The flag does exist, but its use is currently prohibited under the AACS license. The flag is also not tied specifically HDCP, but to digital and analog outputs, which contain multiple technologies in each group. HDCP is just one digital copy protection technology.
This is not even remotely close to how this works.
AACS licenses for Blu Ray and HD DVD define what the allowed outputs of Blu Ray and HD DVD players are. DVD-CCA licenses define what the allowed outputs of DVD players are. The manufacturer of any players can pick which outputs they want from the approved list. The list contains more than HDMI and analog outputs. What is on the approved list is a compromise between everyone with an interest.
The movie studios have been the ones requesting HDCP/HDMI. Consumer electronics companies that make players would rather just ignore protected outputs which have extra cost. They don't care about protecting movies, just selling more devices and profit margins.
The process has pros and cons. It limits the available technologies which can be used. It makes it difficult to use new output technologies, but does prevent companies from making proprietary outputs which only works with one manufacturers players and TVs.
There is no technical way for Movie Studios to enforce HDMI. There is no flag that can be put in mvies to say only play on HDMI outputs.
University is different from high school. I suspect his good grades in high school reflect an easy program rather than good teaching. Everyone i knew who dropped out out Univerisity blamed it on the teachers not themselves. His high school should have prepared him more for University, less spoon feeding and more emphasis on self reliance.
University is what you make it. Some people look at it as an opportunity and get the most out of it. Some people look at it as a 4 year stint, and expect to get a piece of paper at the end and be educated. The best students are not those who wait for the education to be delivered to them but find it in the system. What happens in lectures is small part of the educational experience.
If he thinks Engineering was hard, try the real world. There are no teachers (even bad ones), nobody but yourself to push you, no lesson plans, unrealistic schedules, unsolvable problems, comptetion, and even worse metrics.
Don't believe everything you read. Most of the claims in the article are just plain wrong. Blu Ray drives are not going to report themselves to a service if hacked. Online connectivity is for making copies of disc contents which will require interaction with a service, and maybe a financial transaction. Internet connectivity is an optional feature of the players, it will not be in every player, and you could simply not plug it in to the Internet if you wished anyways.
That doesn't mean Blu Ray and HD-DVD will not have copy protections, they will and some details are available at aacsla.org. Blu ray will have a few more security features, but nothing along the lines of what the article states.
The availability of movies online will certainly reduce the window between theatrical and home video. Currently distributers make a lot of money by keeping that window there, but others are exploiting that window to make significant amounts money for themselves. There are lots of businesses that are supporting their business models with free content. We have already seen the progrssion to more global release windows as a result. Unless online piracy can be stopped (which is unlikely), the only things studios can do is move up the DVD release dates.
I hate to be critical, but movie producers are not movie distributors. In fact a movie producer can be anything from agent, script right holder, banker, to part of a star's entourage. Cerf talking to movie producers is like me talking to cows to judge what Mcdonalds is doing
The movie studios (the distributors) are well aware of bittorrent and the myriad of other distribution technologies that are available. The distributors do not generally distribute directly to consumers, but use middlemen (which include hotel VOD systems, cable, TV broadcasters, airlines, retail stores, rental services, etc). If someone implements a system using bittorrent which meets the security requirements they have, they would license content to it. Bittorrent would just be a component of the system.
What you says sounds interestng, but shows you have very little knowledge of how the film industry works. Each film is financed in a unique way, with different investors, with the major studios usually only serving as distributor or partial investor. Saying the studios should only make 10% of movies with celebrities of movies is like saying a pro sports team should only pay high salaries on 10% of the players and hire cheap players for the rest. Each movie is judged independently for its revenue potential. If the cost of the movie including star fees is lower than the expected revenue it will make, someone will invest and distribute.
Hollywood is already moving towards Internet delivery. Movielink is one of many web based services that already has content available. Studios will license content to new delivery mechanisms and business models. Getting content for businesses like Akimbo is not the problem, make a good affordable user experience in home is the challenge.
