With TCPA being proposed as far down as the firmware level; how will you be able to sign/launch your bootloader of choice?
The short explanation:
TCPA hardware will do everything today's hardware does. It adds an extra chip (the Trusted Platform Module) that logs what software has had control of the computer from boot to the current time. You can run any open BIOS, boot loader, or kernel you want, but if you choose software that lets you do whatever you want with your computer, other computers will know and refuse to talk too your computer.
Essentially, a TCPA compatible computer will refuse to run all code which hasn't been pre-approved by some "trusted" organisation.
This is not true. A PC incorporating a TPM keeps tabs on what software has had control over the CPU in a particular boot (e.g. BIOS code, boot loader, OS kernel) and reports this crytpographically signed information upon request.
It's up to you whether or not you run an OS or more-privileged-than-ring-0 program that refuses to run unsigned software. However, if you choose not to let your computer be controlled by that kind of code, other computers will know that you made that choice since your TPM won't tell them you haven't.
Please don't make statements like those in the parent post. It makes TCPA seem like something we can fight by not buying TCPA hardware for ourselves. This is not the case. What we really need to do is stop the growth of TCPA overall so that it doesn't become a reasonable business plan to develop racist software that descriminates against non-TCPA hardware.
BTW, I've developed a constant-time algorithm for factoring prime numbers of any magnitude. Let me know if you're interested.
I'm interested in this constant-time factorization algorithm. Tell me more.:)
He's playing with you. Given a prime number, x, of any magnitude, the factors are 1 and x. People like to say "factor prime numbers" when they really mean "factor products of primes".
Seriously, though. If you come up with a constant time algorithm for factoring products of primes, watch out. I never seriously considered it, but I'm a math student who happened to find this problem interesting so I asked a few questions of my professors and other knowledgeable people. The consensus seems to be that finding a solution to this problem could be very bad for your health.
I need to work out how to kill the CPU fan or something...
The idea of destroying someone else's property really bothers me; I don't have anything good to say about people who write and release malicious viruses. Then again, if a PC operating system ever gets to the point where it can replace Windows on the desktop, viruses may be just what the world needs to break microsoft's strangelhold.
So I guess if some vigilante created a virus that would put the fear of Spam into gullible users, I don't think I would complain very loudly. *shrug*
Linus has said that he will never stabalize the kernel interface for binary drivers because that would encourage companies to release more binary drivers instead of GPL drivers.
This is a perfectly valid stance for him to take if his goal is to encourage companies to release driver source under the GPL instead of releasing binaries. It is probably working out very well for him.
However, binary drivers make for more broad hardware support, and a stable binary (and source!) interface solves all sorts of problems for end users.
So if you feel "sick of it" get another opperating system because Linux won't ever have that feature as long as Linus maintains the kernel.
Getting another operating system only solves part of the problem. I've been using windows and dos since I don't know how long, and dual booting linux since 1996 I think. To be perfectly honest, I really like linux. I like the fact that I can dig down into any component of the system if I want to, or that I can change anything I want or distribute it to other people freely. I like the wide variety of very capable software that's available for the platform at no cost.
When I'm indulging my geeky side, linux can be a lot of fun for those reasons, but when I'm trying to accomplish a task instead of play around it can get very frustrating very quickly. I think the most frustrating thing is that all the mundane system administration tasks I'm used to performing in windows (e.g. installing a third party video driver, setting up a printer, installing software) are so much more difficult in linux. It sucks. I deal with it. Switching away from linux is not something I _have_ to do a whole lot to get my work done.
The reason why this sort of thing bothers me so much is that there are a lot of people out there who can't or won't deal with the additional trouble of runing linux instead of windows on a home machine, which is troubling since it means more machines running a microsoft OS. The key ingredient in pulling off something scary like Palladium is market share. If I could wave a magic wand and make microsoft not evil, I wouldn't care anywhere near as much about how usable linux happens to be.
Personally, I'm just getting sick and tired with the maintainability and reliability issues that binary modules usually incur.
