Slashdot Mirror
IBM Hardwires Encryption Into Chips
zenwarrior writes "Reported by CNET, a new chip technology termed Secure Blue by IBM will keep users' data encrypted and secured at virtually every moment on essentially anything in which the chip can be used. Data is even encrypted in RAM, leaving display for users' viewing as almost the last place it isn't encrypted. This has to be considered decidedly anti-Homeland Defense by the current administration. If so, when will we see it if ever?"
Like the last adminstration would have liked this tech? Face it - neiter party in DC likes anything that takes power away from them.
My guess: In media center PCs in 3... 2... 1...
Interesting report but I would like to see more details, what type of encryption is being used? I think this would be a great thing, however, I can see it being blocked from ever reaching the market due to home security risks, unless there is a backdoor installed which really makes it kinda pointless in the first place.
Regardless it is very interesting that they say this technology can be used on any chip and not just powerPC's, also is the encrypted data tied to the chip or the system, how would this effect SMP systems, or virtual partitions?
GeekServ Unix Consulting Services (http://www.geekserv.com)
This can help you, the end-user secure your data, but is also a necessary component of a DRM hardware solution.
"This has to be considered decidedly anti-Homeland Defense by the current administration."
Unless they designed the backdoor to be inserted....
Anti-Homeland Defense, maybe, but avoiding data leakage will make it very attractive to RIAA / MPAA and other copyright protection lobby groups.
So Maybe we get to see what happens when the RIAA face off against the Department for Homeland Security and the CIA - that would be one I would like to see (Maybe we should just watch them fight them nuke them both from orbit - only way to be sure).
Cliche, yes. But true. Throwing up more doors is only going to add another layer of UI headache, and it won't do anything to address the issue of say, FBI agents losing their laptops in bars...(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/07/18/fb i_loses_hundreds_of_laptops/)
This article is short on details about the encryption, and it says nothing at all about the current Homeland Security opinion on said technology. I sure know people care about having their data safe and that is a huge problem. Ask the FTC about that. Discussing this further without more facts could just be a waste of time. This is a simple technology "We done it!" announcement. Nothing more.
And what will happen if you will replace the logic board of those computers? Will all your data be gone even for you?
This technology is clearly meant to keep consumers from getting to data they (thought they) bought. If every link in the chain is encrypted, right up to the tamper proof screen and speakers (which will destroy their keys as soon as one attempts to open it, rendering them useless), digital copies of protected media aren't possible anymore.
One small step for IBM, one giant leap for DRM...
However, there's still hope: making tamper proof hardware is very difficult. Making hardware that's not vulnerable to side channel attacks is extremely difficult. And lots of existing cryptographic systems are weak due to misuse of the cryptographic building blocks (think WEP for example). And then there's the weaknesses that are introduced on purpose, to satisfy certain three-letter agencies.
Well, unless I can varify the code or make the chip from a copy of it's mask myself - I am pretty much taking it on faith from IBM that it is secure from the eyes of the government. (no offense IBM, but I prefer the security of open review) Untill independent sources can take the chip and put it under an electron microscope and say: Yes it's designed secure - then it's pretty much not secure. An if it's firmware that can be re-programmed, then it is especially not secure if the governments hands get on it anywhere in the distribution chain.
The Clinton administration was about as republican as it gets.
Only if you don't know what Republicans are.
The Clinton administration was enthusiastically "Pro-Choice" and Anti-Second Amendment, quite the opposite of the Republicans. Clinton also passed a middle(and upper)-class tax hike. Once again, not very Republican of him.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Hey man. What's that encryption on that thing?
Double ROT26.
Woo. That's gonna be TOUGH to crack!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Apparently what they're putting in the chips is, at least, encryption/decryption routines. Aside from the obvious questions (what happens when you want to change algorithms?), the important question is whether they're including digital keys as well.
The single factor that makes "trusted computing" evil is that there's a digital key (the "attestation" or "endorsement" key) baked into the TPM which the owner of the machine is prevented from accessing or changing. If all the keys were accessible to the owner, it would be a purely beneficial technology. With the anti-owner feature, it becomes an engine of DRM, censorship, and vendor lock-in on a vast scale, and at a fundamental level absolutely prevents security and privacy for the computer owner.
So the question is which category this IBM tech falls into. And that in turn depends on whether digital keys will be baked into the processor, or whether it's only a set of routines that any software can use under the owner's control.
"But until then, it's Bush and the cronies who are fucking you over, and so they're the ones that get all the criticism. Criticizing Clinton is, at this point, an exercise in political futility. He can't really do much damage at this point."
