PDA

View Full Version : Why does this scare me?



KingBahamut
August 29th, 2005, 07:57 PM
MicroSoft Vista's Secure Startup is primarily designed to prevent laptop thieves and other unauthorized users with physical access to a computer from getting access to the data on the system. Secure Startup uses a chip called the Trusted Platform Module, or TPM, which offers protected storage of encryption keys, passwords and digital certificates. Vista uses this capability to verify that a PC has not been tampered with when it starts up and to protect data through encryption.

For those who dont know -


The Trusted Computing Group, or TCG, develops and promotes open specifications. Computing industry vendors use these specifications in products that protect and strengthen the computing platform against software-based attacks. In contrast, traditional security approaches have taken a “moat” approach and are software-based, making them vulnerable to malicious attacks, virtual or physical theft, and loss.

Systems and applications based on Trusted Computing Group specifications can:

* Store keys, digital certificates, passwords and data securely in hardware
* Enhance network security
* Protect online commerce transactions
* Help protect against viruses, worms and other malicious attacks
* Protect digital identities
* Provide authentication between systems and networks
* Allow for single sign-on to systems
* Enable digital signatures for financial and other transactions
* Support regulatory compliance for Sarbanes-Oxley, HIPAA and other federal requirements

xequence
August 29th, 2005, 08:03 PM
Thats like a chip in the computer that makes sure only authorized software is used, right? Ive heard of it...

Something tells me it will be used to stop software piracy somehow...

newbie2
August 29th, 2005, 08:07 PM
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/003835.php

Heliode
August 29th, 2005, 08:11 PM
something tells me this thing is going to be hacked even before the official release, just like the feared Windows XP activation 'feature'.

sapo
August 29th, 2005, 08:18 PM
something tells me this thing is going to be hacked even before the official release, just like the feared Windows XP activation 'feature'.
same here :)

poofyhairguy
August 29th, 2005, 08:20 PM
Trusted computing is a funny term. The way I see it, it does not mean that you-the user- can now trust your computer. It means that the companies can trust that you won't do things they don't like with your computer:

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

Kvark
August 29th, 2005, 09:18 PM
I think trusted computing will mean that it is possible to be sure about exactly what software is running on the computer. A home user will be able to check so only programs he/she trusts are ran on the computer. A company will be able to check all computers that connect to their network to make sure only programs the company tusts are running on them. An online game or streaming music service will be able to make sure no cracked versions or untrusted music players/recorders are running on the computers that connect to the service. A government will be able to check all programs that connect to the internet from within it's borders to run only government approved software.

It will probably be used for any and all of these things, at least somewhere in the world.




I think the reason the encrypted data part you mention here scares you is... All your music could be encrypted and you get the keys from apple's online service only after confirming to them with trusted computing that you are not running any program that could resave the music without the encryption.

That opens up for renting music on a monthly fee, per hour you listen in general or depending on how many times you listen to specific songs (and the player requests key for that song). Electronic books, movies, games (charge per level or per retry perhaps) and programs could aslo be encrypted of course.

I am sure some online services will do this and some of the "hottest" music/movies/games/etc will be available only in encrypted form. But I am also sure there will be alternatives, at least to those who don't neccessarily need the latest and most hyped hollywood & MTV stuff.

mstlyevil
August 29th, 2005, 09:40 PM
It was only a matter of time before someone decided to put a security chip in a PC. Of course they sell it as a way to protect the consumer when in reality it will be used to monitor the type of software you run and prevent you from running what they consider illegal software or media content on YOUR PC. Microsoft and it's partners in he Movie television and Music industry have finally decided it was time to play Big brother.

poofyhairguy
August 29th, 2005, 09:52 PM
It was only a matter of time before someone decided to put a security chip in a PC. Of course they sell it as a way to protect the consumer when in reality it will be used to monitor the type of software you run and prevent you from running what they consider illegal software or media content on YOUR PC. Microsoft and it's partners in he Movie television and Music industry have finally decided it was time to play Big brother.

Its a triangle. Three big players: content companies (media and otherwise), IT companies (MS and hardware companies and otherwise) and bandwidth companies.

Till now, only one wanted this kind of stuff: content companies. But they didn't get their way obviously. So they went over to the IT industry and told them "we have always had better lobbyists than you (despite your larger size), so you better change your hardware and software or we will sick our pet politicians after you. And you can be sure their solution will hurt more than one you make." The IT industry took this threat lightly.......until they started to get more into content. Apple selling iTunes. Microsoft and its want of wmv as the standard. Intels in things like Xboxs. So they began to change.

The bandwidth companies refuse to play along. Simply refuse. Because they know that part of the very rapid broadband adoption is due to the cat coming out of the bag. Sure some people will buy it if legal channels are the only way...but...more will use it ifs its free. And the trick is that most people get it for that but don't do that much....get tired and.....don't use that much bandwidth. Its good deal for them.

Eventually either the media companies will force them to comply with their pet politicians (aka force them to limit their networks to trusted computers) or they will comply because they get a piece of the "pay as you go" action they have wanted from the begining as well.

