Printable View
The evil empire is at it again.....
Source: ZD NET UKQuote:
A deal with BIOS maker Phoenix Technologies would allow the operating system to directly control hardware. It also raises concerns over who controls the software in PCs
Microsoft has expanded its relationship with BIOS maker Phoenix Technologies in a deal designed to more closely integrate the basic building blocks of the PC with the Windows operating system.
:borg: you will be assimilated :borg:
oh YIPPE......
we all better start a bussness fixing pc's
just think of all the little kiddies playing with this new tool...
changing settings and stuff... oh the shear joy of it all...
Nightfalls_Girl
*Moved from GCC*
Quote:
*Moved from GCC*
LOL.. and this could easily fit in the cosmos forum too..
"MS WANTS TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD" headlines in the daily rags.. :rolleyes:
they may as well try to control every other facet of our lives..
first the bios control.. then the whole mobo.. (only works on registered products) then flood the market these mobo's with MS's version of Intel's chips.. which are the only chips that work. influence the memory makers and only MS's memory works on anything..
:eek: .. bill gates, the antichrist.. help us..
oh no.. I better take my meds now.. my conspiracy theory side of me is taking over my mind. ;)
Two things...
1. Hopefully, if this gets widespread attention, it'll cause a whole new round of antitrust suits against M$. Maybe this time one would succeed.
2. With all the vulnerabilities in Windows alone, imagine all the cool, new BIOS problems and other assorted insecurities people could have fun with. Ugh...
Time to switch completely to Linux while I still can...
alpha
Call Microsoft evil or whatever you like, but perhaps you should think for a moment why they are successful. Why are projects like this and Palladium allowed to happen?
Why? Because they keep giving the right answers to the questions that business, home computer users, the government, and copyright holders around the world keep asking. Not only do they keep giving the right answers... but they are the only company to be giving any answers at all.
As an IT manager Palladium is like a dream come true, and sure it'll effect my music piracy at home, but the very nature of Palladium makes that bypassable even once the Fritz chip is in full effect. the government loves it and so do copyright owners. The only people to bitch? Programming students that have no money or wannabe programming students that have no money. Those people wouldn't be happy about Windows doing anything so MS doesn't consider them. This move with Phoenix is looking like more foundational work toward Palladium plus a few other things that will simplify enterprise management.
catch
[ot] Aint language a funny thing..
in Australia It don't mean medication..Quote:
I better take my meds now..
my wife wet herself reading this one.. [/ot]
Very interesting future we currently have.. can Linux claw a better than 10% market share.. that is Sold in store installed in systems.. not d/l or free copies on old boxes.. if that happens then this future will be different.. if not .. we will overcome..
cheers
Sorry about that neg...i wasn't sure if it was considered security material worthy of being in the MS security thread.Quote:
:dunce:
Oh boy I can see it coming ~~~~~~ Welcome to bills burger can I take your order “yea I’ll have an Xp burger with an order of DOS fries.” Ok sir would you like tech support with that for 89cents more.
Or maybe NEWS at five “Los Angles was the victim of a DoS attack today when there was a new security hole found in the newest Microsoft car that allowed other users to gain control of your vehicle remotely. Bill gates himself said they are working on a patch that will prevent this in the future.”
:rolleyes:
continuing the conspiracy thread here...
If MS can't build secure software why should we allow them to fu<k with the firmware that controls our PC's hardware??!!!
...waiting for the next BIOS Trojan courtesy of shitty MS software... :eek:
err, I'm an "vocabulary-challenged idiot!" :dunce:... I meant "continuing the cynicism theme here..."Quote:
continuing the conspiracy thread here...
Man I need my caffeine...where's my damn Dew.
Sorry about that AOers.
What quote are you talking about Nightfalls Girl???Quote:
we all better start a bussness fixing pc's just think of all the little kiddies playing with this new tool...
I agree catch...thats why Microsoft and Bill Gates r so successful...cuz they know how to run a big business. I also agree though that there r so many holes in there software windows should be made illegal. But thats also due part to it being so popular...they're programmers could do a lil better though.
Look through the exploit archives and take note of a few things:Quote:
I also agree though that there r so many holes in there software windows should be made illegal.