I think the OP's point was that GWB doesn't hold the patent on evil. This is something to be mindful of. The next guy, democrat or republican, could easily be just as evil. If you just assume "Hey, it's not Bush! Our problems have gone away!", well then you're in a wee bit o trouble.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously, reading that core dump won't be easy...
Not one that relies on draconian hardware chips that prevent you from having control over your computer.
I'm sorry, what? According to wide report, as of the new Intel macs, Apple is in fact using draconian hardware chips that prevent you from having control over your computer, and is reportedly using these specifically to keep you from running OS X on unauthorized hardware. (Though, hilariously enough, that's according to wide report. There is no hard evidence I've seen one way or the other that these chips are or aren't even in the new macs to begin with! All reports of TPM in the Intel macs are based on sort of circumstantial evidence from reports of the developer betas of the Intel macs. Since the actual release of the Intel macs, everyone has gone silent on the subject, and Google doesn't turn up any attempts I can find to take apart the Intel macs and the kernel to see whether TPM is in there. Apparently though the slashdot and tech blogger crowd were angry and opposed to Palladium/TPM for three or five years nonstop since it was announced, they just fell silent once they saw how shiny the new iMacs are.)
You are of course correct that they aren't, of course, using these chips for iTunes or the iPod. Yet. But if the chips are in the machines, they could start using them for such purposes at any time. The iTunes DRM already subtly changes with each iTunes version (the jHymn backup utility still doesn't work with the iTunes 6.0 DRM).
Though all of my computers since I was six years old have been Apples, if it's true that Apple is using TPM in their machines now, it would seem I'm going to be using Linux from now on. I was rather annoyed at the prospect of having to suffer a hardware platform transition (again) to begin with, but I can at least understand the reasoning behind that. But I'm absolutely not willing to pay for a computer if there's this ticking TPM time bomb buried in it that means, if someday the OS vendor changes their mind, a single OS update could sweep through and my computer would no longer be mine.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
My main fear is that the better part of the internet is going to be pushed underground because the gov't wants to read your email and the corps want to charge Google for letting you search for anything.
If these people get their way, there will be no incentive for intelligent people to use an above-ground internet.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
AFAIK, this technology would only address a number of physical security threats. Adversaries would be stopped from stealing hard drives, or trying to pick up any bits which leak into the environment (maybe through EM signals). While these problems are important to solve, this technology is far from a be-all end-all solution.
Since the protection only occurs in hardware, one can still exploit the same software-based attack vectors that have been around for ages. Encryption is done even below the OS. If some Trojan horse got kernel-level priveleges and looked at physical RAM, it would see the plaintext and not the ciphertext, All the problems of network security still abound. as data sent out on the network is not protected.
I'm not sure how this could be used for DRM. I guess Secure Blue could be extended to give or take keys over the network, and data can be transmitted as ciphertext and stored as-is into RAM. Can someone explain how this would work? TPMs can be used for DRM, but they work quite differently.
I disagree that the screen is the only place for seeing data unencrypted. Devices will need DMA access to memory, and Secure Blue would have to decrypt the data before sending it down the bus. How is leakage protected in this case?
Nah, he's right wing, but it's more of the Benito Mussolini fascist government right-wing direction instead of the Liberterian less-government right-wing direction.
(Whoever was responsible for reducing the description of anyone's political views down to a simple left or right direction has really done a lot of damage to the possibility of diversity in our public discussions.)
protection has nothing to do with being left or right wing. the last military dictatorship in brasil, that lasted from 1964 to 1985, was a far right government and they were protectionists. most imports were forbiden, brasilian agriculture had several subsidies, and other stuff.
this kind of protectionism has nothing to do with being left or right. it has more to do with the oposing forces represented by populism (do things that apeal to the public. screw common sense) and pragmatism (do sensible things that work on the long term, even if they're initially unpopular). this is just my opinion. feel free to disagree or point mistakes in my interpretation.
What ? Me, worry ?
Paolo Attivissimo's blog provides plenty of documented, photo and other evidence that the new Macs do have TPM chips in them. He started out skeptical but soon got plenty of pictures of motherboards from the new Macs. They plainly have Infineon TPM chips in them. It's not clear what if anything they are being used for, but there is no doubt that Intel Macs have TPMs.
Dallas (now part of Maxim) has been doing this kind of stuff for years with their DS5002/5240/5250 series CPUs (http://www.maxim-ic.com/products/microcontrollers /secure/). Of course these are 8-bit devices that are used primarily for Pin-pad type devices at the Point-of-sale.