KingBahamut
August 29th, 2005, 09:53 PM
The closer we get to Orwell's 1984, the less comfortable I feel. For those who dont know, Orwell wrote a book called 1984 (largely responsible for creating the concept of Big Brother) , .........In 1984, Winston Smith lives in London which is part of the country Oceania. The world is divided into three countries that include the entire globe: Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia. Oceania, and both of the others, is a totalitarian society led by Big Brother, which censors everyone’s behavior, even their thoughts. Winston is disgusted with his oppressed life and secretly longs to join the fabled Brotherhood, a supposed group of underground rebels intent on overthrowing the government. Winston meets Julia and they secretly fall in love and have an affair, something which is considered a crime. One day, while walking home, Winston encounters O'Brien, an inner party member, who gives Winston his address.........................

blastus
August 30th, 2005, 01:31 AM
I appreciate Ross Anderson and the concerns he raises about TCPA (incl. Fritz chip), Microsoft's NGSCB (a.k.a. Palladium), and DRM, he doesn't have the facts straight. David Safford, from IBM Research debunks some FUD about TCPA right here:

http://www.research.ibm.com/gsal/tcpa/tcpa_rebuttal.pdf

TCPA is not the same thing as Microsoft's NGSCB and DRM. TCPA will be GPL and Linux friendly while Microsoft's NGSCB will probably not be. What Microsoft does with TCPA and NGSCB doesn't directly affect us. However, I predict Microsoft will use NGSCB to lock out NGSCB-enabled applications and certain DRM-enabled media from being used in Linux. We can already see the precursor to this happening with Microsoft using techniques to prevent MS-Office from running on Wine and changing their license agreements to forbid their products to be run on anything but MS-Windows. I predict that Microsoft will use NGSCB to bind existing users of MS-Windows to MS-Windows even tighter making it much more difficult for them to switch to an alternative OS.

But we Linux users will still have the power of choice. We have the power to run what we want on our PCs and we will still have the freedom of choice to use GNU Linux and not use MS-Windows. We can boycott software vendors and entertainment industry providers by not purchasing or using NGSCB-enabled applications or DRM-enabled media. I predict the market will only be able to tolerate so much NGSCB and DRM Gestapo BS. But the problem is that the market is 95% MS-Windows and I'd say 95% of those users don't know enough to break away from that platform and Microsoft. Unfortunately these users form the mass majority and make it extremely easy for Microsoft to use NGSCB to force them to use whatever applications and media Microsoft wants them to.

Ubunted
August 30th, 2005, 01:39 AM
As much as I despise the very idea of DRM and Trusted Computing, I have to wonder if you're all being just a little paranoid here.

Laptops have been sorely lacking built-in hardware-based protection forever. A removal of the CMOS battery, a swap of the hard drive and it's a clean theft of your computer, if not your data as well.

Personally I like this idea. I seriously doubt Dell or Microsoft really give two sh**s about what kind of programs you run on your computer, and a hardware link to internet connections would be rather easy to spot methinks.

rolfotto
August 30th, 2005, 02:07 AM
The closer we get to Orwell's 1984, the less comfortable I feel. For those who dont know, Orwell wrote a book called 1984 (largely responsible for creating the concept of Big Brother) , .........

The concept of big brother predates Orwell and people feel it in varying degrees in any society where power rests with the few (most societies).

The French Revolution and the following "governments" that started the "terror" is probably one of the best historicaly examples of a "big brother" world (outside the 20th century) where people were guillotuined because of what they thought or their loyalties rather than anything they did. This was compounded by the changes the radicals tried (and did for a time) institute - like changing the calendar, abolishing Christianity, and many other traditional things just because they were traditional:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolutionary_Calendar

Anyway, Orwell's book came out in 1948 (1984 was just a reversal of last two digits) where he was trying to propagandize against the Soviet Union in a era of high anti-communism (not saying he was wrong, just stating a possible motivation). Also it came after Hitler showed by example what heights big brotherism can reach.

There was also "Brave New World" by Alduous Huxley published in 1932 which shares many of the themes (moreso) of Orwell's Book and might be more remarkable for it's pre-Hitler date:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060929871/qid=1125362847/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-1563149-0914325?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

But both books are preceded by Yevgeny Zamatin's 1921's "We" who Orwell admitted borrowing ideas from though Huxley never did. Zamyatin actually lived in Soviet Russia in the very first years of the revolution (started 1917) which overthrew the Tsar and started becoming a dictatorship. By 1920, Russian didn't even see the worst of communism under the relatively "peaceful" Lenin (Stalin and the purges in the 1930s). Zamatin was arrested several times for saying what he thought and eventually fled to France where his book got published in 1927. It was banned in Russia until 1988 because it was considered subversive:

The book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0380633132/qid=1125358974/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-1563149-0914325?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

More about the man:
http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/zamyatin.htm

blinksilver
August 30th, 2005, 03:44 AM
TPM is in alot of machines right now, my S460 has it, its just waiting for visita to set it free, saddly visita will never have a chance grace my HD.

rolfotto
August 30th, 2005, 04:39 AM
As much as I despise the very idea of DRM and Trusted Computing, I have to wonder if you're all being just a little paranoid here.

