Vista to shutout other OS's

[mstlyevil]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26537

Microsoft is up to it again. They are going to try to stop dual booting. I hope someone will file a class action lawsuit against this crap.

[Goober]

Well, I have no plans to purchase Vista, and, if I can't dual-boot, then I am sure as heck not purchasing it anyway. Besides, when it comes out, I might have finally gotten CrossOver Office and Cedega/Wine working, so I might be completely Windoze-free anyway.

I am not a bit surprised by this, though. Not a bit. Typical M$ way of doing things.

[23meg]

TC itself will get lots of lawsuits in the near future. it's clearly against the trade laws of many countries.

all the questions asked in this article and the linked one (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26504) were clearly answered in ross anderson's TCPA faq (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html) a long time ago. now that the release date is close, we'll watch thousands of people start passively complaining about vista's monopoly enforcing and privacy breaching features, but the ugly picture had been laid bare long ago, and not many have acted upon it.

we may (actually, definitely will) just not use vista, but i'm deeply worried that TCPA might do much worse to FOSS than prevent it from being installed besides vista.

[weasel fierce]

Depending on how hardware manufacturers go with this, this could either be the biggest mistake in software history, or a really unpleasant thing

[23meg]

Depending on how hardware manufacturers go with this, this could either be the biggest mistake in software history, or a really unpleasant thing

i think it's going to be both :)

[poofyhairguy]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26537
Microsoft is up to it again. They are going to try to stop dual booting.

Let them try.

[manicka]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26537
Microsoft is up to it again. They are going to try to stop dual booting.

I don't that think will last long before someone hacks it. Anyway, if they force me not to dual-boot then I'd have to make the hard choice of kissing dual-boot goodbye forever and returning to windows ....not.

They just don't get it, do they. :cool:

[mstlyevil]

Do you notice how they are trying to sell it as a security feature? The article seemed to downplay vista locking out other os's and was almost apologetic for Microsoft. It just made me sick when I realized they were going to lock the MBR and say we did it for security reasons. How bogus is that argument. All it takes is a simple reprogramming of the administrator priviledges to lock out another drive or partition from viewing files. I hope the courts and the government does not fall for that line of bs.

[mstlyevil]

I don't that think will last long before someone hacks it. Anyway, if they force me not to dual-boot then I'd have to make the hard choice of kissing dual-boot goodbye forever and returning to windows ....not.
They just don't get it, do they. :cool:

No they do not. Most Linux users dual boot. To tell the whole Linux community to choose sides is just plain bad for bussiness. Most Linux users I know still use Windows for games and some work related stuff. I will stop using Windows on new computers when XP or 2000 goes bye bye.

[23meg]

I hope the courts and the government does not fall for that line of bs.

another reason governments and anyone who's the slightest bit security conscious shouldn't fall for it: your whole volume is encrypted, and the security key is held in the fritz chip, which can be probed online for software authenticity verification, and god (MS) knows what else. if the key is remotely deleted or tweaked, you lose, what, your whole hard disk! a hacker could do it, your system admin could do it, MS themselves could do it and governmental security agencies could do it. in short your data is no longer yours in this system; you're PWNT at the start.

[poofyhairguy]

I just thought of something:

Will this be the thing that gets the OSS community to really make Wine work well (or free virtualization out of the box)?

[PatrickMay16]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26537
Microsoft is up to it again. They are going to try to stop dual booting. I hope someone will file a class action lawsuit against this crap.
Sorry, but could someone copy and paste the article for me? For some annoying reason, it doesn't load for me. I think it's a problem on my end.

[pinoyskull]

no dual booting on VISTA? then my solution would be total migration to open-source OS :)

i hope game developers should port window based games to linux :rolleyes:

[GeneralZod]

TPM is supposed to be entirely opt-in, and has a few legitimate uses if you are a business or a government. For the ordinary home-user, though, the benefits are close to nil, and the potential drawbacks vastly outweigh any supposed advantages.

I would imagine that this feature can be disabled, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[23meg]

it will be possible to disable it, but if you disable it TC-enabled apps won't run. and upcoming versions of most major software on windows (macromedia, adobe, symantec, you name it) will be TC-enabled since their vendors have signed the TCPA. we don't have to wait and see, the protocol is clear.

[GreyFox503]

I read and re-read the passage a few times, and I think you're mis-interpreting it. It says:

Vista will support full volume encryption to prevent disk access to files by other operating systems

This doesn't say anything about dual-booting or the MBR. If I understand it correctly, this means that Vista will be able to encrypt the entire filesystem, thereby making it unreadable to other OS's. So much for data recovery with Knoppix...