I'm not. I love the way binary modules work. You just double click the exe file you downloaded from the hardware manufacturer's web site and follow the prompts. Then you reboot and your hardware is up and running without any compiling or messing about with manuals and documentation. Then, several years down the road and a few service packs later, you can take the same exe and get your OS up and running again. Of course, downloading the latest driver updates is always a good idea and it's not much harder than using the old installer, but it's good to have the guarantee that the old driver will work if you need it.
In all seriousness, though, I have to agree with you in that the Linux binary modules situation is nearly intolerable. I really believe that having the source to the kernel and all the drivers I use would be better than not having them. But the fact that they really are, for the most part, available in source form has allowed a particularly frustrating idea to seep into the heads of the kernel developers, that being that a stable binary interface for drivers should not be maintained.
I agree with you. It's bad right now. But the module developers are not the only ones causing the problem.
With one standard, doesn't that make it easier work for those working around it?
Yes, but that doesn't matter too much in the long run; trying to make an unbreakable DRM system is an unwinnable battle. The content cartel can still win the war by creating a future in which (flawed) Digital Restriction Mechanisms are a standard part of every consumer electronics device, preventing the nontechnical user from making copies of copyrighted works.
People will be born in this future who will think DRM is normal and OK.
Besides, the real threat we all ought to be concentrating on is "Trusted" Computing, not the DRM flavor of the week.
It's easy for someone who doesn't want to own Shrek 2 to suggest boycotting it. But if you do want to own Shrek 2, and you don't want to own unskippable ads, you DO face a genuine dilemma. "Suck it up or don't buy it" is NOT a helpful response, and it's rarely intended as one.
I don't disagree with most of that. I really don't care about owning or watching Shrek 2, so it really is very easy to suggest boycotting it. If the object of the discussion were a graphics accelerator or a computer video game, I'd probably balk at boycotting as a solution. It would be ridiculous to claim that boycotting is always an easy solution for everyone.
Whether or not that is a "helpful" response, though, varies depending on who hears it. I think most of us think we need more than we really do. We all need food and water and shelter to stay alive for any reasonable amount of time, but beyond that there are few necessities. If I believe that I really need something that I can only get from one entity, that makes me a slave to that entity. Whatever they do, I must accept in order to get what I need. Of course, there are boundaries to how far that entity can go. I wouldn't sacrifice a kidney for a movie or a video game, no matter how much fun it might be. But if I decide I am willing to accept the consequences of giving money to an organization that believes it is OK to control a user's home hardware in order to make commercials on a dvd unskippable, but I am not willing to accept the consquences of losing a kidney, that reveals much more about my priorities than it does about my "needs."
But if your kids are clamoring for Shrek 2 on DVD, there's only one version you can buy them, and they aren't going to be too happy if you come home with some other movie instead "because it doesn't have as many ads".
DISCLAIMER: I am not a parent.
My opinion is that part of raising children is teaching them how to deal with disappointment. This doesn't mean that they have to have an unhappy childhood--just that when something doesn't go their way it's not the end of the world. I also think that it's important to raise socially conscious children. It would be really, really nice if they understood the concept of voting with their dollars. Imagine what it would be like if all of the ex-children living in the world understood this.
"mplayer -fs dvd://1". Yeah, that took a lot of work.
Unless the -fs option causes mplayer to copy the dvd to your hard disk, remove the prohibited user operations, automatically remove all commercials/previews (or walk the user through this with a friendly interface), resize the dvd image if necessary for a 4.7GB recordable dvd, and burn the image to a blank disc, it doesn't solve the technical problem I described.
Not having used mplayer to play dvds on my computer, I'm assuming that this command simply causes mplayer to play the dvd and ignore prohibited user operation flags. This solves a part of the problem for the very small subset of people who are willing to use mplayer (implying using an OS on which it runs well) from the command line and are willing to read the manual in order to figure out that command (or have read the parent post). Running that command will not take us all back to the days when DVDs were commercial-free.
Besides, even if a program did exist that would make solving this problem easy enough for the average dvd viewer, there's no way to get around the fact that it takes time and the added expense of a blank recordable dvd. No technical solution is really as good as a social solution to the social problem of dvd producers believing it's OK to put commercials in with the content, or to try to make it difficult for users to access data on media they own in any way they please.
the issue is creating long term viability for Open Source desktop software, which requires being able to develop and run that software, having a user base that large enough to be sustainable and satisfying that user base.