Laptops have been sorely lacking built-in hardware-based protection forever. A removal of the CMOS battery, a swap of the hard drive and it's a clean theft of your computer, if not your data as well.

Personally I like this idea. I seriously doubt Dell or Microsoft really give two sh**s about what kind of programs you run on your computer, and a hardware link to internet connections would be rather easy to spot methinks.

Please read this:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

And remember that generally that all thing that were intended for your "good" eventually were exploited.

Microsoft really does care what's running on your PC - as indicated in it's Linux attack ads - would they rather have you running XP and possibly buying more MS/MS_partner software or Ubuntu and not buying anything?

As if it's only preventing laptops being just "swiped clean" - why so elaborate then and not a simpler solution? What's preventing Trusted Computing stopping "non-trusted" apps from installing - like Linux?

And why does it make me more than uncomfortable that TrustedComputing can delete files off that computer that are deemed "untrustworthy" for a number of reasons?

If you don't want spyware - run a non-Windows system. If you don't want your laptop harddrive swiped clean by a thief - prevent it being stolen by minimizing public exposure and never leave it alone.

But please don't foist big brother on me. Those who trade in Liberty for Security deserve neither.

Brad wilkinson
August 30th, 2005, 10:04 AM
well we hav free software from GNU/Linux and others, so microsoft can do whatever they like, and we still have some alternative (i know I am ignoring their ability to put up walls you have to pay to get through for now).

For bandwidth, those who live in urban areas should be able to take advantage of public wireless mesh networking if the telco's start to get to medeval on our @ss about what we up/download. oh, so what is the bandwidth of a usb drive in a 17yr olds vw beetle? :)

the one we won't be able to overcome is big content. they own it, and they will always try to make people pay for it. you can't make a blockbuster in your backyard yet, it still takes millions, and will for a while to come. As for content that doesn't take that much to produce or has fallen into the public domain, well we can get that easy anyway.

trusted computing and DRM in general doesn't/won't figure big in my life, and I intend to keep it that way through the choices i make about the technologies I use.

end rant.

weekend warrior
August 30th, 2005, 12:31 PM
Originally Posted by KingBahamut
The closer we get to Orwell's 1984, the less comfortable I feel. For those who dont know, Orwell wrote a book called 1984 (largely responsible for creating the concept of Big Brother) , .........
These were official gov't posters (http://www.art-for-a-change.com/News/eyes.htm) that went up in London a few years back. Very very scary. 8-[

Heliode
August 30th, 2005, 03:19 PM
Did you hear they dropped the 'my' prefix from the icons on the desktop for Vista? For example, 'My Computer' is now called simply 'Computer'... When I thought about why they might make that change I came to realise that it, because of this 'trusted computing' stuff, no longer IS YOUR COMPUTER.
;)

mstlyevil
August 30th, 2005, 05:16 PM
Did you hear they dropped the 'my' prefix from the icons on the desktop for Vista? For example, 'My Computer' is now called simply 'Computer'... When I thought about why they might make that change I came to realise that it, because of this 'trusted computing' stuff, no longer IS YOUR COMPUTER.
;)

If Microsoft has their way (and Apple for that matter), you will NEVER own the software you bought. The price you paid is a rental fee. In effect if you no longer own the software, then the harware that depends on it does not belong to you. Without the software, the harware is nothing more than a glorified paper weight.

Luggy
August 30th, 2005, 06:08 PM
I don't think that A Brave New World fits with the TPCA thing very well. No one's freedom was really being censored or restricted, society just grew up differntly so there was nothing to rebel against.

Nineteen Eighty-Four fits in better because there are Thought Police monitoring what you are doing and you are unable do certain things without provoking unwanted attention. (I use 4096 bit encyrption because I can damnit! I'm not trying to blow up the pentagon!)

More back on track to the TPCA thing: There always is a little sugar with the medicine, the people who propose and support this believe (or what us to believe) that there is a greater good to be done by using TPCA and DRM and all that jazz. It's like saying that being in a constant state of war is better because it keeps the workers docile and content.

YourSurrogateGod
August 30th, 2005, 06:15 PM
Every time someone tries some sort of security feature, someone always breaks through.

Heliode
August 30th, 2005, 08:20 PM
There was also "Brave New World" by Alduous Huxley published in 1932 which shares many of the themes (moreso) of Orwell's Book and might be more remarkable for it's pre-Hitler date:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060929871/qid=1125362847/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-1563149-0914325?v=glance&s=books&n=507846



What I found very interesting personally, was "Brave New World Revisited", written by Huxley almost thirty years after "Brave New World" was published, in which he discussed wether or not the world had moved toward or away from the society he discussed in the original novel. To his horror he had to conclude that the world had moved toward it, and much, much faster than he had ever thought possible.

Haven't gotten around to reading 1984 though.