It doesn't say they will prevent dual-boot. In fact it implies, by mentioning other OS's, that it WILL be able to dual-boot. They just don't want you to be able to see the files from within another OS.

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting this.

[Kvark]

Do you notice how they are trying to sell it as a security feature?
It is a security feature. It provides Microsoft with security against users who want to dual boot. Just like DRM is a security feature that provides record companies with security against users who want to rip their CDs. Security against the user is far more important for propriarity platforms then security for the user.

[Wolki]

It doesn't say they will prevent dual-boot. In fact it implies, by mentioning other OS's, that it WILL be able to dual-boot. They just don't want you to be able to see the files from within another OS.

Exactly what I read. I think dual-booters will just stop keeping FAT partitions to exchange data and use ext drivers for windows instead.

[bob_c_b]

These are all last ditch efforts on MS part to lock out other OSs, nothing more. Whether it be prevnting dual booting to "protect the file system" or DRM to "protect copyrights" what it really acts as is the ultimate attempt at vendor lock down. Want to listen to your legally purchased music files, no problem as long as you use our "approved" media player and file formats. Want to copy those files to a portable device, no problem as long at it complies to our formats. Want to copy your files to a new PC, sorry, you have made 3 copies of this file and exceeded your maximum number of attempts, this file will be locked due to copyright violation. Want to open that Word 97 .doc file, no problem but you will have to upgrade the file to our new, more secure Office 12 .doc format. What's that, you want to open this file on your old Windows 98/Office 97 PC, we're sorry, that version doesn't support DRM. You will have to buy a new PC with more recent software to continue.

DRM is evil and Vista is nothing more than a vehicle for stealthing DRM onto every users Windows box in the name of "security"; sadly, many people will fall for this. Time to stop sitting on the fence, if you are against software patents, DRM, Trusted Computing and the rest of this rubbish then act now. Start working on finding OSS replacement apps, if you find an app that is "almost" there then start participating in that apps development. If you can't code then help test new versions, make constructive suggestions, bug test new versions. There is an OSS replacement for almost everything, stop waffling and start working.

Every new thing we learn about Vista spells out more bad news for open standards and open source, help do something about it.

EDIT: I should also note, before someone might infer otherwise, I have no issue with commercial software of any software company making a buck. My issue is with subversion of open standards and forced upgrades via proprietary formats and vendor lock in. DRM is nothing more than that, otherwise MS, Apple, Sony, et al... would have worked on a public/open standard for DRM and you could move your files to any platform you chose.

[oddabe19]

hmmm....

fdisk /mbr

install-grub :-P

I think what's going to happen is this will be a blunder, but since only say 20% of the world would care anyway (linux users/etc....) the rest of the purchases don't know the difference anyway.

[23meg]

what bob said.. vista will enforce closed standards upon the unfortunately underinformed computer using majority, and we need to try our best at opposing this by providing alternatives.

but again unfortunately, hardware is getting closed-source as well. hell, even AMD has signed the TCPA. soon we'll be in the search for "open source hardware". take the following with a pinch of salt, but there's truth in it as well: people should run and grab the most cutting edge non-TPM motherboard and CPU they can nowadays and try to make do with it for as long as possible, since within six to twelve months the market will be dominated by TC-enabled hardware...

[bob_c_b]

what bob said.. vista will enforce closed standards upon the unfortunately underinformed computer using majority, and we need to try our best at opposing this by providing alternatives.

but again unfortunately, hardware is getting closed-source as well. hell, even AMD has signed the TCPA. soon we'll be in the search for "open source hardware". take the following with a pinch of salt, but there's truth in it as well: people should run and grab the most cutting edge non-TPM motherboard and CPU they can nowadays and try to make do with it for as long as possible, since within six to twelve months the market will be dominated by TC-enabled hardware...

I tend to agree with your idea, I plan to grab a spare mobo and CPU when non-TC stuff starts to take over. I also won't be suprised if the major mobo makers have some non-TC chipset boards at lower price points, ostensibly leaving out TC as a "cost cutting" option. Intel and AMD can sign on the TCPA all they want, I'll wager they will hedge their bets and try not to alenate all of their customers (and really TCPA really requires wide and fast adoption of Vista to be profitable), but I would aslo bet you wont' be able to get an non-TC enable PC at your local super store at some point next year. We can only hope that people will make the same stink about TC that was made about the PIII serial #s back when they first came out.

