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."

Comments

Marketing hype? No, unfortunate reality.

[garcia]

Oh, you'll be able to upgrade your 2004 or 2005 PC to Longhorn, but it will never work quite as well as a new 2006 PC actually designed to run the OS. This is called marketing, folks, and it is what keeps us buying new PCs and other electronic devices over and over again.

Nah, they are going to make it move from marketing hype to marketing reality. They want to DRM the OS, the BIOS, and the peripherals so that they can lock out whoever and whatever they want.

They have already made the deals w/Phoenix to make a MSFT certified BIOS that will enable them to not boot "insecure" OSs. They are in talks to get the RIAA to support a format to make CDs unreadable in machines other than those running Windows (I presume this would include insecure versions of Windows as well). They are working to get the MPAA to agree to allow them to distribute movie materials via WMP which will likely lead to DVDs "protected" with MSFT products.

So they aren't just going to have use buying PCs over and over again to keep up with their protection schemes... They are going to have us buying everything over and over again.

Not the end of the world...

[g-to-the-o-to-the-g]

"To make USB ports really secure we'll need a modified USB standard," says one of the geeks. "The USB device makers will love this because they can sell another billion devices. We'll change the BIOS and the OS so that older, non-serialized, devices can be used but just for read-only applications. So you can still hook-up your older digital camera and download pictures. But to upload any data you'll need a new-standard USB device. Not only will these devices be more secure, but we'll earn a royalty on every one."

As a gentooer, I'm not too concerned. This sounds like a replay of the sender-ID thing. I somehow doubt that manufacturers will gladly adopt this standard. Also, this doesn't make older USB devices stop working. I doubt it will be the end of Linux as we know it. Windows can support or not support whatever they want, it's not going to change Linux.

To me, this sounds more like Cringely being Cringely.

Re:Not the end of the world...

[clifyt]

" (much like the V-Chip crap with TV's awhile back)."

Huh? VChips are in most TVs today.

Its a great piece of work...it helps the gov't allow parents to restrict what the parents want the kids to watch without having to pass draconian laws censoring the general public. I would never use it, but it it keeps even one religious freak from screaming about whats on the airwaves and getting in my congressmans face about it, I'm all for it.

As a side note, I was trying to get an older TV of mine working as my current one just died last week...I was surprised when I went through the setup that it had the Vchip in it because I never messed with it. Simple to use and it doesn't screw with anything else. Thats the way technology should be...I have no problems with folks deciding what they want to watch in their own homes...

Re:Not the end of the world...

[Znork]

The idea is to prevent people from stealing corporate data via USB devices, as sources have noted that there has apparently been a huge upsurge in data smuggling by use of rectally insertable USB devices.

Now, some may say that there are other more practical ways of stealing data, like mailing it, ftp'ing it, dumping it over a http connection, reading it from a wlan or something, but as these things require a bit more thought than merely shoving the data up your arse, they are widely regarded as being unlikely security holes, so to speak. Others say that people have had access to cd's, floppy disks and printouts for a long time without data smuggling being a problem needing an industry-wide solution, but they apparently have not tried rectal insertion of these media.

So to nip this problem in the bud, we need a new USB standard. The only alternative would be supergluing every corporate employees arse shut to prevent this flow of intellectual property out from offices around the world.

Re:Marketing hype? No, unfortunate reality.

[TopShelf]

BAH - Microsoft would never get away with such blatantly anti-competitive, monopolist tactics. I predict the DOJ would be able to stop such activity by 2020 or so...

By which time of course USB will be a distant memory.

Linux will adapt

[Tyndmyr]

Now, before this becomes flooded with people screaming against the latest evilness from MS, I'd like to say that, while I haven't actually seen the lisence, I highly doubt it prohibits someone making an alternative driver for the USB port. Certainly, some bright coders will be working on this. I'm just not seeing this as a major problem for linux, though I do agree that MS does dominate hardware standards.

Re:Linux will adapt

[Mysticalfruit]

I'm sure some smart coder would create an alternative driver to work with the USB port. The problem would be the gackle of MS lawyers that would come after him. Barring him, they'd go after every ISP that hosts the driver. Then they'd go after every person who every downloaded the driver, etc.

I actually don't think that USB will be what the big fight will be over. I think Cringely has the right idea, just the wrong piece of hardware.

My fear is MS getting into bed with the BIOS people and creating a closed standard DRM BIOS. So when you go pop in the boot CD of your favorite distribution you get the bios error:

"Bootable Media doesn't not contain valid authentication signature".