1. Nearly ALL Windows NT line exploits can be resolved via correct configuration. (though code patching is made availible for simplicity sake)
2. Nearly all Linux/UN*X exploits require code patching.
3. Configuration issues are rarely reported as exploits in Linux/UN*X land because there is no uniformity of configuration.
What does this say to you? To me it says that although Linux/UN*X code may be better, their architecture (especially Linux) tends to be inferior and the systems cannot protect themselves from application level exploits as well as NT can.
With the advent of Palladium this will be even more true.
Is NT a secure system? No.
Is any Linux/UN*X a secure system? No.
Do secure systems exist? Yes.
Should people who live in glass houses stop throwing stones? ...
catch
dear catch...
the question is purly ethical... while the M$ can, has and will look at linux/BSD or any other source whenever they want and patch/improve/clone and copy it into their own software... while linux & co. has to stand on its own...
the reason there are not many code/app exploits in win. is simply because nobody ever sees the source... (i wonder what could the russian hackers do w/ it)
the reason there are not many config. problems w/ *nix is that ppl who use it for bussiness know what the **** they are doing... (not MCSA's)
anyway .. no matter how good the M$ software is ... THEY DIDN'T MAKE IT ON THEIR OWN ... i don't understand how naive ppl can be to think that M$ (or any other big bussiness) will be ethical when it comes to open source (i bet you they have a division, analyzing every patch to linux kernel)
What question is ethical? I don't see an ethical dilema here at all. It is not like MS steals the source, the BSD/Linux people make it freely availible, so what is the problem? Also, Linux and BSD borrow concepts and code as well, what is this whole SCO thing about? This doesn't even consider concepts that BSD took from KSOS. Please learn your OS history a little better before throwing stones.Quote:
the question is purly ethical... while the M$ can, has and will look at linux/BSD or any other source whenever they want and patch/improve/clone and copy it into their own software... while linux & co. has to stand on its own...
Source code audits are perhaps the least efficient possible and should ONLY be used to ensure that a given module meets it's design criteria and NOT EVER, EVER, EVER for security. For example, Linux code can be completely bug free, but it uses an inferior architecture so it can never be secure as say Win98 running on top of KSOS. And Russian hackers are nothing special, and they all choke when it comes to TOSes.Quote:
the reason there are not many code/app exploits in win. is simply because nobody ever sees the source... (i wonder what could the russian hackers do w/ it)
Like when apache.org was rooted via FTP, Apache, mySQL, and Bugzillia misconfigurations all on the same system? No, they are not considered exploits because there are so many different flavors with different default configurations so no universal setting exists.Quote:
the reason there are not many config. problems w/ *nix is that ppl who use it for bussiness know what the **** they are doing... (not MCSA's)
First off MS has made many things and I have attached the development history of Windows for your benefit. Also, Windows uses a superior microkernel architecture not that monolithic 1970's crap that Linux uses so I can assure you they do not care what Linux kernel patches come out.Quote:
anyway .. no matter how good the M$ software is ... THEY DIDN'T MAKE IT ON THEIR OWN ... i don't understand how naive ppl can be to think that M$ (or any other big bussiness) will be ethical when it comes to open source (i bet you they have a division, analyzing every patch to linux kernel)
catch
You're missing the point. This isn't a debate on the relative merits of operating systems,Quote:
What question is ethical? I don't see an ethical dilema here at all.
but whether the PC should become a proprietary machine, only able to run "approved"
software and handle "approved" data. It's all about digital rights management
and copy protection, and dumbing down the PC so that it is nothing more than a TV
:cool:
doesn't this mean people will start making viruses that can flash your BIOS and completely erase it or replace it with a custom message this is awful
no I am not, my "What question is ethical? I don't see an ethical dilema here at all." was in reply to "the question is purly ethical" so if anyone is missing the point... yeah...Quote:
You're missing the point.
And again this is the answer that bussines want, copyrights need to be protected, otherwise why do they exist?
catch
has anyone got a date on this
I do not USUALLY get in these pissing matches, but ...
Everyone has their favorite OS, and they probably have their reasons. I like and use M$ products as well as Linux, and yes, AIX: they each have their pluses and minuses.