[Fortification_Spectra]

but hold on, in retail motherboards TPM activation is discretionary through the BIOS, no?

as far as i know, that white sapphire crossfire board is TPM compliant (edit = and discretionary), which for me is a great sigh of relief.

but before we keep bashing TC, it does have a lot of uses, and is a very powerful technology in some instances where it is desired, i.e corporate environments, in which i can expect acer business models and alike to be irreversibly set to DRM-enable.

[mstlyevil]

I read and re-read the passage a few times, and I think you're mis-interpreting it. It says:
This doesn't say anything about dual-booting or the MBR. If I understand it correctly, this means that Vista will be able to encrypt the entire filesystem, thereby making it unreadable to other OS's. So much for data recovery with Knoppix...
It doesn't say they will prevent dual-boot. In fact it implies, by mentioning other OS's, that it WILL be able to dual-boot. They just don't want you to be able to see the files from within another OS.
Correct me if I'm misinterpreting this.

They are not saying how far they are going to go but it does include "shutting out" other OSes.

IN A current INQUIRER news item, Microsoft Vista to shut out other OSes, the firm was quoted as saying that Vista will support full volume encryption to prevent disk access to files by other operating systems but that Microsoft is not entirely clear what this implies.

This is code that it will be much more restrictive than they are willing to say right now. Why are they not being open about the implications. There is something sinister going on here. Pc Stats, where I first found this article is taking it as not being able to dual boot. You have to read into it a little more to find their intentions.

[Qrk]

I've never liked all the anti-microsoft FUD. But this makes me that it might have been right all along. Thats a disturbing thought.

[bob_c_b]

but hold on, in retail motherboards TPM activation is discretionary through the BIOS, no?

as far as i know, that white sapphire crossfire board is TPM compliant (edit = and discretionary), which for me is a great sigh of relief.

but before we keep bashing TC, it does have a lot of uses, and is a very powerful technology in some instances where it is desired, i.e corporate environments, in which i can expect acer business models and alike to be irreversibly set to DRM-enable.

First, I hope you are correct, that retail box motherboards will allow this to be shut off.

Second, while those uses you mention in the corporate world might be great for marketing checklist, I don't buy it. If this was about corporate security then much of it could be managed via Group Policy Objects and MS Server side tools, etc... I have worked in a lot of different computing environments and with good admins and proper permissions data doesn't fall into the wrong hands. This has little to do with corporate computing, although a lot of really bad I.T. managers will see this as useful I will bet my spleen that implementation and actual usage are very low in those environments.

This technology is being designed and implemented specifically to supplant MS (and sadly other vendors) proprietary file formats and DRM as defacto standards. This is about locking your data down so you are beholden to MS and their upgrade cycle, while MS feeds at both ends of the trough by milking the MPAA and RIAA for cash all the while billing you for upgrades. MS has attempted to subvert WWW standards, altered their TCP/IP stack well outside of standards, pretty much monkey-wrenched Java's "write once/run anywhere" concept, attempted to pollute XML standards, lied about their programming languages and cross-platform compatability and withdrew from the OpenGL standards organization.

History is on the side of the paranoid people this time, TCPA is bad.

[programgeek]

"Well who cares about dual booting.. After you have vista you don't need ubuntu, or any other linux distrobution for that matter. Vista has it all."

Lol, there will be a work around, quit crying guys/geeks/zealots.

[Omnios]

Fudge I have no plan of getting vista as when I heard the leaked price of it I finaly commited to Linux. I have XP and will beat on it till its dead and unsupported, unfortunaatly from what I read on a ms site a long time ago it is going to be very much shorter than previos versions. Anyways what I am seeing and what is scarry is they are taking a direction and stating as such but not telling how much they twist and prevert it to fit there aganda to eliminate the thorn in there side called linux. Yes they call it a thorn in there side because it takes a piece of there market share yes they call it there market share, lastly Linux and others stop MS from doing what ever they want so if there doing all this something is very wrong or there up to something. There has to be more to it as there are all these little pieces that dont make sence so what gives, what is the bigger picture!

[transactionlogfiller]

Isn't that exactly what encrypted file system for Win XP does? - It prevents someone from installing a new OS (be it another Windows instance, or whatever) and getting admin access to your files. So if this isn't to prevent dual booting (and of course live CDs - can't have curious people trying out Linux - they might get a taste for it!) then it's hard to see what the point of it is.

I couldn't work where the article was going though. What was all that crap about file systems based on relational databases?

[bob_c_b]

Lol, there will be a work around, quit crying guys/geeks/zealots.