The reasons studios don't run online stores is simply its not what they are good at. Walmart and amazon may take a cut of profits, but they sell more than a studio website.
I think the reason Wal-mart is doing this is strictly to advertise a dirt cheap laptop to
bring people into the stores.
Wal-mart is also very sensitive to returns, so I assume they think these things are fairly easy to use out of the box
A different opinion on this book
on
My Life as a Quant
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I am currently reading this book and i am not quite so thrilled by it as the reviewer. My complaints so far include
- i am almost half way through and he has not started working as a quant yet
- Can be boring at times. At one point he starts discussing which radio station he was listening to on his commute. It is inconsistent in content, sometimes very interesting and some time really boring. Maybe it was padded to fill up the required pages.
- Not technical, some of his physics research sounds really interesting, but he does not go into details.
- Not the most lively writting style.
I have no regrets about reading this book, and i will finish it, but i am starting to loose interest in the middle. Hopefully it picks up bit in the second half.
I can't understand why anyone would want a
TiVo 2 Go. They plan on charging a subscription
fee for each dongle. Sorry, I would not pay $300
(or any monthly fee) just to watch TiVoed content on a PC.
The EC ruling is just plain stupid. It will have no real effect on MS's apparent monopoly. Even if MS had to put other players on the OS, that would not change much. All it really does is annoy and inconvienence MS.
This will have a very insignificant impact on the acceptance of Linux by consumers or increase Ma sales.
i would rather have windows come with WMP than not. I will install it anyways as there is a significant amount of content available in only WMF. For content that it available in only WMF and Real format, i would much rather install WMP than Real (It has a much better install experience).
Even if the application can not be parallelized, my experience working in these environments is that most times the same group needs to run the same application many times with different parameters. Putting the application on slower machines, but running different cases simultaneously also favors clusters.
Its very rare the high margin items ever maintain or increase their high margins. Anyone writing/using large resource intensive applications needs to plan for these type of things. crays are wonderful machines but if there is a better solution people should go with it.
Its also interesting to note that mainframes are still high margin and profitable for IBM. All the comptetion went away and lots of legacy code out there.
Cancel Cable. Save $50 a month and read a good book.
It would cost me more the $50/month in books to read instead of watch TV. The average book i buy/read is $20-$30, and I could easily read 4-5 more books a month if
I did not watch any TV
This type of analysis is a bit misleading. The financial viability of a show needs to look at more factors.
The primary consideration that network will be thinking about is not the fair disribution of gross money to those involved, but whether a show makes more profit than the other choices it has.
There are a lot of costs associated with making any tv show (cartoon or not), each show has massive staff, and there are distribution costs, infrastructure costs, advertising costs, and so on. Likewise the value of a show is a very subjective things, which includes intangibles such as the effects on other shows, rerun revenues, etc.
If the total costs of a show become too high so that other shows will make more profit, then it is the end of that show.
There is no way for use a few simple numbers (like advertising rates) to tell how profitable a show is. The actors can ask for as much as they like, but fox will be looking at ROI.
Simpsons is not the only show that can make money.
I have a ps2, but have been thinking of getting an Xbox. The ps2 is used for playing kids games and as a dvd player.
If I buy an Xbox or ps2 i want it to
be able to play all the same disks that my
dvd players will play (vcd,svcd,jpeg files).
It appear to do this for either the ps2 or xbox that i need a mod chip. If the boxes did this without a chip i would have bought at least one more game console by now. My choice of xbox or ps2 is going to be based on which is easier to
make totally functional (meaning easier to buy and add a mod chip)
I would like to ability to backup games for the ps2. Since the games cost $10-$50, and kids are rough on them, i will be very annoyed when they
break a disk.
My point is that if the ps2 and xbox consoles where made to be more useful, i'm sure sales would go up. I would also buy more games.