That's my fear.

I hate this guy

[stratjakt]

There IS a new USB standard in the works and it is at the heart of Microsoft's sudden interest in USB security. Co-developed with Intel, the new USB standard specifically excludes Linux and probably OS X devices as well. I'm told the Intel folks are quite embarrassed about this, but feel powerless to do anything about it.

Links? Can you back this up with any actual facts?

Show me the new published standard that "specifically excludes linux and probably OS/X".

And if he's so sure it specifically excludes Linux, why is he doubtful about OS/X?

I call bullshit and flamebait on this entire article.

MSFT isn't scared of linux on the desktop, they have absolutely no reason to be.

Re:I hate this guy

[CatGrep]

And if he's so sure it specifically excludes Linux, why is he doubtful about OS/X?


In the case of OSX, Apple may be able to pay a licensing fee to get the new USB hardware standard included in their machines. Apple controls it's own hardware and though they make heavy use of Open Source (Darwin, FreeBSD) they have no problem with paying licensing fees if they're reasonable.

MSFT isn't scared of linux on the desktop, they have absolutely no reason to be.

And they had no reason to be scared of losing the browser wars either (which they had assumed they had won), but lately IE has been losing quite a lot of market share to the likes of FireFox, Mozilla and Opera (but especially FireFox).

Some first-hand insight would be good

[poot_rootbeer]

Cringely and his sources seem to believe that Longhorn's USB device restrictions will be based on the concept of "trusted devices", that the hardware itself will have to know whether or not to let the USB host access it.

I don't see it that way. The implementation I envision is a "trusted user" approach, in which it is access rules defined in the computer's operating system that determine how USB devices can be used.

A flag in the Registry for each user. When a USB device is connected, depending on its value, the OS will give the user either full read/write access, read-only access, or no access, and will mount the USB volume accordingly.

Perhaps there are real advantages to the method Cringely believes MS will implement, but I don't see them.

Re:Some first-hand insight would be good

[bmwm3nut]

but the hardware will treat all devices as "not trusted" unless the (microsoft) OS says "this user is trusted" open the device. the problem isn't that devices (or users) aren't trusted by the OS, it's that the hardware is enforcing the trust. and that to beable to talk to the hardware you'll need to license the protocol or something from microsoft, which will lock out open source/free solutions.

Not Practical

[Timber_Z]

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 usually find Cringely interesting, but this time

[Assmasher]

...he's the one actually spreading FUD.

Given Microsoft's already tenuous relationship with the Department of Justice's anti-trust division, sure you don't think they would attempt to lock out Linux and OSX do you? They would get the hell sued out of them.

Second, what's to stop Apple or another hardware company from coming up with a different solution to the problem that works with Windows and therefore does not suffer from diminished market application?

Third, and here's where I get crazy, I believe that at some point in the next five years, Microsoft is going to produce Linux software (for crazy reasons that I'll keep to myself until they begin to sound less crazy.)

Worse ...

[gstoddart]

Someone is suggesting Microsoft is doing something to further their existence and bring their competition down, sound the alarms!

No. Someone is pointing out that a convicted monolopist is using their position to change a standard in such a way as to be able to exclude all competition who don't pay a license to Microsoft to implement it.

Since it will probably have a bunch of patent/license encumberance that will have the effect of saying "Microsoft gets to decide who is in the industry" and everyone else can go home.

It will have the rather un-nerving effect that Microsoft can effectively lock out any open source projects from ever speaking to hardware ever again. Wanna reverse engineer the USB to allow for interoperability? Well, if it's encumbered technology reverse engineering would be illegal.

Oh, sorry. Can't afford a new USB device? Bought yours on sale? Well, we have decided that Microsoft gets to be the sole arbiter of what people can do with their devices. Which means you could eventually find scenarios where you don't own your data -- you have a license from Microsoft to give them your data which becomes their property and they get to assign DRM/usage rules to it.

The fact the government isn't really leary about the fact that Microsoft is in effect saying "all your base are belong to us" with how the industry handles hardware.

If Microsoft wants to go to a totally closed shop mentality as far as every single piece of hardware is concerned, they will probably quickly find Apple overtaking them.

Re:Worse ...

[gstoddart]

How about licensing the damn scheme? As long as you have the option of buying the license, Microsoft can't be accused of exercising an illegal monopoly.

Rubbish I say. Let's say my favourite license is FreeBSD. The freest license you'll ever find since it places zero encumberances on you.

