Slashdot Mirror
Cringely: MS To Hurt Linux Via USB Enhancements
frogspit writes "In this article, Cringely suggests that MS's proposed enhancements to USB to address security issues have the added benefit (for them) of hurting Linux."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
As big as Microsoft is, they can't simply make useless all usb drives out there with a flick of a switch, as the artical sugests.
More likly, Longhorn will by default allow standard behavior from usb devices.
If and only if the administrator of the OS flips a switch will the usb port be (Disabled / Read only / {Custom USB Writeable})
So while they may require a Longhorn only usb drive, in certain scenario's, regular ones should still work in most situations.
This is of course only conjecture, only time will tell for sure what will happen.
I just don't get why USB hard drives are such a security risk. Any employee who wanted to steal a bunch of data is not going to be stopped by this. All he would have to do is open up his computer and borrow the HD for a weekend.
Heck, he could just email the data to himself at home!
And let's be serious, how many employees really have access to valuable and confidential information?!
When I first heard about this alleged security problem I immediately thought, what's Microsoft's real purpose? Cringely might be on the right track.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
I vote: not so crazy. I am of the opinion (and have been for a couple of years now) that they have a top-secret lab in an underground bunker where they are secretly working on a Windows desktop environment running on a Linux kernel, as well as Linux versions of Office and all their main applications.
Why?
That's what I'd be doing if I were them. They can afford to hedge their bets on this one if they are really as scared as everyone says they are. One of the serious advantages of FOSS platforms is because the up-front costs are so low, you can start development before you decide if you have a product or not.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
This story is ripe with bias. Microsoft isn't stupid or powerful enough to force everyone to abandon all of their USB devices.
That's why neither this nor NGSCP (Palladium) are of any concern.
Everyone wants to FUD about how Microsoft is going to make a BIOS that "locks out linux", or a USB standard that locks out old devices. It's not going to happen. 5 years from now, you're still going to be able to run Linux on your computer, and you're still going to be able to access your USB devices in Longhorn and Linux.
Now, certain devices - music players, primarily, will probably be "secure" (DRM encumbered). But you'll probably still be able to use them in Linux, so long as someone writes the drivers. The new Microsoft USB-spec is just a way for media players to confirm to the OS (and DRM framework) that they will obey the DRM restrictions.
It's pointless to debate this anyway. It hasn't happened yet. Remember back in 2001 when Slashdot was spreading FUD about Palladium? As it turns out, we can still run Linux on our computers, and we will be able to do so for the immediate future.
IMHO, i think that manufacturers will just package generic USB drivers with there devices.
It's really difficult to do such down here. To change the Constitution is kind of hard. We have a lawsuit called ADI ("Ação direta de inconstitucionalidade" -- inconstitutionality direct strike) that can be entered directly in our Supreme Court by any of our 30+ political parties, by our General Independent Counsel, or by any interested party (me for instance), and has been used a lot to strike unconstitutional laws passed by our Congress.
But beyond that, our current political climate is pro-FreeSoftware, anti-USofAn-monopolies, anti-MS, very, very strongly. The country and the politicians (mostly) agree with Peru's Congressman Edgar Villanueva (see here) arguments in favor of Free Software as a mean to save money in dollars that escape our borders when they go to MS, as a mean to protect our national security because we don't know the possible backdoors in proprietary-closed-sourced-software, as a mean to generate jobs in services, as a mean to generate know-how inside the country, etc.
And, on top of it, many many techs like me are ready to get "in arms" in the case DMCA-shit/Software-patenting-shit creeps into our legislation -- we're watching it!
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
In the USA, any action by a person or a court can be argued before a court, and liability shown if the action is prohibited by the constitution. Any law applied to a person in a court can be argued to be unconstitutional, in which case the accused person is free of liability, the court usually assigns changes in the unconstitutional procedure, and future attempts to apply the law are much easier to argue against, by citing that decision. Laws must all be consistent with the Constitution, which is the basis for all laws in the USA. That determination is the sole function of the Supreme Court, decisions of which are the "highest law in the land".
Moreover, the USA has a legal principle called "jury nullification". Most accusations of crime can be argued before a jury of people, overseen by a judge. The jury decides the guilt of the accused. In the event that a jury decides the accused has broken the law, but that the law is unjust, the jury can find the accused "not guilty", and nullify the law, which is a less-strong precedent if it is cited in later defenses. The nullification is independent of any "constitutionality", which can be decided only by judges in high courts.