For security purposes I think the OS should be separate from the BIOS. Period. ( but then again, I don't like being able to flash a BIOS without having to first physically change a jumper )
Catch;
is that what Apple thinks? How about Netscape ? SUN? Where did the mouse come from ? How do the people at FreeBSD feel? What the hell was that about Vbs??Quote:
It is not like MS steals ...
Etc., etc., etc.
How about following the terms of the license??Quote:
...the BSD/Linux people make it freely available, so what is the problem?
I guess everyone puts in their design criteria that there should be no buffer overruns and this IS checked, but not for security reasons ??Quote:
Source code audits are perhaps the least efficient possible and should ONLY be used to ensure that a given module meets it's design criteria and NOT EVER, EVER, EVER for security.
That is why M$ is in the situation they are in, because they keep trying to make things simple without regard for the consequences.Quote:
This move with Phoenix is looking like more foundational work toward Palladium plus a few other things that will simplify enterprise management.
Catch, you steered the subject of the thread away from integrating the OS and BIOS to bashing everything and everyone who does not think M$ is “holier then though”.
Through this entire thread it sounds like you work for M$ and/or Phoenix Technologies and are trying to justify and protect your job.
Or did your nephew put a keylogger on YOUR computer ???
IKnowNot, clever use of quotes (well not clever, what is the word... immature), like where I talk about MS not stealing from BSD/Linux and you throw up Apple and Netscape and many other unrelated items.
And following the terms of the license? The Linux/BSD code will not transfer directly to MS (completely different architecture, remember?), and the license doesn't cover ideas. (many of which the BSD/Linux people stole from other OSes)
I can see that you've never designed a non ad hoc software project, so yeah... that'll be a dead end.
My original thread on this was stating how this step is a critical part of the Palladium plan and everything there after was response to stupid, illogical comments. Like this one:
Which explains why all of the most secure systems: XTS-300, SMG, SecureOS, LOCK, and AITS (all of which target the TCSEC's A1 criteria, with XTS-300 having eventually fallen as low as B3) all use bios integration? Perhaps you should learn a little more about trusted systems design before you open your mouth. In fact I cannot think of a single high security system that does not have a completely integrated relationship with it's specific hardware (KSOS and pSOS are notable exceptions, but in their design guidelines it was stated that that such a relationship would be required for them to work as intended and like the other system I mentioned, they would lose assurances if they were run on any other hardware.)Quote:
For security purposes I think the OS should be separate from the BIOS. Period.
Again, as my original post stated
I have no idea what you are talking about with keyloggers so I'll just assume it was an ill fated attempt at humor.
catch
PS. I see not a single one of you downloaded the document I was so nice as to share, I guess this explains the ignorance.
It isn't a matter of ignorance vs knowledge, but a matter of opinion.Quote:
I guess this explains the ignorance.
In my opinion, the integration of Microsoft Windows with the PC BIOS
would not be in my best interest.
Look at Apple Computer. The reason so many consumers steer clear
of the Mac is because the total integration of hardware and software
gives Apple total ownership of the Mac user. Why does a Mac
cost so much more than a pc?
The last time someone tried a power grab like this was when IBM
introduced the PS/2. Was in better? Yes. Did it sell? No, because it
was totally IBM proprietary, and people didn't want to be owned
by IBM. We don't want to be owned by Microsoft either. We want
hardware that gives us a choice of OS, and that is what
we will spend money on.
That is why Palladium, and all other such "trusted computing"
initiatives are doomed to crash and burn.
:cool:
Then I guess you have nothing to worry about.Quote:
That is why Palladium, and all other such "trusted computing" initiatives are doomed to crash and burn.
But to say that hardware integration is not a part of high security systems is an ignorant comment. At the end of the day, computers are purely binary logic, the only ones holding opinion are those with not enough knowledge of fact.
While your opinion may be that it is not best for you, the fact of the matter is that no one else has given a better answer to all the questions on the table that are answered by this integration.