There would be absolutely no open source license which would be compatible with a scheme in which Microsoft required that DRM was implemented at the level of the definition of the USB spec.

Because they would apply an NDA clause to it and say you can't give out the source, because someone could a) see something that is patended, b) remove the code to actually obey it, or c) tell someone how weak the security actually is.

Since the courts have upheld that once I buy a piece of electronics, I'm allowed to reverse engineer it for purposes of interoperability, you can bet this new standard would take away that right. It would become a crime to try and figure out how to push data onto your old USB keychain.

In university, I had some wonderful opportunities to get some introduction to poking at hardware interfaces. This was because they were documented specs that people were free to use. What IBM always did right back in the day was make sure everyone could find out how to make their hardware go.

This would make activies that might be reasonable in an Operating Systems course illegal. Oh, sorry. We can't teach you how to communicate with hardware since the school can't afford the NDA and liability insurance in case you actually use that knowledge.

This change in spec would mean that only closed sourced vendors who have been graced by Microsoft will be allowed to participate in an entire industry.

At which point Microsoft will figure if they can do it for hardware, they better come up with something so that only 'accredited and approved' software could be executable. At which they'll set up windows to only run code generated by their development kit which will cost eleventy-two bajillion dollars.

Computers are moving in the direction of (hopefully) becoming commodity items like toasters that nobody gives a second thought about. While Microsoft would like very much to be able to say that from now on, all things need their approval so they can lock in a perpetual revenue stream. I'm sure as hell not willing to support them in securing a complete strangle hold on what remains of the industry.

The general purpose computer is under a lot of attack nowadays. This is just one more way in which a lot of parties want to control every facet of how you use them.

We Have Six Years

[hirschma]

This is all well and good, but it isn't going to happen any time soon. But, it is very likely to happen, given today's reality.

See, XP wasn't as big a success as Microsoft anticipated. Right now, about half the PCs out there are still running older versions of Windows. The majority of those are running Windows 98 (!). The rest of running some form of XP. Yes, half the PCs sounds like a big success, but it doesn't ensure hegemony. No one is going to ship an XP only piece of hardware, today. Tomorrow, possibly.

Keep in mind, also, that this is about three years since XP appeared. Longhorn isn't going to install on any current machines, most likely.

Now, given this statistic, how long is it going to take for Longhorn to get to 50%? You'd best believe that product is going to be shipped, during the Longhorn period, that works on the last two version of Windows, - Win2k and XP. USB device producers aren't going to come up with new models of anything that won't work with the majority of computers out there. Well, maybe Microsoft will.

I'm guessing that it will take at least until 2010 before the majority of PCs have are Longhorn enabled. When that happens, it'll be a the beginning of a problem. Possibly longer if corps go kicking and screaming, which they will.

Non-MS computer enthusiasts/anti-DRM advocates have at least 6 years to get enough alternative desktops out there to prevent this. I hope that the commercial Linux distro makers and Apple are listening. They need market penetration _now_ to prevent eradication later. Or we'll see the end of personal computing as we know it next decade.

I don't get it...

[misleb]

Can someone explain to me why you can't just include access to USB devices as part of a user's policy in Windows? In linux, you can easily set permissions on devices just like files. Why does there need to be some hardware level standard? Is it so people can't boot off the USB/CD/floppy and grab data that way? Seems like a losing battle to me. If someone has access to data at work, there are any number of ways to get it offsite. Somehow I doubt the convenience of USB will encourage people to steal data that they wouldn't otherwise take. There are any number of security issues that should be considered before USB storage.

Why wasn't this an issue years ago (when data were small) with floppy drives? Couldn't people also burn sensitive data to CDs and take that home? Most PCs and Macs come with CD burning capabilities as a matter of course. Want to get the data offsite? Drop the CD/floppy into the mail and send it.

Then again, maybe USB storage is just that convenient and hard to detect. Still, it seems as though if someone has access to the data and wants to get it offsite, they'll find a way. Maybe USB devices will be the next "microfilm" of future spy/thriller movies.