But that's just the law, and the legal principles. American justice is a game, a vast complex one, highly circumstantial and procedural. Juries are usually never instructed about their option to nullify, and recently such instruction from defense lawyers has even been prohibited by some judges. And until a substantial case has been brought through a succession of lower courts to the Supreme Court (or just below it), its constitutionality is not evaluated. So if it the case doesn't make it, perhaps through success on grounds other than unconstitutionality, such an additional finding about the law (in addition to the accused's guilt) is never explicit.
It's difficult, time consuming, expensive and risky to pursue the unconstitutionality of a law, so it rarely happens. Only the lawyers always win the game of American justice.
--
make install -not war
No you're not. I'm actually a Windows developer. I'm just absolutely sick of Microsoft talking a good game but not backing it up.
Just like a presidential candidate, MS has been promising to take security seriously for about 4 years now and yet, nothing ever seems to get better. Candidates make all kinds of bold promises, knowing full well that when it comes time to deliver, excuses can easily be made. Bugs get fixed reasonably well, but the rate new exploits show up has, if anything, increased. Linux is real competition, but MS's main strategy seems to be FUD and flexing their monopoly (see the USB story today).
I often spend more time trying to get MS software to work than I spend writing my own code from scratch, so if I troll against MS now and again, it's for reasons like that.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
I read the story, but my take on it is this: It's jaded overreaction. My arguments:
Microsoft has historically bent over backwards to make their software backwards compatable. You can run all sorts of outdated hardware on the Windows OS. The only reason that current versions of Windows won't install on a 386 (via software lockout) is because MS doesn't want your computing experience to be ruined because of hardware issues. ("Hey, W2003 is crappy because it runs too slow on this 386!")
Think about it, you still can run crusty old 16 bit apps on windows. Unless they had pressure from customers, why not do away with them, amd make people use software that would be more stable in a modern OS? So, my first point is, MS would get real heat if the tried to aggressively obsolete things. (gad-I just verbs a noun again.)
Second, don't forget that MS lives under the shaddow of the DoJ case. While they got off with a wrist slap, no sane manager at MS (Yes, I know...) is going to suggest a course of action that causes them to tangle with anti-trust issues again. BG has stepped down as #1 cheese. Why would he do that? Because he wants to get back to working with coders? Or, because his leadership style was percieved as too agressive? That is a pretty big step to take unless you REALLY have an issue with leadership.
While MS would like LINUX to go away, they aren't about to do anything that could get them into another round of lawsuits. Litagation is expensive and risky, even to Bill. Most companies with an ounce of brainmatter use it only as a last resort.
The big C writes some interesting stuff, but this strikes me as a little too reactionary. The sky isn't falling on LINUX (yet).
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
I stand corrected however. Kudos to Microsoft.
^^vv<><>BA
I somehow doubt that manufacturers will gladly adopt this standard.
Really? I suggest you try to find a soundcard that isn't Secure Audio Path (SAP) compliant. Practically none of then advertize that fact because SAP is an anti-consumer intentioanlly crippling of the soundcard, however every Windows Compatible soundcard has it. They all have it simply because Microsoft announced that they HAD to have it to be Windows Compatible. If you try to play certain flagged WindowsMedia format files Windows will pop up an error message and refuse to play the file unless the soundcard is SAP compliant. Anyone who attempts to complain about the problem to Microsoft will simply be told that the problem is that their incompatible soundcard.
It just isn't possible to survive in the PC hardware market if your product doesn't work with Windows. How many people will buy a USB-product that doesn't work when you plug it into a Windows PC? How many support calls and returns would they get when the product doesn't work and Window pops up a message saying there is something wrong with the product?
Every BIOS maker is making a Trusted Computing BIOS simply because Microsoft dictated that only a Trusted Computing BIOS will be fully compatible with the next version of Windows. The expectation is that Trust chips will be standard on ALL motherboards in a few months simply because Microsoft dictated that only a Trusted compatible motherboard will be fully compatible with the next version of Windows.
Microsoft now has the power to dictate virtually any hardware they like because any manufacturer who does not comply will be driven out of the business by those competititors that do comply and have their hardware shipped with every new Windows PC.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.