Here is my standpoint on this, Intel and AMD are both on board, so are IBM, HP, and Microsoft. This means, it will be a reality... so you'd better get used to the fact, this isn't some Microsoft "power grab." You have two real choices, you can fight here and on other message boards accomplishing nothing or you can accept the fact and research the project to discover it's strengths and weakness and develop an approach to dealing with this inevitability. Since I am burdened with a job that requires my making decisions about such things so natually I choose the latter. As for you, the choice is yours... however rather than arguing opinion, I think you all would be a little better off with a few more facts under your belt on the subject.
catch
Heres one for ya i was involved with a company that built an autoresolution technology,we were the only ones in the world with it.Now Amazingly Microsoft has the same technology,They must be incredibly smart to read our minds and get the "autoresolution"design.lol i will leave that thought with ya all
Bullies always try to claim that their ascendency is inevitable, butQuote:
develop an approach to dealing with this inevitability.
none of this stuff is inevitable. It only has a chance if it is forced
upon us by law. And, in fact, they want government to mandate
some kind of DRM requirement in hardware. This would dovetail nicely
into their hopes of destroying all alternative OSs like Linux.
In the end the market will decide, as long as we still have
a market. Meanwhile, it is perfectly appropriate for us to treat it
as a political issue, rather than a technological one.
:cool:
This scares me.....It's like big brother, on your BIOS........."We are watching..........."
What a narrow viewpoint.Quote:
This would dovetail nicely into their hopes of destroying all alternative OSs like Linux.
This is why Linux is losing and is going to lose. You try to make everything that MS is so awful and they just want to destroy Linux.
This isn't about Linux, not now, not ever. It is not even about AMD, HP, and IBM. (all of which are Linux supporters yet have signed on with the TCG) It is about the fact that like the dot com flash in the pan, the current way of managing digital rights and copyrighted material is handled. People had a lot of fun stealing whatever they could and the laws were wishy washy enough to allow it to happen, but big business has decided that that era needs to come to an end.
The number of players here go well beyond Gates v Torvalds. Nearly every company in the country would be aided by this as a more efficient manner to control use of their computer systems and proigation of their copyrighted materials. The RIAA and MPAA are behind it, so is not only the American government but many other governments world wide. The only people to be hurt by this are the people who wish to continue stealing material. And sadly enough they have a pretty lame lobby.
I am not sure that you, any of you understand the full benefits of this... no more viruses and trojans, no more pirated software, no more pirated movies and music, system administrators jobs get much simpler. On the other hand, blockbuster.com could rent movie digitally and when it expires it deletes itself. Companies can lease software more effectively which can lower costs dramaitcally and reduce monatary barriers to entry in assorted industries. Companies can more finely control data access, read but no print, print to X printers, but not Y printers or email, etc etc.
If linux was smart they'd get on board... otherwise... what processor are you gonna use? Intel and AMD will eventually have the fritz chip embedded very deeply.
But really, please stop being so simplistic and trying to just blame Microsoft. They are just providing an answer to a question that the open source community has remained silent on... a potentially fatal mistake...
catch
They're providing an answer to a problem that doesn't exist. They want theQuote:
They are just providing an answer to a question that the open source community has remained silent on... a potentially fatal mistake...
'fritz" chip and all this other stuff because they don't want us to have
computers at all.
All of the stuff that these copyright holders have for sale is just "consumer
content" that could be presented by "consumer digital devices"
like TVs, word processor machines, game machines, or communication
machines, nicely packaged and marketed to supply yesterday's
hot apps.
The real revolution in computing came when they reached the level
where you could not just run some software supplied by
the high and mighty, but your machine is now powerful enough
and flexible enough to write and compile software on it.
This is what the DRM advocates want to take away, the open architecture
that makes a computer a computer and not just a game box
or a DVD player. No, it's not just about Linux, it's about the future
of the personal computer, and whether we will accept some crippled
gadget in its place.
And really, who gives a damn about their copyrighted content?
If they don't want people to copy it they should STFU
and get real jobs.
:cool:
Wow, ok then... not much left to say beyond...Quote:
And really, who gives a damn about their copyrighted content? If they don't want people to copy it they should STFU and get real jobs.
have fun "keepin' it real."
catch
Really, you don't propose outlawing the printing press just becauseQuote:
Wow, ok then..
it could potentially be used to illegally print someone else's content.