What would happen if Firefox's support for win32 were suddenly pulled? What would happen to Internet Explorer's market share? Giving MS the green light, market share-wise, to develop more proprietary web standards would not be a good idea. That said, I see your point. Making an extra effort so that average windows users can stay average windows users is not a wholly good idea either.
If the goal is to get people to switch to an open, vendor-neutral platform like GNU/Linux, then it makes more sense to fix what Windows users don't like about GNU/Linux and make it painless for them to migrate than it does to make it painful to stay with windows and lose the benefits that come with application competition on the dominant OS.
Well, from a techincal perspective, you're not forced to watch the previews and commercials. If you were tech-savvy enough and you valued the time it would take to create a back-up of the dvd without the prohibited user operations less than you valued the pleasure of watching a dvd without opening commercials, then you could rip them out. Nobody can ever stop you from doing anything you want to content on a medium that is physically in your posession if you have sufficient time, technical skill, desire, and resources.
From a more realistic perspective, though, that is a lot of work (and added expense) that not a lot of people are willing to go through, and personally the practice offends my sensibilities as well as yours. I think the statement, "I should NEVER be forced to..." is an interesting one. I'm sure there are people who believed that they should never be forced to watch commercials on tv. These people are still around, of course, but I'm talking about way before TiVo back when subscription tv with commercials was first invented.
This is all just part of the larger push to make more and more money off of consumers. If publishers could get away with it, they would stick commercials in the middle of DVDs or add those branding logos/advertizements to the content like TV stations do. Maybe they will eventually do this once people are comfortable with the idea of commercials at the beginning (and end) of the feature.
I guess the stock advice of, "If you don't like it, don't buy it," applies here, although just boycotting something in order to make it go away is about as stupid as just voting in order to change who gets elected. You have to go way further in order to make a real difference. Start by not buying so you have some credibility when you speak, and then convince others to join you. I'm not slamming you here. I empathize with your problem. It's just that I'd very much like it to be solved.
Isn't this in line with the whole "No machine[usually meaning computer, but in this case a jumpdrive] is secure if the physical box is in the hands of the hacker/criminal."
I mean, if you have the jumprdrive in your possession it's only a matter of time before you find a weakness to exploit, right?
Nope. The jumpdrive is just a data storage device and if it only contains encrypted data, an attacker can only read the (probably useless) encrypted data it stores. You can't decrypt it unless you have the decryption key, or you can break the encryption algorithm.
The problem here is that the password necessary to decrypt the data is stored inside the drive itself. An ideal secure portable data storage device would only store the encrypted data and a program to decrypt the data with a user-supplied passphrase. Lexar made a stupid mistake--that's all.
However, the whole "No machine [usually meaning computer, but in this case a jumpdrive] is secure if the physical box is in the hands of the hacker/criminal." rule still applies. In this case, it means that there's no way the owner of a jumpdrive can prevent a thief from erasing the drive or reading any of its memory.
I ask because can't decide if I should stick with my AMD-XP upgrade path from (1500+ to 2500+) or take the plung and switch to Intel's P4 HT or true Duel CPU mobo before I buy the game!
You should definitely go with Duel CPUs. Nothing beats them for one-on-one combat.
Most of my typing experience at that age was from MUDding [...]
MUDding actually reduced my typing speed, at least at the console. It was months after I stopped doing any serious MUDding that I stopped typing 'look' instead of 'ls'.
Once in a blue moon I'll still do it, but only while typing on a QWERTY keybord (I've since switched to dvorak).
*Many* of our customers choose to buy what we call a "combo pack", that gives them both the dead-tree version and a searchable, non-DRM restricted PDF file.
I've a couple questions for you, if you don't mind.
1. How much do you think unauthorized copying of those PDFs is affecting sales?
2. How was it decided that your company would not use DRM for its PDFs?
I've heard something very simular. Think of the XBOX, it only allows Microsoft digitally signed applications/games to run on it, this is handled at a BIOS level.
This is a myth. Only allowing PCs to run microsoft-approved software is one possible application of the technology, but the technology itself is much more dangerous than xbox drm and functions significantly differently.