Whether you realize it or not, you are implying that it must be CRIMINAL for someone to rip open their own property and look at it with a microscope.
I did not realize I was implying this. It is an interesting question about whether or not reverse engineering a chip in a PC I own is illegal. I will look into this.
Only if the company forbids you to use that computer for personal use
My point is that i already have a computer at home, and i would prefer to use it to access the
corporate network than bringing home the corporate laptop everyday. The strength of a PC is that it can perform many different tasks, instead of a separate dedicated box for each task. i want my PC to be able to work as a regular PC, and also occasionaly as a piece of hardware trusted by someone else.
And you dare to say "if we want our PCs to be 100% controlled by us, then NGSCB is not for us"? As if we can simply decline to use it?
You can disable NGSCB. it is very open to DOS attacks from windows. The way things are designed is that the TPM can be disabled via some physical presence (physical button hitting not possiblefrom remote). If the TPM is disable, everything on top of it does not work either.
Now we are into subjective arguments about what is benefitial to the user.
I still think the corporate access example is good. Sure the company could give me a compnay owned computer to access their network that they own and control. This would involve me having two computers at home, mine and theirs. I think any solution which reduces the need to one computer has benefit (it would save me the hassle of bringing my work laptop home to access corporate network).
if we want our PCs to be 100% controlled by us, then NGSCB is not for us. If we want our PC to also be able to do things that require giving up some control, NGSCB gives us that option.
And if willfully connecting to the company network with such a system is a violation of company policy then they can fire him for it.
There is a big difference between trusting the employee and trusting the computer. Once again that is what NGSCB is about, trusting the computer. The employee may not knowingly violate the policies, but do so none the less. Most people whose computers are spreading viruses are not doing so knowingly.
And finally, yes it is always possible to do a hardware attack, but it is much much more difficult. There is no equivalent of script kiddies for hardware.
Your reply failed to meet my challenge.
Agreed, my argument did not address your challenge
If the owner has all keys, the NGSCB/Trusted Computing architecture
changes from
the remote service being able to attest the environment on
a client computer
to
the remote service being able to attest a remote user. (if you know all the secrets in the TPM you can emulate a trusted system in software)
Why is the difference important ?
DRM is an obvious example. A content provider does not trust you, but may trust their software which enforces their content restrictions. You may copy the content and distribute freely.
Gaming could be another example: An online multiuser game system wants only real players using the same software. By attesting the remote environment, they can be sure no bots are playing
Corporate network access: Your company wants to verify that when you connect to their network, your PC is safe (Virus Protection running, no spyware installed). They can attest your software and hardware environment. If you know the keys, you can fake any config to them
It should be noted the NGSCB does not contain any specific features to attest or authenticate users, only computing environments.
"I defy you to justify the central design feature of Trusted Computing - namely that the owner of a computer is forbidden to know his own keys."
The ability to generate keys within the TPM which can not be exported is fundamental to its design. Because the keys never leave the there is very little danger of them getting into the wrong hands. Consider two computers that need to mutually authenticate themselves. No matter how you do it, there does need to be a secret stored on each computer. A fundamental weakness of a software only security solution to this problem is that the required secret needs to be stored in memory somewhere and the OS needs to protect. Most OSes as large, and exploitable at some time. If a hacker can get access to system memory, he can extract the keys. With keys stored in hardware this is tougher, and probably impossible for a remote attack.
The owner may not know the keys, but he/she can clear them.
One important part of NGSCB is that data can be sealed to a environment (hardware and software). The data is sealed with keys stored in the TPM and
never exported. Software system (without hardware security support) require obfuscation to keep
information secure.
"Guess what? There are definite limits _with_ the hardware too."
Of course, but the lower the security goes, the better. Its tougher to defeat hardware security than software security. More difficult to defeat hardware security remotely also.