Why should content owners propose severely crippling computer hardware
to protect their useless movies and barbaric music. Then you are surprised that
I get passionate and angry at them. They are the ones that are way out
of line. Why should I pay for someone else's illegal copying
by being forced to give up the benefits of an open hardware design?
:cool:
rcgreen
nicely put!Quote:
Really, you don't propose outlawing the printing press just because
it could potentially be used to illegally print someone else's content.
CATCH
I'm glad you like my use of quotes, here are a few more:
Let's get back to that one later.Quote:
My original thread on this was stating how this step is a critical part of the Palladium plan and everything there after was response to stupid, illogical comments. Like this one:
"For security purposes I think the OS should be separate from the BIOS. Period. "
Yes, you are correct, I do not know much about these systems. Please enlighten all of us.Quote:
Which explains why all of the most secure systems: XTS-300, SMG, SecureOS, LOCK, and AITS (all of which target the TCSEC's A1 criteria, with XTS-300 having eventually fallen as low as B3) all use bios integration? Perhaps you should learn a little more about trusted systems design before you open your mouth.
XTS-300, Wang's Unix-like Secure Trusted Operating Program
The Logical Coprocessing Kernel (LOCK) through which SMG ( SNS Mail Guard ) came about. On what systems did this run ??Quote:
The new XTS workstation is the first such system to run on standard PC hardware. It carries the Wang label and is built on an Intel Corp. 486 50-MHz DX2 processor and commodity PC parts.
SecureOS based on Linux ??
Oh, and lets not forget TCSEC's A1 criteria
Cost Profile of a Highly Assured, Secure Operating SystemEtc.Quote:
Project participants noted that formal methods provided a discipline, structure, and system wide perspective to the software design of both projects which helped identify and eliminate numerous potential flaws as designs initially evolved. Nonetheless, the overall experience casts serious doubt on the cost effectiveness of A1 formal assurance.
These systems you so BOLDLY mentioned seem to run on systems which inherently do NOT allow access to the the BIOS.
So what was your point ?? How did they get around the built in safe guards ?
Back to my “ stupid, illogical comments” Many of the systems which ran your “most secure systems” used at the time jumpers which prevented ANY alterations to the BIOS by programs. And that WAS and IS my point!!
Here again I disagree; this is a narrow minded, self serving, stupid, illogical comment. ( you're the expert on statements like this, did I get that right ? )Quote:
The only people to be hurt by this are the people who wish to continue stealing material. And sadly enough they have a pretty lame lobby.
For the record, I do not download music ( except occasionally some sample clips provided by the artists, like Douglas Yeo ) I do not use pirated software, and I do not spread around my purchased versions of copywrited software with others, nor do I condone such things. I do use Freeware, I do try Shareware ( and have made contributions to some, those that I continued using, even purchased full versions ). To the best of my ability I try to adhere to the licensing agreements.
Maybe I am in the minority. But you would remove MY freedom because there are others that would abuse the system, and/or because it would make your job easier.
I have seen what government entities, left unchecked, will do with peoples' freedom. This intigration of the BIOS and the software could allow others to control ( censor ) everything I do on MY computer.
What would be a better approach would be for those that are making the money off the Internet be held more responsible for how they secure it and one's freedom. That includes hardware, software, and provider venues. It will also require some degree of intelligence! Gee, can we legislate this ??
i believe the riaa is the recording industry association of AMERICA and mpaa is motion picture association of AMERICA So how does this relate to other governments??? Just a question.Quote:
Originally posted here by catch
The RIAA and MPAA are behind it, so is not only the American government but many other governments world wide.
First of all this crap is nothing new. About a year ago I bought a Toshiba laptop w/ my hard-earned money. I was looking forward to installing OpenBSD & Debian on it. Imagine my surprise when I realized that I had no access to BIOS. The only CD that would boot on MY new computer was the OEM XP recovery CD. (Which of course I paid for)
http://www.condorito.org/toshiba/
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hwdev/.../legacyIO.mspx
I returned the laptop the next day for a full refund. The guy in Customer Service in CompUSA actually knew what Linux was and he was completely helpful. As a matter of fact I will write a letter/e-mail to Toshiba about this because of you, dear Catch.
