Microsoft Kills Off Its Trustworthy Computing Group

An anonymous reader writes Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing Group is headed for the axe, and its responsibilities will be taken over either by the company's Cloud & Enterprise Division or its Legal & Corporate Affairs group. Microsoft's disbanding of the group represents a punctuation mark in the industry's decades-long conversation around trusted computing as a concept. The security center of gravity is moving away from enterprise desktops to cloud and mobile and 'things,' so it makes sense for this security leadership role to shift as well. According to a company spokesman, an unspecified number of jobs from the group will be cut. Also today, Microsoft has announced the closure of its Silicon Valley lab. Its research labs in Redmond, New York, and Cambridge (in Massachusetts) will pick up some of the closed lab's operations.

Comments

Mission accomplished

[symbolset]

Now that they have made all their software trustworthy there is no more need for the group, right? Declare victory and go home.

Does this mean....

[Hsien-Ko]

Microsoft products will get easter eggs again?

Trustworthy Computing was a sham

[TrollstonButterbeans]

And an insult. It was like Microsoft trying to usurp your own computer and tell you what it could do and spy on you too.

Trustyworthy Computing had the idea that apps could prevent you taking screenshots and assert insane privileges on your own computer.

It was offensive as hell.

Re:Trustworthy Computing was a sham

[ihtoit]

I thought Trustworthy Computing was a scheme intended to ensure that no part (of the user experience) could fail?

As opposed to Trusted Computing, which I think is what you're actually referring to here, this instead of protecting the system from failure, secured the system against user violations such as overwriting the bootloader with one that isn't signed (like for instance, replacing or enhancing the BIOS with a signed EFI that prevents the user from installing alternative OSes such as OSX onto a commodity x64 or GNU/Linux onto a MS-subsidised laptop (think £250 deal at PC World. How do you think they get so cheap?)), TPM and TXT which can be used in tandem to lock a software license/instance to a specific machine using a specific hardware setup where the hardware has burned-in unique RSA hashes per device (didn't MS do this with Windows at one point where even replacing a wireless card killed the COA key?), Asshole Detectors (I don't know if this term is in common use, it just sounds cool) such as XBox Live, and vendor lock-in on the pretext of securing a closed network (such as the aforementioned XBox Live, any number of persistent online games such as World of Warcraft...)...

Re:This new guy

[binarylarry]

I'm personally pretty anti-microsoft and a fan of google's ecosystem of products.

But if the new CEO succeeds at changing the organization, it'd be great to see a third big vendor in the market as an alternative to Google and Apple. Windows Phone sucks now, but who knows what the future brings. Microsoft has been riding their past successes for a long time, too long.

Re:Good

[ihtoit]

yep, they're completely different animals.
Trustworthy computing: ensuring reliability and integrity of the user experience
Trusted computing: securing the system against the user.

Re:I've never shorted a stock

[Ol Olsoc]

Oh sure, a lot of people on /. would like to see MS crater; but be careful what you wish for. Do you really want AAPL to be the A no. 1 tech company for EVERYTHING, including your workstation?

I bash Microsoft here as much as anyone else - but No, I don't want Microsoft to go away.

I want MIcrosoft to stop making awful Operating systems. We know they can do it, because XP was excellent, W7 almost as good.

I want Microsoft to not have Updates bitch up computers.

I want Microsoft to change their "We know what's best for you dammit!" attitude, and ignore feedback. Both Vista and W8 had people begging them not to go there.

If you've read enough of Slashdot, you'll have noticed that every complaint about MSFT is attacked by "energetic fans" shouting that the complaint is invalid, that the person complaining is an idiot. How long is that supposed to work?

After moving to Unix-like OS' I apparenly stopped being an idiot, because I have none of the same problems I had on any Microsoft OS - and that includes XP, which I liked. Like I said, eventually people will get tired of that crap.

What I would like to see is a vibrant Microsoft, one that understands the customer, and the market. Why, that might even entice me to buy another computer with their Operating system on it.

Re:I've never shorted a stock

[Zontar The Mindless]

XP was excellent

That's what inspired me to switch to Linux full-time, I'll say that much for it.

Treacherous Computing

[bzipitidoo]

Exactly. Microsoft tried to secure the software against the users, and tried to tell everyone it was more plain security.

I'm glad users didn't swallow it. MS's lame attempt at confusing everyone got the ridicule and hate it so richly deserved.

Re:Treacherous Computing

[lgw]

Had TC been an open standard, it could have been a great thing. Think: locking down one VM such that no virus can taint it, which you can then use to scan the rest of the system with assurance that the results are valid.

But instead it was a joke. I was doing standards work while the TC "standard" was being hammered out, and while they were in the same Hotel as real ISO standards work, you had to be there from a member company and sign an NDA to even listen to the discussions. We didn't take them seriously (the normal ISO/INCITS rules are that anyone who shows up can participate, you only need to be from a paying company to vote, and that minutes are always public).

Re:Good

[mlts]

I found that this technology has two edges to it. The first is its use for DRM, but the second is something I've found useful.

A TPM chip can come in handy with BitLocker. It means that brute forcing a drive's password becomes not an option, as an attacker is faced with the full 128 or 256 bit keyspace of AES. Unless an attacker can uncap the TPM chip, brute forcing a password will only cause the chip to lock due to excessive attempts and not allow access in any way.

It also provides peace of mind. With a TPM + PIN + USB flash drive, if my laptop gets stolen, if I have the USB flash drive on my keychain, I know the laptop's contents are protected. Even if the keychain is stolen, there is still the PIN which has to be guessed. If the MBR or BIOS are modified, it will be detected, and not allow the machine to boot. Not 100% security (XKCD rubber hoses and cold RAM attacks will beat it for example), but good enough.

Problem is that this type of technology to ensure malware hasn't tampered with the boot process tends to be far more often used to keep legitimate people out of their device rather than to allow legitimate device owners to keep control of their data.