"Bullshit. If I want to run unsigned code/reverse engineer for compatibility/etc, I should be able to - and if you think TC _isn't_ going to be used to take away user rights I have a nice bridge to sell you."
Of course it can stop people from making clone of client side software. What it does do is make the whole system more secure, which does make writing compatible software nearly impossible. There are times I want to make sure my system is talking to specific code.
""does not lower privacy"
Jesus, do you run a cattle ranch or something?
The architecture of NGSCB and TPM is designed not to limit privacy. It really is an interesting architecture to look at. Anyone interested in security architectures should definately take a look at the deatails. The designers did include mechanisms to ensure privacy (although they have to be used correctly for that to happen). I suggest you actually examine how it works before you decide if it is bad and jump on the Anti everything MS bandwagon
It is good to see a few more articles that look at possible uses of Trusted Computing as opposed to just stating that MS is evil.
I feel Trusted Computing is a natural evolution
of PC design. The PC architecture has traditionally been developed (like almost everything else that old) without any security in mind. Without security in hardware on a PC, there is definite limits to how secure of systems you can build on top of it.
I looked at the NGSCB plans in detail. Most
of the things that people complain or fear about in NGSCB or Trusted Computing are not justified by the architecture. It is well designed, does not remove any privledges from the owner, does not lower privacy, but does enable new levels of security to be built into a PC based system. Without initiatives like NGSCB and Trusted Computing, some system will have to be built in proprietary hardware designs (with security in hardware, and additional cost).
I would like to see the Linux community use Trusted Computing features also. I fear if Linux does not act on this oppurtunity, MS will gain some advantage in the server market by offeringmore secure services based on Trusted Computing which Linux does not.
More details on NGSCB and Trusted Computing can be found at http://www.marzenka.com/technology/security/NGSCB. htm
When google gives wrong info on me(other people have same name), i just add their stuff to my resume.
I gained a dance school and a few civil war books in my resume experiences.
As more and more services get implemented in BIOS, the more likely we will need to patch BIOSes for security problems. This is of course more difficult and risky than patching an OS.
I personally believe than services should be migrated away from BIOS altogether, and BIOS should only play a role in bootup.
some detail on BIOS and trusted computing
can be found here
http://www.marzenka.com/trusted_computing_bios.htm
There is conference related to this subject, checkout :
http://www.pfir.org/meltdown
People For Internet Responsibility (PFIR) is pleased to preliminarily announce an "emergency" conference aimed at preventing the "meltdown" of the Internet -- the risks of imminent disruption, degradation, unfair manipulation, and other negative impacts on critical Internet services and systems in ways that will have a profound impact on the Net and its users around the world.
Slashdot Mirror
The flag does exist, but its use is currently prohibited under the AACS license. The flag is also not tied specifically HDCP, but to digital and analog outputs, which contain multiple technologies in each group. HDCP is just one digital copy protection technology.
The use of the flag may be allowed in future.
This is not even remotely close to how this works.
AACS licenses for Blu Ray and HD DVD define what the allowed outputs of Blu Ray and HD DVD players are. DVD-CCA licenses define what the allowed outputs of DVD players are. The manufacturer of any players can pick which outputs they want from the approved list. The list contains more than HDMI and analog outputs. What is on the approved list is a compromise between everyone with an interest.
The movie studios have been the ones requesting HDCP/HDMI. Consumer electronics companies that make players would rather just ignore protected outputs which have extra cost. They don't care about protecting movies, just selling more devices and profit margins.
The process has pros and cons. It limits the available technologies which can be used. It makes it difficult to use new output technologies, but does prevent companies from making proprietary outputs which only works with one manufacturers players and TVs.
There is no technical way for Movie Studios to enforce HDMI. There is no flag that can be put in mvies to say only play on HDMI outputs.
University is what you make it. Some people look at it as an opportunity and get the most out of it. Some people look at it as a 4 year stint, and expect to get a piece of paper at the end and be educated. The best students are not those who wait for the education to be delivered to them but find it in the system. What happens in lectures is small part of the educational experience.