I am a fan of Open Source and, you are absolutely right, I hate M$. I mostly use Win2k, which is pirated copy. Before you go off, I can assure you that since the “laptop fiasco”, if I didn't have this pirated copy, I would NOT pay for it. First of all I don't have that kind of money and second it's not worth it.
BUT, Windows is easy to use and why should a doctor (for example) learn to set up a Debian box. (Which I do have).
I am not a information technology historian. I love the new developments in technology but in my everyday use I don't give a **** if Linux kernel is monolithic 70' crap instead of the "edgy" microkernel, and I know enough about OS community to safely assume that they ARE working on it.
The bottom line is that Microsoft does what is good for Microsoft. They will only innovate when it benefits them financially. This monopolistic approach is simply not healthy for information technology and the whole humanity. Open source is free. Stallman’s, Torvalds’ and other’s work has benefits the whole world. And they all have my respect. (In a true old school hacker spirit) That’s why I will always support Open Source. As I said before. M$ … kiss my ass. I will not give my money to any of you. No matter how “good” your software is. There are bigger things at stake here.
""As I said before. M$ … kiss my ass. I will not give my money to any of you. No matter how “good” your software is. There are bigger things at stake here.""
ur right man ............ y should I pay 200+ for a system that I get for free a system that will give me even more stability & controle........
as I c most M$ defenders come from the Us & as I think they have alot of cash...... so they have the ""privaliges"" to own a PC with licenced products.......
I dont have alot of CAsh...... hell all I have now is 10$... I dont work for a corporation.
All I am is a student I have a pc home, I have intrest in programin...... ::tell me how can I afford VB+:: any way here in lebanon any CD is 1$ in ur face M$ & copy rights...
I have made some progs & i have no problem for some 1 taking the code.........& improving it
U ppl in america are so hiporitical...... U wer anti - communist : as in "1" ruling party ,but pro M$ the "1" OS for the pc ::... ur all about freedome while ur president .... said " ....there must be a limite to freedome".......
just for the record... i live in New York and I'm not from Latvia but Czechoslovakia... still I will not support and perpetuate Corporate monopoly like M$, Look at McDonalds... they huge and succesfull company but you don't see them trying to prevent you from going to Mam & Pop restaurant next door. Yeah, they bombard you w/ advertising but you STILL HAVE A CHOICE. Do you think that I would take my little sister there if they were trying to shove big mac's down my throat. So anytime I see somone post something like: "Accept it! It's inevitable" propaganda, it gives me a warm feeling that I can give away copies of W2000 to my friends for FREE...
My Toshiba (5100) wont allow me in on my bios, but pressing the F12 key will give me a "boot device selection" screen..Quote:
Originally posted here by etruscan
First of all this crap is nothing new. About a year ago I bought a Toshiba laptop w/ my hard-earned money. I was looking forward to installing OpenBSD & Debian on it. Imagine my surprise when I realized that I had no access to BIOS. The only CD that would boot on MY new computer was the OEM XP recovery CD. (Which of course I paid for)
So no problems installing linux (slack) at all..
To get back on the topic of M$ bios..
c0bra touched the subjectThere allready was one of those virii (CIH) a couple of years ago.. cost me a moboQuote:
doesn't this mean people will start making viruses that can flash your BIOS and completely erase it or replace it with a custom message this is awful
But why care if ONE (1) company is willing to make M$ only bios..
There are a couple of mobo manuefacturing companies allready shipping linux with their product.
Even full system builders are starting to "give" linux with their products (as opposed to selling Windows with it)..
Well so far for my lame (drunk) input
No, not nicely put, who said anything about making anything illegal? You're both letting your own delusions run away with you.Quote:
"Really, you don't propose outlawing the printing press just because
it could potentially be used to illegally print someone else's content."
nicely put!
You ask me to enlighten you, and then splash whatever crap you were able to find on google in two minutes. Odd odd odd.Quote:
Yes, you are correct, I do not know much about these systems. Please enlighten all of us.