Don't feel safe because you see xbox mod chips on the market. See the links in my post a bit further down for more info.
Isn't Microsoft looking to create a nasty piece of BIOS (or no BIOS) which would lock down a system beyond the belief of most persons who aren't "well educated" WRT technology; i.e., the people who wouldn't have a need for tinkering with the system.
No. Microsoft and others have created a nasty piece of technology including BIOS modifications which, working with other modifications and additions to standard PC hardware, will not only lock users out of performing certain actions but could be used to allow total control over end user machines by Microsoft or the government (or your personal least favorite organization), regardless of how tech-savvy the end user might be.
Being smart does not make you safe.
Don't reply about how you can always gain complete control of your own hardware with enough technical knowledge and time. Read Ross Anderson's TCPA FAQ too see why that still applicable bit of security wisdom isn't sufficient to throw off the yoke of TC. Go here for all the technical nitty gritty if you're not still convinced.
Wouldn't "exposing secretive inner workings" make the US government want to shut down p2p even more?
Of course, but it's a lot easier for your elected representative to read "We're legislating against p2p networks to stop criminals from stealing music," off of a 3x5 card given to them by the RIAA than it is to say, "Here in D.C. we're doing things we're afraid you might find out about."
The software's free, but it's only for windows 2000/xp PCs with some kind of nVidia graphics card. There's a piece of commercial software out there if you don't have a nvidia card, but I forget what it's called.
What about the HDD noise?? Are solid state disks quieter??
From the link:
The primary storage media is the SDRAM, with three independent disk drives providing secondary storage [...] Two redundant and hot swappable power supplies, fans and multiple drives allow the 3200 to survive multiple points of failure
Solid state components don't make any noise because there are no moving parts. This device incorporates solid state storage along with fans and normal hdds, so it's not silent.
Slashdot Mirror
With TCPA being proposed as far down as the firmware level; how will you be able to sign/launch your bootloader of choice?
The short explanation:
TCPA hardware will do everything today's hardware does. It adds an extra chip (the Trusted Platform Module) that logs what software has had control of the computer from boot to the current time. You can run any open BIOS, boot loader, or kernel you want, but if you choose software that lets you do whatever you want with your computer, other computers will know and refuse to talk too your computer.
The specs are available for you to read.
Essentially, a TCPA compatible computer will refuse to run all code which hasn't been pre-approved by some "trusted" organisation.
This is not true. A PC incorporating a TPM keeps tabs on what software has had control over the CPU in a particular boot (e.g. BIOS code, boot loader, OS kernel) and reports this crytpographically signed information upon request.
It's up to you whether or not you run an OS or more-privileged-than-ring-0 program that refuses to run unsigned software. However, if you choose not to let your computer be controlled by that kind of code, other computers will know that you made that choice since your TPM won't tell them you haven't.
Please don't make statements like those in the parent post. It makes TCPA seem like something we can fight by not buying TCPA hardware for ourselves. This is not the case. What we really need to do is stop the growth of TCPA overall so that it doesn't become a reasonable business plan to develop racist software that descriminates against non-TCPA hardware.
OK, Mr. Skeptic, here's the algorithm:
Did you read my post?
I've just factored a number with 2000 digits. The number is 10^2000.
That number has 2001 digits.
</pedant>
BTW, I've developed a constant-time algorithm for factoring prime numbers of any magnitude. Let me know if you're interested.
:)
I'm interested in this constant-time factorization algorithm. Tell me more.
He's playing with you. Given a prime number, x, of any magnitude, the factors are 1 and x. People like to say "factor prime numbers" when they really mean "factor products of primes".
Seriously, though. If you come up with a constant time algorithm for factoring products of primes, watch out. I never seriously considered it, but I'm a math student who happened to find this problem interesting so I asked a few questions of my professors and other knowledgeable people. The consensus seems to be that finding a solution to this problem could be very bad for your health.
Turing award winner? As in, he passed the Turing test?
--
He must not be a slashdot user then.
--
Why do you say He must not be a slashdot user then.?
I need to work out how to kill the CPU fan or something...