If he thinks Engineering was hard, try the real world. There are no teachers (even bad ones), nobody but yourself to push you, no lesson plans, unrealistic schedules, unsolvable problems, comptetion, and even worse metrics.
Don't believe everything you read. Most of the claims in the article are just plain wrong. Blu Ray drives are not going to report themselves to a service if hacked. Online connectivity is for making copies of disc contents which will require interaction with a service, and maybe a financial transaction. Internet connectivity is an optional feature of the players, it will not be in every player, and you could simply not plug it in to the Internet if you wished anyways. That doesn't mean Blu Ray and HD-DVD will not have copy protections, they will and some details are available at aacsla.org. Blu ray will have a few more security features, but nothing along the lines of what the article states.
The availability of movies online will certainly reduce the window between theatrical and home video. Currently distributers make a lot of money by keeping that window there, but others are exploiting that window to make significant amounts money for themselves. There are lots of businesses that are supporting their business models with free content. We have already seen the progrssion to more global release windows as a result. Unless online piracy can be stopped (which is unlikely), the only things studios can do is move up the DVD release dates.
I hate to be critical, but movie producers are not movie distributors. In fact a movie producer can be anything from agent, script right holder, banker, to part of a star's entourage. Cerf talking to movie producers is like me talking to cows to judge what Mcdonalds is doing
The movie studios (the distributors) are well aware of bittorrent and the myriad of other distribution technologies that are available. The distributors do not generally distribute directly to consumers, but use middlemen (which include hotel VOD systems, cable, TV broadcasters, airlines, retail stores, rental services, etc). If someone implements a system using bittorrent which meets the security requirements they have, they would license content to it. Bittorrent would just be a component of the system.
What you says sounds interestng, but shows you have very little knowledge of how the film industry works. Each film is financed in a unique way, with different investors, with the major studios usually only serving as distributor or partial investor. Saying the studios should only make 10% of movies with celebrities of movies is like saying a pro sports team should only pay high salaries on 10% of the players and hire cheap players for the rest. Each movie is judged independently for its revenue potential. If the cost of the movie including star fees is lower than the expected revenue it will make, someone will invest and distribute.
Hollywood is already moving towards Internet delivery. Movielink is one of many web based services that already has content available. Studios will license content to new delivery mechanisms and business models. Getting content for businesses like Akimbo is not the problem, make a good affordable user experience in home is the challenge.
The reasons studios don't run online stores is simply its not what they are good at. Walmart and amazon may take a cut of profits, but they sell more than a studio website.
I think the reason Wal-mart is doing this is strictly to advertise a dirt cheap laptop to bring people into the stores.
Wal-mart is also very sensitive to returns, so I assume they think these things are fairly easy to use out of the box
I am currently reading this book and i am not quite so thrilled by it as the reviewer. My complaints so far include
- i am almost half way through and he has not started working as a quant yet
- Can be boring at times. At one point he starts discussing which radio station he was listening to on his commute. It is inconsistent in content, sometimes very interesting and some time really boring. Maybe it was padded to fill up the required pages.
- Not technical, some of his physics research sounds really interesting, but he does not go into details.
- Not the most lively writting style.
I have no regrets about reading this book, and i will finish it, but i am starting to loose interest in the middle. Hopefully it picks up bit in the second half.
I can't understand why anyone would want a TiVo 2 Go. They plan on charging a subscription fee for each dongle. Sorry, I would not pay $300 (or any monthly fee) just to watch TiVoed content on a PC.
The EC ruling is just plain stupid. It will have no real effect on MS's apparent monopoly. Even if MS had to put other players on the OS, that would not change much. All it really does is annoy and inconvienence MS.
This will have a very insignificant impact on the acceptance of Linux by consumers or increase Ma sales.
i would rather have windows come with WMP than not. I will install it anyways as there is a significant amount of content available in only WMF. For content that it available in only WMF and Real format, i would much rather install WMP than Real (It has a much better install experience).