-matthew

Nah, just USofA-centrism and exaggeration

[hummassa]

1. I won't buy any hardware that hash such encumbrances, as an end-user.
2. In my country DMCA-style laws won't pass because (a) they would be inconstitutional (b) we would not like them ... obviously GWB&cia can come here and "liberate" us from our democratic constitution or protect the rainforest or other gibberish like that, but somehow I hope not.
3. I won't buy any such hardware as a sysadmin because of vendor lock-in and associated costs. I can graft a spreadsheet proving it as a bad business move in 5 minutes. I did it before.
4. People in the USofA may buy stuff again and again but in other, not-so-rich parts of the world, we tend to make our stuff last a little bit more. My government-owned day-work computer is 4 years old and I'll have to cope with it for 2-3 more years. If USB ports were a problem here, they would be disabled in the BIOS and/or soldered.
I probably had more to say, but I'm not feeling very well today.

Bias

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

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.

Several different scenarios

[moberry]

The consumer population will not go along with the idea of "sorry, your old device won't work. please buy a new one". Why do you think there are RS-232 ports on computers STILL, i havent seen a serial device in years. Two things could happen

• MS does this, and everyone switches to firewire, or some other hot new standard
• Manufacturers write drivers for there devices, and go on supporting them

IMHO, i think that manufacturers will just package generic USB drivers with there devices.

Not a chance

[unicorn]

I don't think Longhorn will be shipped by 2020.

Re:Not a chance

[yokimbo]

I don't think Longhorn will be shipped by 2020.

It'll be here. Main new features:

• New default desktop background picture.
• New "My Computer" icon.
• New "Recycle Bin" icon
• And lastly, a brand new "My Documents" icon.

Do yourself a favor, run Linux or get a Mac.

Re:Not a chance

[Baseclass]

Yes, Microsoft has done the impossible. I've always told my family and friends that it wasn't possible for image files to maliciously damage their PCs.

I stand corrected however. Kudos to Microsoft.

He seems to count on MS being followed

[SmallFurryCreature]

His entire argument hangs on the assumption that the tech industry will swallow the poisoned new USB hook line and sinker. Yet he himself points to several instances when the tech industry did not follow what the "ruler of the PC" said was to be done. The fact that compaq broke IBM-compatible by going to the 386 and all the bus standards IBM tried to introduce that failed.

Intel recently tried that rambus and failed. Motherboard makers knew their market and went against the leader. MS has tried soundcards and failed. People stuck to creative labs (soundblaster).

MS has tried to flex it muscles often enough and yet it rarely works and seems to be working less and less. Name a big PC company that is not doing linux however small. Do you really think MS likes that Dell ships linux machines?

If MS really had as much muscle as this guy seems to think then we wouldn't have had a fraction of the linux stories that we have had.

So hardware makers have not bowed to MS before (well not always) so why should they with USB? His scenario just doesn't make sense. You see there is the tiny little problem of people not upgrading their OS. Oh I am not talking about the /. people and their like. I am talking about the millions still running windows 98, according to MS own figures.

Say I make a new device and make it a requirement that you first have to upgrade your OS? Oh yeah that would work. Companies don't even like to say "Windows 98 or later" to avoid scaring away the 95 crowd. Exactly how many products do you see that only work with windows XP SP2? Do you remember how long things like joysticks and mice came with both USB and either a PS/2 or a gameport cable?

Also MS can not exclude old devices. If they could they would have ditced ISA support ages ago. They haven't. If longhorn suddenly wouldn't work with your old MP3 player you wouldn't buy a new one, you simply wouldn't upgrade.

What they can do is create a win-usb. Like those win-modems and win-printers that exist. Are they a threath? Well only if you care about the "my crap piece of cheap tech that everybody told me was crap but it was such a deal and now it doesn't work with linux it sucks" people.

If MS really plans to do it they would fail as they have failed as they and others have failed before when trying to control the PC.

The PC is free and there are to many players who have everything to loose by MS or anyone else gaining control.

Re:I usually find Cringely interesting, but this t

[Astadar]

I don't think MS has any fear of "getting the hell sued out of them." They can stall the procedings until their move has crushed the competition (see all previous disputes) and then offer a token "We're sorry, we won't crush Netscape again" apology.

Getting sued (and being found to be an illegal monopoly) has hardly slowed Microsoft's tactics.

Re:bad presumption....

[garcia]

An "enhancement" could always be included in a service pack to allow DRM CDs on 95,98,etc.

And MSFT knows this would make the original idea worthless. It won't happen. Upgrade or suffer with using old programs.

What about legacy auto/component players?

What about them? You want to listen to the new music then buy a new player. It's not exactly as if your VHS player plays DVDs. Sure, you can get VHS movies currently but I would go out on a limb to suggest that eventually they will be discontinued for DVD and its successors. You can continue to watch your old media no problem but you won't have access to the new features.