The idea of destroying someone else's property really bothers me; I don't have anything good to say about people who write and release malicious viruses. Then again, if a PC operating system ever gets to the point where it can replace Windows on the desktop, viruses may be just what the world needs to break microsoft's strangelhold.
So I guess if some vigilante created a virus that would put the fear of Spam into gullible users, I don't think I would complain very loudly. *shrug*
http://www.almico.com/speedfan.php
Linus has said that he will never stabalize the kernel interface for binary drivers because that would encourage companies to release more binary drivers instead of GPL drivers.
This is a perfectly valid stance for him to take if his goal is to encourage companies to release driver source under the GPL instead of releasing binaries. It is probably working out very well for him.
However, binary drivers make for more broad hardware support, and a stable binary (and source!) interface solves all sorts of problems for end users.
So if you feel "sick of it" get another opperating system because Linux won't ever have that feature as long as Linus maintains the kernel.
Getting another operating system only solves part of the problem. I've been using windows and dos since I don't know how long, and dual booting linux since 1996 I think. To be perfectly honest, I really like linux. I like the fact that I can dig down into any component of the system if I want to, or that I can change anything I want or distribute it to other people freely. I like the wide variety of very capable software that's available for the platform at no cost.
When I'm indulging my geeky side, linux can be a lot of fun for those reasons, but when I'm trying to accomplish a task instead of play around it can get very frustrating very quickly. I think the most frustrating thing is that all the mundane system administration tasks I'm used to performing in windows (e.g. installing a third party video driver, setting up a printer, installing software) are so much more difficult in linux. It sucks. I deal with it. Switching away from linux is not something I _have_ to do a whole lot to get my work done.
The reason why this sort of thing bothers me so much is that there are a lot of people out there who can't or won't deal with the additional trouble of runing linux instead of windows on a home machine, which is troubling since it means more machines running a microsoft OS. The key ingredient in pulling off something scary like Palladium is market share. If I could wave a magic wand and make microsoft not evil, I wouldn't care anywhere near as much about how usable linux happens to be.
Personally, I'm just getting sick and tired with the maintainability and reliability issues that binary modules usually incur.
I'm not. I love the way binary modules work. You just double click the exe file you downloaded from the hardware manufacturer's web site and follow the prompts. Then you reboot and your hardware is up and running without any compiling or messing about with manuals and documentation. Then, several years down the road and a few service packs later, you can take the same exe and get your OS up and running again. Of course, downloading the latest driver updates is always a good idea and it's not much harder than using the old installer, but it's good to have the guarantee that the old driver will work if you need it.
In all seriousness, though, I have to agree with you in that the Linux binary modules situation is nearly intolerable. I really believe that having the source to the kernel and all the drivers I use would be better than not having them. But the fact that they really are, for the most part, available in source form has allowed a particularly frustrating idea to seep into the heads of the kernel developers, that being that a stable binary interface for drivers should not be maintained.
I agree with you. It's bad right now. But the module developers are not the only ones causing the problem.
Yes, but that doesn't matter too much in the long run; trying to make an unbreakable DRM system is an unwinnable battle. The content cartel can still win the war by creating a future in which (flawed) Digital Restriction Mechanisms are a standard part of every consumer electronics device, preventing the nontechnical user from making copies of copyrighted works.
People will be born in this future who will think DRM is normal and OK.
Besides, the real threat we all ought to be concentrating on is "Trusted" Computing, not the DRM flavor of the week.
It's easy for someone who doesn't want to own Shrek 2 to suggest boycotting it. But if you do want to own Shrek 2, and you don't want to own unskippable ads, you DO face a genuine dilemma. "Suck it up or don't buy it" is NOT a helpful response, and it's rarely intended as one.
I don't disagree with most of that. I really don't care about owning or watching Shrek 2, so it really is very easy to suggest boycotting it. If the object of the discussion were a graphics accelerator or a computer video game, I'd probably balk at boycotting as a solution. It would be ridiculous to claim that boycotting is always an easy solution for everyone.