Even if the application can not be parallelized, my experience working in these environments is that most times the same group needs to run the same application many times with different parameters. Putting the application on slower machines, but running different cases simultaneously also favors clusters.
Its very rare the high margin items ever maintain or increase their high margins. Anyone writing/using large resource intensive applications needs to plan for these type of things. crays are wonderful machines but if there is a better solution people should go with it.
Its also interesting to note that mainframes are still high margin and profitable for IBM. All the comptetion went away and lots of legacy code out there.
Cancel Cable. Save $50 a month and read a good book.
It would cost me more the $50/month in books to read instead of watch TV. The average book i buy/read is $20-$30, and I could easily read 4-5 more books a month if I did not watch any TV
This type of analysis is a bit misleading. The financial viability of a show needs to look at more factors.
The primary consideration that network will be thinking about is not the fair disribution of gross money to those involved, but whether a show makes more profit than the other choices it has.
There are a lot of costs associated with making any tv show (cartoon or not), each show has massive staff, and there are distribution costs, infrastructure costs, advertising costs, and so on. Likewise the value of a show is a very subjective things, which includes intangibles such as the effects on other shows, rerun revenues, etc.
If the total costs of a show become too high so that other shows will make more profit, then it is the end of that show.
There is no way for use a few simple numbers (like advertising rates) to tell how profitable a show is. The actors can ask for as much as they like, but fox will be looking at ROI. Simpsons is not the only show that can make money.
I have a ps2, but have been thinking of getting an Xbox. The ps2 is used for playing kids games and as a dvd player.
If I buy an Xbox or ps2 i want it to be able to play all the same disks that my dvd players will play (vcd,svcd,jpeg files). It appear to do this for either the ps2 or xbox that i need a mod chip. If the boxes did this without a chip i would have bought at least one more game console by now. My choice of xbox or ps2 is going to be based on which is easier to make totally functional (meaning easier to buy and add a mod chip)
I would like to ability to backup games for the ps2. Since the games cost $10-$50, and kids are rough on them, i will be very annoyed when they break a disk.
My point is that if the ps2 and xbox consoles where made to be more useful, i'm sure sales would go up. I would also buy more games.
Only if the company forbids you to use that computer for personal use
And you dare to say "if we want our PCs to be 100% controlled by us, then NGSCB is not for us"? As if we can simply decline to use it?
Now we are into subjective arguments about what is benefitial to the user.
I still think the corporate access example is good. Sure the company could give me a compnay owned computer to access their network that they own and control. This would involve me having two computers at home, mine and theirs. I think any solution which reduces the need to one computer has benefit (it would save me the hassle of bringing my work laptop home to access corporate network).
if we want our PCs to be 100% controlled by us, then NGSCB is not for us. If we want our PC to also be able to do things that require giving up some control, NGSCB gives us that option.
And if willfully connecting to the company network with such a system is a violation of company policy then they can fire him for it.
There is a big difference between trusting the employee and trusting the computer. Once again that is what NGSCB is about, trusting the computer. The employee may not knowingly violate the policies, but do so none the less. Most people whose computers are spreading viruses are not doing so knowingly.
And finally, yes it is always possible to do a hardware attack, but it is much much more difficult. There is no equivalent of script kiddies for hardware.
Agreed, my argument did not address your challenge
If the owner has all keys, the NGSCB/Trusted Computing architecture changes from
to
Why is the difference important ?
- DRM is an obvious example. A content provider does not trust you, but may trust their software which enforces their content restrictions. You may copy the content and distribute freely.
