle is backwards all over the place. For instance they claim that TCPA is not for DRM since the chips are not tamper resistant to hardware attacks: This rather shows, unlike what some people have argued, that the chips are not designed to help against things like hardware theft and corporate espionage. For DRM you don't need tamper resistance since laws like the DMCA will keep the means of tampering out of the hands of most of the population.
Also, the argument against the endorsement keys being used for DRM is something like "nobody has a system to running for signing and verifying them today" which is supposed to convince us that such a system will not exist when they are widely deployed (note that as a feature they are 100% useless without such a system.)
Quack, quack.
This has been covered in a previous discussion, but it may be appropriate to revisit the topic.
If Windows is integrated into the BIOS, then presumably the computer makers would have to pay M$ for the privilege of selling this BIOS. Fine. No problem because the computer makes will be able to sell systems with regular BIOS.
But Wait! Now M$ tells the manufacturers that if they do use regular BIOS, then they won't sell them the rights to use the "Trusted" BIOS or they charge more for the "Trusted" BIOS. It's Deja Vu all over again.
So then all the manufacturers stop selling anything that does not use the "Trusted" M$ owned BIOS, which or course will not work with Linux, or anything else other than an M$ OS. And maybe even the latest one. No more foregoing those paid upgrades.
Just Say No
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
But your PC will - and Apple, by actions they have taken, have shown they are interested in the user having control over the computer. Audio DRM that lets you burn as often as you like, and makes the files your own. Use of Open Firmware and other open technologies (like Darwin or BSD). Lack of product activation on any Apple software.
As we all know "trusted" computing is eaxctly about not trusting the users. Apple trusts the users, and therefore has no reason to deploy a "trusted" platform (which also adds cost, a double whammy).
Basically, Apple is your last large commercial hope. If you want to stop stuff like trusted computing, then head over and support the vendor who is at least trying to head the other way, instead of joining the crowd headed down the path you don't like.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
As usual there are many comments about how Microsoft is taking over your bios. Just because your laptop has a security device in it (my thinkpad does) doesn't mean Microsoft is going to gain control over your machine. People frequently speak about TCPA and DRM as if they refer to the same thing because TPCA is prerequisite for DRM. That is NOT true.
... too bad. You won't be able to rip that DVD or burn or fry or copy whatever. Last I heard it *was* illegal. Get out and play frisbee instead. Write your own music. Build a toy car with your kid.
TPCA just means the motherboard has some hardware for generating and possibly storing cryptographic keys. There might also be some secure memory and other things that assist with performing security critical computing on a PC without someone deciphering the keys or reading private data or media directly from memory. It is a feature that should probably be considerd good particularly for people who wish to use such a computer for monitary transactions or other highly secure communications.
Digital Rights Management has to do with delivering media to a PC in a way that restricts the user from decoding and copying it as it is displayed on the target output device. TCPA would be necessary to do this but that is incedental (but not coincidental).
People think TCPA and DRM equates to the consumer loosing control of their computers. In some cases this will be true. Your employer could lock down your workstation tight as drum so you can't install that scewball program. But the TCPA hardware is just another couple of chips on the board. How keys are managed and how the secure memory is accessed is understood. I believe there's a GPL driver for the security chip in my Thinkpad T30. As for DRM, well
As we've seen recently in Intel vs. China regarding China's own wireless standard (labelled GB15629.11-2003 for those interested), we can probably at least count on China to get hissy about this.
:?
Simply put, whether the threat they perceive is real or not, there is no way they are going to allow American proprietary rubbish (with evil spyware code to boot) to penetrate the Peoples' Republic. So if we have to start importing all our parts from the commies, then so be it, but even if dumbass consumers in the West buy this kinda rubbish (and, as others have said, they undoubtedly will), it simply will not fly politically elsewhere.
The push for Linux in Asia is clear - HP are going to ship Linux boxen, China has variously shown its keenness towards the open OS, NTT DoCoMo are putting Linux in phones and so on - this kind of stuff really does matter. At the very least, American hardware manufacturers are going to consider the bigger picture before alienating large numbers of potential consumers.
Microsoft is not invincible. It has failed in the mobile phone market, failed to crush Java (now, of course, flourishing on mobiles) and has a long time to examine consumers' reactions before Longhorn comes out. I really don't think it will try to push this too hard...
iqu
Who this 'Average User' guy is. He needs some serious computer training! Anyone have his email address?