Whether or not that is a "helpful" response, though, varies depending on who hears it. I think most of us think we need more than we really do. We all need food and water and shelter to stay alive for any reasonable amount of time, but beyond that there are few necessities. If I believe that I really need something that I can only get from one entity, that makes me a slave to that entity. Whatever they do, I must accept in order to get what I need. Of course, there are boundaries to how far that entity can go. I wouldn't sacrifice a kidney for a movie or a video game, no matter how much fun it might be. But if I decide I am willing to accept the consequences of giving money to an organization that believes it is OK to control a user's home hardware in order to make commercials on a dvd unskippable, but I am not willing to accept the consquences of losing a kidney, that reveals much more about my priorities than it does about my "needs."
But if your kids are clamoring for Shrek 2 on DVD, there's only one version you can buy them, and they aren't going to be too happy if you come home with some other movie instead "because it doesn't have as many ads".
DISCLAIMER: I am not a parent.
My opinion is that part of raising children is teaching them how to deal with disappointment. This doesn't mean that they have to have an unhappy childhood--just that when something doesn't go their way it's not the end of the world. I also think that it's important to raise socially conscious children. It would be really, really nice if they understood the concept of voting with their dollars. Imagine what it would be like if all of the ex-children living in the world understood this.
"mplayer -fs dvd://1". Yeah, that took a lot of work.
Unless the -fs option causes mplayer to copy the dvd to your hard disk, remove the prohibited user operations, automatically remove all commercials/previews (or walk the user through this with a friendly interface), resize the dvd image if necessary for a 4.7GB recordable dvd, and burn the image to a blank disc, it doesn't solve the technical problem I described.
Not having used mplayer to play dvds on my computer, I'm assuming that this command simply causes mplayer to play the dvd and ignore prohibited user operation flags. This solves a part of the problem for the very small subset of people who are willing to use mplayer (implying using an OS on which it runs well) from the command line and are willing to read the manual in order to figure out that command (or have read the parent post). Running that command will not take us all back to the days when DVDs were commercial-free.
Besides, even if a program did exist that would make solving this problem easy enough for the average dvd viewer, there's no way to get around the fact that it takes time and the added expense of a blank recordable dvd. No technical solution is really as good as a social solution to the social problem of dvd producers believing it's OK to put commercials in with the content, or to try to make it difficult for users to access data on media they own in any way they please.
the issue is creating long term viability for Open Source desktop software, which requires being able to develop and run that software, having a user base that large enough to be sustainable and satisfying that user base.
What would happen if Firefox's support for win32 were suddenly pulled? What would happen to Internet Explorer's market share? Giving MS the green light, market share-wise, to develop more proprietary web standards would not be a good idea. That said, I see your point. Making an extra effort so that average windows users can stay average windows users is not a wholly good idea either.
If the goal is to get people to switch to an open, vendor-neutral platform like GNU/Linux, then it makes more sense to fix what Windows users don't like about GNU/Linux and make it painless for them to migrate than it does to make it painful to stay with windows and lose the benefits that come with application competition on the dominant OS.
I should NEVER be forced to watch previews.
..." is an interesting one. I'm sure there are people who believed that they should never be forced to watch commercials on tv. These people are still around, of course, but I'm talking about way before TiVo back when subscription tv with commercials was first invented.
Well, from a techincal perspective, you're not forced to watch the previews and commercials. If you were tech-savvy enough and you valued the time it would take to create a back-up of the dvd without the prohibited user operations less than you valued the pleasure of watching a dvd without opening commercials, then you could rip them out. Nobody can ever stop you from doing anything you want to content on a medium that is physically in your posession if you have sufficient time, technical skill, desire, and resources.
From a more realistic perspective, though, that is a lot of work (and added expense) that not a lot of people are willing to go through, and personally the practice offends my sensibilities as well as yours. I think the statement, "I should NEVER be forced to
This is all just part of the larger push to make more and more money off of consumers. If publishers could get away with it, they would stick commercials in the middle of DVDs or add those branding logos/advertizements to the content like TV stations do. Maybe they will eventually do this once people are comfortable with the idea of commercials at the beginning (and end) of the feature.
I guess the stock advice of, "If you don't like it, don't buy it," applies here, although just boycotting something in order to make it go away is about as stupid as just voting in order to change who gets elected. You have to go way further in order to make a real difference. Start by not buying so you have some credibility when you speak, and then convince others to join you. I'm not slamming you here. I empathize with your problem. It's just that I'd very much like it to be solved.