It should be noted the NGSCB does not contain any specific features to attest or authenticate users, only computing environments.Gaming could be another example: An online multiuser game system wants only real players using the same software. By attesting the remote environment, they can be sure no bots are playing
Corporate network access: Your company wants to verify that when you connect to their network, your PC is safe (Virus Protection running, no spyware installed). They can attest your software and hardware environment. If you know the keys, you can fake any config to them
"I defy you to justify the central design feature of Trusted Computing - namely that the owner of a computer is forbidden to know his own keys."
The ability to generate keys within the TPM which can not be exported is fundamental to its design. Because the keys never leave the there is very little danger of them getting into the wrong hands. Consider two computers that need to mutually authenticate themselves. No matter how you do it, there does need to be a secret stored on each computer. A fundamental weakness of a software only security solution to this problem is that the required secret needs to be stored in memory somewhere and the OS needs to protect. Most OSes as large, and exploitable at some time. If a hacker can get access to system memory, he can extract the keys. With keys stored in hardware this is tougher, and probably impossible for a remote attack.
The owner may not know the keys, but he/she can clear them.
One important part of NGSCB is that data can be sealed to a environment (hardware and software). The data is sealed with keys stored in the TPM and never exported. Software system (without hardware security support) require obfuscation to keep information secure.
"Guess what? There are definite limits _with_ the hardware too."
Of course, but the lower the security goes, the better. Its tougher to defeat hardware security than software security. More difficult to defeat hardware security remotely also.
"Bullshit. If I want to run unsigned code/reverse engineer for compatibility/etc, I should be able to - and if you think TC _isn't_ going to be used to take away user rights I have a nice bridge to sell you."
Of course it can stop people from making clone of client side software. What it does do is make the whole system more secure, which does make writing compatible software nearly impossible. There are times I want to make sure my system is talking to specific code.
""does not lower privacy"
Jesus, do you run a cattle ranch or something?
The architecture of NGSCB and TPM is designed not to limit privacy. It really is an interesting architecture to look at. Anyone interested in security architectures should definately take a look at the deatails. The designers did include mechanisms to ensure privacy (although they have to be used correctly for that to happen). I suggest you actually examine how it works before you decide if it is bad and jump on the Anti everything MS bandwagon
It is good to see a few more articles that look at possible uses of Trusted Computing as opposed to just stating that MS is evil. I feel Trusted Computing is a natural evolution of PC design. The PC architecture has traditionally been developed (like almost everything else that old) without any security in mind. Without security in hardware on a PC, there is definite limits to how secure of systems you can build on top of it.. htm
I looked at the NGSCB plans in detail. Most of the things that people complain or fear about in NGSCB or Trusted Computing are not justified by the architecture. It is well designed, does not remove any privledges from the owner, does not lower privacy, but does enable new levels of security to be built into a PC based system. Without initiatives like NGSCB and Trusted Computing, some system will have to be built in proprietary hardware designs (with security in hardware, and additional cost).
I would like to see the Linux community use Trusted Computing features also. I fear if Linux does not act on this oppurtunity, MS will gain some advantage in the server market by offeringmore secure services based on Trusted Computing which Linux does not.
More details on NGSCB and Trusted Computing can be found at http://www.marzenka.com/technology/security/NGSCB
When google gives wrong info on me(other people have same name), i just add their stuff to my resume.
I gained a dance school and a few civil war books in my resume experiences.
As more and more services get implemented in BIOS, the more likely we will need to patch BIOSes for security problems. This is of course more difficult and risky than patching an OS.
m
I personally believe than services should be migrated away from BIOS altogether, and BIOS should only play a role in bootup.
some detail on BIOS and trusted computing can be found here
http://www.marzenka.com/trusted_computing_bios.ht
There is conference related to this subject, checkout : http://www.pfir.org/meltdown People For Internet Responsibility (PFIR) is pleased to preliminarily announce an "emergency" conference aimed at preventing the "meltdown" of the Internet -- the risks of imminent disruption, degradation, unfair manipulation, and other negative impacts on critical Internet services and systems in ways that will have a profound impact on the Net and its users around the world.