But isn't the point supposed to be that we don't need a work around? You pay for your PC and the right to use it as you see fit, not as MS sees fit.

Of course, for the many people the workaround already exist; Linux!

[Qrk]

Seeing how successful Microsoft was at keeping Linux off of the Xbox, I suppose we don't have too much to worry about. Still, locking out other OS's shouldn't be something Microsoft would even consider.

[Muhammad]

Linux works on Xbox, WTF? :confused:

[mstlyevil]

Isn't that exactly what encrypted file system for Win XP does? - It prevents someone from installing a new OS (be it another Windows instance, or whatever) and getting admin access to your files. So if this isn't to prevent dual booting (and of course live CDs - can't have curious people trying out Linux - they might get a taste for it!) then it's hard to see what the point of it is.
I couldn't work where the article was going though. What was all that crap about file systems based on relational databases?

The article was very pro microsoft. The fuzzy languange and the almost sickenly apologetic approach to the whole thing was maddening. I have never been anti-ms. I usually am not alarmist either. Things I have been reading lately about Vista is starting to steer me into that direction. I have been trying to find more about this, but there seems to be a lack of information right now.

[tageiru]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26537
Microsoft is up to it again. They are going to try to stop dual booting. I hope someone will file a class action lawsuit against this crap.
Really?

I saw _nothing_ in that article indicating that Microsoft wants to stop dual booting. All i saw was an attempt to fix an old security hole that should have been fixed ages ago.

[mstlyevil]

Really?
I saw _nothing_ in that article indicating that Microsoft wants to stop dual booting. All i saw was an attempt to fix an old security hole that should have been fixed ages ago.

Vista, The Only OS...
Wed: 09.28.05 | 2:08P | Web News | PermaLink
BY: C. SUN
This is an interesting read and might explain why Vista will not allow other OSes to be installed.

A current INQUIRER news item, Microsoft Vista to shut out other OSes, the firm was quoted as saying that Vista will support full volume encryption to prevent disk access to files by other operating systems but that Microsoft is not entirely clear what this implies.

Pc Stats seems to think it means no dual booting. This web site is a very pro MS website and they must have more information as to that effect. I have been trying to find more information using google and so far there is nothing that I have found on the subject. Microsoft is not being forthcoming on what shutting out other OSes will imply, so you have to assume that means no dual booting.

[tageiru]

Pc Stats seems to think it means no dual booting. This web site is a very pro MS website and they must have more information as to that effect. I have been trying to find more information using google and so far there is nothing that I have found on the subject. Microsoft is not being forthcoming on what shutting out other OSes will imply, so you have to assume that means no dual booting.
It seems very clear to me. Vista will encrypt its data as to prevent people from automatically have access to it if they aquire the hardware. A good solution to a real security problem, especially with laptops. In fact it is something i would like ubuntu to investigate further (i know some work was being done about disk encryption, but it was deferred until after breezy)

Besides, as an operating system Vista can not do very much about other operating systems on the computer. It is the realm of bootloaders.

"Shutting out other OSes" should be interpreted as disallowing them from taking control of the data that was previously housed by a Vista operating system.

[mstlyevil]

I think tech savvy geeks will have no problem getting around any type of lockout. The problem is all those average computer users who may want to dual boot might be locked out by the MBR and not know a way around it. It is the lack of information coming out of Redmond that worries me on this. What are they hiding and why?

[tageiru]

I think tech savvy geeks will have no problem getting around any type of lockout. The problem is all those average computer users who may want to dual boot might be locked out by the MBR and not know a way around it. It is the lack of information coming out of Redmond that worries me on this. What are they hiding and why?
Well newbies will certainly be pissed about not being able to read the data from their Vista installation. Apart from that, it will probably be the same as now.

The MBR is a _tiny_ block of bits. You can not really do anything exciting with it, much less keep other operating systems out.

[Brunellus]

putting GRUB on it is certainly exiting enough!

[tageiru]

putting GRUB on it is certainly exiting enough!
GRUB does not live in the MBR, nor does the Windows bootloader.

Thats why you can boot windows, even if GRUB is loaded.

[bob_c_b]

A good solution to a real security problem, especially with laptops.

What is mission critical data doing on an unsecured laptop anyway? This is not a good solution, it is a typical MS "baby with the bathwater" solution and makes little account for disaster recovery on the local machine (the current documentation makes little mention of how this will work).