I've been looking into Windows software packaging applications, in particular Jitit's Thinstall and BitArt's Fusion.
Have you heard of the Nullsoft Scriptable Install System? It's Free, and it works very well.
http://nsis.sourceforge.net/
Isn't this in line with the whole "No machine[usually meaning computer, but in this case a jumpdrive] is secure if the physical box is in the hands of the hacker/criminal."
I mean, if you have the jumprdrive in your possession it's only a matter of time before you find a weakness to exploit, right?
Nope. The jumpdrive is just a data storage device and if it only contains encrypted data, an attacker can only read the (probably useless) encrypted data it stores. You can't decrypt it unless you have the decryption key, or you can break the encryption algorithm.
The problem here is that the password necessary to decrypt the data is stored inside the drive itself. An ideal secure portable data storage device would only store the encrypted data and a program to decrypt the data with a user-supplied passphrase. Lexar made a stupid mistake--that's all.
However, the whole "No machine [usually meaning computer, but in this case a jumpdrive] is secure if the physical box is in the hands of the hacker/criminal." rule still applies. In this case, it means that there's no way the owner of a jumpdrive can prevent a thief from erasing the drive or reading any of its memory.
I ask because can't decide if I should stick with my AMD-XP upgrade path from (1500+ to 2500+) or take the plung and switch to Intel's P4 HT or true Duel CPU mobo before I buy the game!
You should definitely go with Duel CPUs. Nothing beats them for one-on-one combat.
Most of my typing experience at that age was from MUDding [...]
MUDding actually reduced my typing speed, at least at the console. It was months after I stopped doing any serious MUDding that I stopped typing 'look' instead of 'ls'.
Once in a blue moon I'll still do it, but only while typing on a QWERTY keybord (I've since switched to dvorak).
*Many* of our customers choose to buy what we call a "combo pack", that gives them both the dead-tree version and a searchable, non-DRM restricted PDF file.
I've a couple questions for you, if you don't mind.
1. How much do you think unauthorized copying of those PDFs is affecting sales?
2. How was it decided that your company would not use DRM for its PDFs?
Kudos Seagate!
I've heard something very simular. Think of the XBOX, it only allows Microsoft digitally signed applications/games to run on it, this is handled at a BIOS level.
This is a myth. Only allowing PCs to run microsoft-approved software is one possible application of the technology, but the technology itself is much more dangerous than xbox drm and functions significantly differently.
Don't feel safe because you see xbox mod chips on the market. See the links in my post a bit further down for more info.
Isn't Microsoft looking to create a nasty piece of BIOS (or no BIOS) which would lock down a system beyond the belief of most persons who aren't "well educated" WRT technology; i.e., the people who wouldn't have a need for tinkering with the system.
No. Microsoft and others have created a nasty piece of technology including BIOS modifications which, working with other modifications and additions to standard PC hardware, will not only lock users out of performing certain actions but could be used to allow total control over end user machines by Microsoft or the government (or your personal least favorite organization), regardless of how tech-savvy the end user might be.
Being smart does not make you safe.
Don't reply about how you can always gain complete control of your own hardware with enough technical knowledge and time. Read Ross Anderson's TCPA FAQ too see why that still applicable bit of security wisdom isn't sufficient to throw off the yoke of TC. Go here for all the technical nitty gritty if you're not still convinced.
Wouldn't "exposing secretive inner workings" make the US government want to shut down p2p even more?
Of course, but it's a lot easier for your elected representative to read "We're legislating against p2p networks to stop criminals from stealing music," off of a 3x5 card given to them by the RIAA than it is to say, "Here in D.C. we're doing things we're afraid you might find out about."
Imagine if this could work for video games.
...
http://nvidia.com/content/drivers/drivers.asp
Select "Consumer 3D Stereo"
The software's free, but it's only for windows 2000/xp PCs with some kind of nVidia graphics card. There's a piece of commercial software out there if you don't have a nvidia card, but I forget what it's called.
From the link:
Solid state components don't make any noise because there are no moving parts. This device incorporates solid state storage along with fans and normal hdds, so it's not silent.