Slashdot Mirror
Trusted Computing And You
sebFlyte writes "There's an interesting look at the Trusted computing initiative running over on ZDNet UK, written by security guru Bruce Schneier. He looks at the suggestions for best practice made in a recent policy document, and Microsoft's 'Machiavellian manoeuvring' to stall said document. He posits their moves are to avoid having to enforce such best-practice when it comes to Vista's DRM and other copy-restriction technology." From the article: "This sounds great, but it's a double-edged sword. The same system that prevents worms and viruses from running on your computer might also stop you from using any legitimate software that your hardware or operating system vendor simply doesn't like. The same system that protects spyware from accessing your data files might also stop you from copying audio and video files. The same system that ensures that all the patches you download are legitimate might also prevent you from, well, doing pretty much anything."
Would I rather have too much security in IT or too little? I vote for too much. The first day my firm makes the news because of some breach that results in piles of data being released is also the first day that I'm looking for a new job. No thanks. Users are pretty forgiving when they understand why we do things the way we do. Nobody ever got id-thefted by this way.
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
Never forget: 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.
As bruce pointed out MS might have an own agenda.
I think this is a reason:
TC faq
The second, and most important, benefit for Microsoft is that TC will dramatically increase the costs of switching away from Microsoft products (such as Office) to rival products (such as OpenOffice). For example, a law firm that wants to change from Office to OpenOffice right now merely has to install the software, train the staff and convert their existing files. In five years' time, once they have received TC-protected documents from perhaps a thousand different clients, they would have to get permission (in the form of signed digital certificates) from each of these clients in order to migrate their files to a new platform. The law firm won't in practice want to do this, so they will be much more tightly locked in, which will enable Microsoft to hike its prices.
I would like to have an option on /. about trusted news to avoid dups. Like a dupe checkbox for early viewer or submiter. But I believe in santa claus too :)
"Use cases are fairy tales..." I. S. 2005
Well let's hope Zonk doesn't ignore the duplicate notice I just sent for the upcoming story.
1 2233&tid=220&tid=218 but it's duped at http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/ 30/0118252&tid=184&tid=220
Creative MP3 Players Ship With Virus is linked to: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/01/13
No, it means complete transparency and standardization. If any company produces a black box which uses rules which I did not set to control what I can and can not do with a computer that I bought and own, then there is a serious problem.
Trusted computing would be along the lines of "This package is not signed or the signature cannot be verified. Are you sure you want to install it? "
When it crosses the line to "Sorry, I won't let you make a copy of this file", or "No, you aren't allowed to print this document and I don't care if you *ARE* root", then this is something entirely different. If it is to be called trusted computing, then I should be able to trust my computer not to tell me what it will or will not let me do.n/t
Trusted Computing will be DOA. It's a pipe dream, and it will never work.
Not because it's technically unfeasible, but because the market won't stand for it. Let's say that Microsoft declares that Word 2006 will only open "trusted" documents. Total lock-in. Would any sane business buy in?
Absolutely not. My company still uses Word 2000 - and many of Microsoft's problems stem from the fact that they have to bend over backwards not to break legacy APIs and file formats. If Joe and Jane Sixpack find that they can't play their old DVDs on their new PeeCee, they're taking the thing back. If their old MP3s don't play, they'll take it back.
Look at the failure of Divx (the self-destructing DVD format). It had some major studio support, and yet it was practically stillborn. Users drive technology, and users don't like to have to deal with jumping through hoops. The only reason XP's Product Activation crap didn't result in a backlash is because 99% of users never had to deal with it since they got XP with their new PC - preinstalled and pre-activated.
That's why Trusted Computing will fail, even though parts of it are a good idea. Microsoft can't force people to accept it. The real world of economics doesn't work that way. They can't force people to upgrade, and as long as they have to support legacy data, they can't totally lock down the system.
I dislike Microsoft as much as anyone, and for all the clout they have in the market, they can't do everything. Trusted Computing will either be full of holes (likely) or a major flop depending on how much security they apply.