I can't afford a sig!
but this could be the end for OSS. its obvious that its microsofts intention to force its operating system upon us all. if they can trick apple into licensing the gui code off them all those years ago, they can convice the courts (if they even get there) that they're doing it to protect us all.
bastard bush administration. they should have followed the anti-trust lawsuit that was started by the clinton administration.
And how do you propose to load it onto one of these restricted beasts... It will need to be keysigned, and duplicating that is a crime.
Oh, and what about all that esoteric proprietary hardware? ( especially in laptops, but this point holds true for future appliance based PC's ) Who is going to write bios routines for those, with out any documentation?
Its a grand idea, but i dont think it will work out in practice, when it counts and we really need alternatives...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
* Can't use all of the hardrive space you ordered/paid for because you HAVE to keep a recovery partition. (Jeez Toshiba, whats a 50 cent CD compared to your profits on a $1500 laptop and the goodwill of your victi.. err.. buyers?)
* Can't reinstall your laptop if/when your hard drive crashes because you've just lost your hidden install partition too. Does your laptop just become a very expensive doorstop?
*Can't re-partition your hard drive for fear of messing up the hidden install image partition.
* ever install or use the copy of Windows that YOU PAID FOR on any other computer.
Please people, vote with your money. Dont buy this Toshiba shit.
While TCPA does not imply DRM, it is closely tied to it.
... too bad. You won't be able to rip that DVD or burn or fry or copy whatever. Last I heard it *was* illegal. Get out and play frisbee instead. Write your own music. Build a toy car with your kid.
* TCPA or a TCPA-like system is necessary to implement DRM.
* TCPA's primary current application is in implementing DRM. There have been a few alternate suggestions, such as perhaps ensuring that nobody has attached a monitoring device to your computer or installed similar software, such as Magic Lantern. However, for Joe Q. Public, TCPA's primary use is to implement DRM.
* TCPA adds to the cost of hardware. If you are buying TCPA-capable hardware, you are throwing money down the drain if you do not intend to use TCPA.
* TCPA significantly increases complexity. Complexity is a major factor in determining reliability. I feel that PCI, AGP, ATA, USB, Firewire devices (and the BIOS) should be as a reliable as possible -- frankly, people have enough problems with flakiness as it is. It's not as if you need to have a burning desire to pirate movies to want to avoid TCPA.
It is a feature that should probably be considerd good particularly for people who wish to use such a computer for monitary transactions or other highly secure communications.
This statement of yours, while true in theory, is misleading, and I can't help but shake the suspicion that you intended it to be misleading. TCPA allows computer components to authenticate to each other. For all intents and purposes, the only attacks this avoids are local, physical attacks on a computer. Furthermore, short of a user using a smartcard or carrying some other kind of cryptographic security device with him, TCPA provides zero security unless the initial system configuration is trusted. It doesn't do a thing to allow me to trust another person's computer or a mall kiosk. For any of this to be useful, a comprehensive and well-built supporting software system is required. That software infrastructure does not currently exist.
TCPA's primary benefit over other proposed DRM systems is that it may be disabled in the BIOS if so desired. At that point, it becomes little more than the MP3 player that's built into my own computer's BIOS -- another useless feature that I dumped money into that increases complexity and reduces reliability.
I believe there's a GPL driver for the security chip in my Thinkpad T30.
The GPL is almost irrelevant when it comes to TCPA systems. The entire point of the BIOS-level support (rather than just doing everything in software) is that it loads signed binaries, and you won't have a signing key. So you cannot make modifications -- perhaps some Linux distro vendor might be able to put out a signed kernel binary, but that's it.
As for DRM, well
If TCPA lasts more than three months in the wild once people start using it for DRM, it will blow my mind. What the TCPA people are trying to do is *vastly* more complex and less feasible than what Microsoft's X-Box people are doing -- and the X-Box's DRM was broken multiple ways.
For starters, they are trying to make a huge array of hardware that has been designed by ordinary old hardware folks (*not* security people, and there is a *huge* freaking difference) work securely. Microsoft failed to do this perfectly -- they didn't encrypt some data that went over a bus, and incredibly minor error, and it came back to haunt them. And that was (a) a closed system -- all Microsoft has to do is stop making X-Boxes that are exploitable and (b) a system where a break only allows *bogus media to be played on that system*. Two *huge* impediments, either of which would kill TCPA as an effective DRM system.
First, the fact that TCPA is designed for use in an open system -- the PC architecture. It only takes one vendor of video cards to include a debugging feature on their card, or a diagnostic mode, or running so
May we never see th
There are hardware keyloggers out there you know.
Also, get some new friends, man...
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."