[tageiru]

What is mission critical data doing on an unsecured laptop anyway?
Not just mission critical stuff, personal info that could be devastating if it went public.
This is not a good solution, it is a typical MS "baby with the bathwater" solution and makes little account for disaster recovery on the local machine (the current documentation makes little mention of how this will work).
Thats why we always do backups ;)

[23meg]

I've never liked all the anti-microsoft FUD. But this makes me that it might have been right all along. Thats a disturbing thought.
this isn't FUD; the TCPA specification is out in the open for all to see. it's up to you to decide if this is evil or not.

even though the motherboards will allow you to shut it like they allowed you to shut the P3 unique serial number (and yes, there was a bigger fuss about it than there is now against TCPA which is very sad), this time there's a difference: as i stated before, if you shut down TCPA at hardware or software level you won't be able to run TC-enabled windows apps, which for the majority of peope will defeat the purpose of running windows altogether. just google for the list of software vendors who have signed the TCPA to see what you'll be missing if you don't put Skynet online :)

[bob_c_b]

Not just mission critical stuff, personal info that could be devastating if it went public.
Thats why we always do backups ;)

You can't use the useful at a corporate level argument and then throw in "devastating personal data" as a supporting point. Your personal life does not belong on your work laptop. Your personal laptop does not need an encrypted file system that prevent you from getting at your data.

And as for backups, that plays into exactly what I said, no provision for disaster recovery has been documented. There is no valid support for this level of DRM on a local file system, this is simply vendor lock in.

[tageiru]

You can't use the useful at a corporate level argument and then throw in "devastating personal data" as a supporting point.
Thats why I do not make it a corporate level argument. Corporations do not have an exclusive on sensitive data.
Your personal life does not belong on your work laptop. Your personal laptop does not need an encrypted file system that prevent you from getting at your data.
I do think that my personal computer requires transparent encryption. There is things on it that i certainly would not like to share with the world.
And as for backups, that plays into exactly what I said, no provision for disaster recovery has been documented. There is no valid support for this level of DRM on a local file system, this is simply vendor lock in.
It is DRM which solves problems for customers and its level of vendor lock in is very limited. As long as closed vendor specific solutions do not propagate into the data structure layer I really do not have any objections.
And how about just doing backup without it being written in documents?

[GreyFox503]

The reason this is annoying is because it will deny computer users access to their own files. If Vista automatically encrypts their entire filesystem, then forget about using Knoppix to recover your data, or being able to play your music from within Ubuntu.

It just means that any data you store on your windows partition will only be accessable by going through Vista. One more way to make you dependent on their OS...

Yes, this may actually increase security. In the same way other technologies like the TPM make your computer "secure". If only "approved" software is allowed to run, then it may decrease the amount of malware. Of course, that's like locking your computer and then handing the key over to M$/Intel/MPAA/Whoever.

[Qrk]

Vista is Linux's (and Ubuntu's) chance to shine.
With Windows 2000 coming off of active support fairly soon, and people requiring new computers for the Vista interface, there are going to be a lot of quite nice Pentium threes out there just waiting for a supported, free operating system. Ubuntu to the rescue! When you know someone who is buying a new computer... ask them if you can help them with Linux on their old one.

Odds are they will be amazed. Gnome is still quite quick on a P3.

[occy8]

If I read it correctly windows is encrypting the windows partition(s) and if you are the owner you will have the key therefore you will be able to access the data from a liveCD, that is if it has TPM enabled
I maybe wrong but this is how I understand it.

Only problem will be dual boot because windows will check the bootsector and start to cry. Maybe it will be possible to teach it that this change is intended.

[blastus]

Windows Vista supports full-volume encryption to prevent disk access to files by other operating systems. It also stores encryption keys in a Trusted Platform Model (TPM) v1.2 chip. The entire system partition is encrypted-both the hibernation file and the user data. It also stores encryption keys in a Trusted Platform Model (TPM) v1.2 chip, if one is available on the PC.

The phrase "to prevent disk access to files by other operating systems" is very odd. It should be phrased "to prevent disk access to files by criminals." Microsoft does not control the TCPA. That is not to say though that they will not use the TCPA to prevent other operating systems from coexisting with Windows. However, if they wanted to they could have done that with XP--just scan all partitions on all drives and look for the presence of any non-Windows partitions, and if found do not boot Windows.

Imagine the antitrust litigation against Microsoft if they decided to take such a measure. They would be banned from selling in the EU permanently. Anyway, IBM is also involved in the TCPA. They have a driver for the "Fritz" chip licensed under the GPL (http://www.research.ibm.com/gsal/tcpa/) that you can download.