Here's to hoping the OpenBIOS project can workaroud some of this junk.

Sure, you can run all the free software in the world on your OpenBIOS computer. You will not be able to watch media, listen to media, surf the net, etc, because everything will require a "trusted" computer.

Yeah, it's paranoid, yeah it's probably unlikely, but this is where we are headed whether we like it or not.

Re:Oh no!

[Master of Transhuman]

You're sorta both right.

Microsoft has not actually been a TRUE monopoly because it can't use government force to restrict Linux. It has TRIED to be a true monopoly by using restrictive contracts with hardware suppliers which appears to be failing as more and more of them allow Linux to be distributed on their machines - thanks to Microsoft being convicted under the government's definition of monopoly.

HOWEVER, Microsoft with this new scheme IS trying to use government force to support its monopoly position. This is because the new USB devices and software can not legally be reverse-engineered because of the DMCA and because they will patent their new handling of the USB system.

So while Linux is still a competitor to MS, MS is now not only a convicted monopolist according to the government's definition, it is now a monopolist by MY definition.

Oh, the irony!

[Anonymous Coward]

"... I'm pro-gun and pro-life..."

You really couldn't make this stuff up.

planned obsolesence and viruses/worms

[McFly777]

Upgrade or suffer with using old programs.

Although I doubt that Microsoft would want the negative press that surrounds the critical bugs, it does make a convenient way to create forced obsolesence; have a 'vulnerability' that is only discovered after you have EOLed a particular version.

For example, "Gee, you can keep using win95/office97/etc., but we are no longer releasing security updates, so you are likely to get a virus or worm, if you do."

Re:bad presumption....

[PastaLover]

Regardless, you're assuming the general public is much more sheepish than they actually are. Do you really believe that average joe user is going to put up with this? It's not like this is going to just happen unnoticed. It'll happen, and the public will through a huge shit fit.

Many companies are really fed up with the way microsoft tries to squeeze every last buck out of them. The problem is, what is the alternative? Microsoft has been smart about using propietary formats for just about anything, so you're stuck with a whole lot of legacy data that will cost endless manhours to convert. If you do decide to switch you need not only replace all of your servers, get new support contracts, retrain your staff, etc.

Point being, many people will put up with this shit because it's just too much effort to choose another way. In fact, there are only 2 defences: people stop buying microsoft or somebody stops microsoft. The latter can only happen at the government/judicial level and we've seen that doesn't do much of anything. The former, well, see above...

Re:bad presumption....

[Alsee]

It's not like this is going to just happen unnoticed.

They are already shipping some PC's with an embedded Trust chip. The plan is that soon every single PC will come with a Trust chip as standard hardware. It won't be advertized, they will simply hand it to you when you replace your old machine.

you're assuming the general public is much more sheepish than they actually are. Do you really believe that average joe user is going to put up with this?

Your "average joe" will be given various freebie music or movie disks, maybe in the cerial box, maybe with his Happy Meal, maybe as "bonus tracks" on the Titteny Spears CD he just bought. And when he tries to play it it will give an error message saying he has an old obsolete incompatible computer. Your "average joe" will then go out and but a new compatible "Trusted Media ENHANCED" computer just to make the bloody error messaged go away and to get the damned FREE files to work.

On old normal computers the old files work, but the new files give error messages not working at all.

On new "enhanced" computers all of the old files work and all of the new files work.

That's one of the insidious things about their plan, there is absolutely no reason NOT to have a Trusted computer. The Trusted computer can do everything the old computer can do, and more. As we start seeing more and more Trusted files and Trusted software and Trusted websites and Trusted periferals the old normal machines get more and more locked out of everything. None of the new stuff works on an old normal computer.

Sure Trusted Computing means crippled hardware and crippled software and crippled files, but if you submit to Trusted Computing at least it all works. If you refuse to submit to Trusted Computing then nothing will work at all. Average joe just wants the damn thing to work.

-

Re:bad presumption....

[sigaar]

"They would KNOW that DRM isn't normal."

No they won't. They already think it's normal that their brand new super fast computer running WindowsXP won't play some their new CDs. They think that's the way it has to be. They think the CD/DVD drive is not capable of playing audio CDs. Meanwhile that same drive will play the living shit out of that CD under just about any other OS.

They think it's normal that they can watch DVDs on their computer from only one region, or from a few but that it then locks on one region. They think that's right and it's they way it has to be.

They believe it's normal, and that's why companies are getting away with selling absolute bullshit like that to the public.