This is a very dated description, the STOP system runs on Pentium IIIs in it's latest incarnation and uses physically segregated memory among other things. Control of the bios simplifies this level of memory management.Quote:
XTS-300, Wang's Unix-like Secure Trusted Operating Program
quote:
The new XTS workstation is the first such system to run on standard PC hardware. It carries the Wang label and is built on an Intel Corp. 486 50-MHz DX2 processor and commodity PC parts.
andQuote:
The Logical Coprocessing Kernel (LOCK) through which SMG ( SNS Mail Guard ) came about. On what systems did this run??
Ah another sign of your ignorance. You posted a link to a document that discusses all of LOCK, SMG, and SecureOS... you posted links but you didn't read the document. Why don't you go back and actually read it? You'll know what systems they run on and that SecureOS is not Linux related.Quote:
SecureOS based on Linux ??
This just says they are not economical, which is an interesting statement from the company that distributes the fruits of such an attempt. They are however very very secure, which is what you were talking about.Quote:
Oh, and lets not forget TCSEC's A1 criteria
Cost Profile of a Highly Assured, Secure Operating Systemquote:
Project participants noted that formal methods provided a discipline, structure, and system wide perspective to the software design of both projects which helped identify and eliminate numerous potential flaws as designs initially evolved. Nonetheless, the overall experience casts serious doubt on the cost effectiveness of A1 formal assurance.
Note the utter lack of statements about cost.Quote:
"For security purposes I think the OS should be separate from the BIOS. Period."
If you read the documents, they do not allow USER access to the bios, but the OS is tightly integrated with it.Quote:
These systems you so BOLDLY mentioned seem to run on systems which inherently do NOT allow access to the the BIOS.
No your comment was "For security purposes I think the OS should be separate from the BIOS. Period." And the systems in question have a tight integration with the bios. Please stop trying to jump your argument from here to there.Quote:
Back to my “ stupid, illogical comments” Many of the systems which ran your “most secure systems” used at the time jumpers which prevented ANY alterations to the BIOS by programs. And that WAS and IS my point!!
What freedoms do you lose? You are just looking for something to be pissy about, thinking stuff is illegal or people are taking your rights away, neither of these things are true. These Palladium based products will be released, and how are they different than say Mac products? How are they different than buying high end servers from say HP, SUN, or IBM, some of those situations like HP-VV you are not even allowed to maintain your system. Why don't you complain about these as well?Quote:
Maybe I am in the minority. But you would remove MY freedom because there are others that would abuse the system, and/or because it would make your job easier.
Again how can it be a lose of freedom if you are buying into it? You are buying that product's functionality, if you don't like it stick to transmeta processors or whatever. You argument seems to be that you are mad your pillow won't play DVD's and its inability to infringes on your freedoms. This is of course absurd because when you purchased the pillow, you knew it wouldn't play DVDs, so how is this any different?
If you actually think that, then you really again need to do more research. This will ALLOW you to ALLOW them to do things, and you would only ALLOW them if it was made worth your while, but again, no one is forcing it down your throat.Quote:
I have seen what government entities, left unchecked, will do with peoples' freedom. This intigration of the BIOS and the software could allow others to control ( censor ) everything I do on MY computer.
You keep forgetting, companies don't want things to be secure, or of top quality... why do you think that A1 stuff is so cost prohibitive? Because they can never sell enough to make the money back, because people don't want that. They want security they can understand, like virus protection and firewalls. People want freedoms they can understand, like the ability to play legally purchased movies and music on their systems, as well as encrypting things they want to protect. This is basically all your average consumer wants.Quote:
What would be a better approach would be for those that are making the money off the Internet be held more responsible for how they secure it and one's freedom. That includes hardware, software, and provider venues. It will also require some degree of intelligence! Gee, can we legislate this ??
Your average company wants to be able to lease software, simplify system managemnt, and have better protections against unwittingly being involved in copyright violations.
You average media company wants to protect it's assests, to offer free trials that don't bite them, and to rent media digitally.
Answer all of these questions better than Palladium and you'll be rich. Sit and bitch about freedom and watch yourself get ignored.
catch
Ow and another thing..
seeing the way Xbox-Linux is going, whatever they invent, the OSS community will find a way around it..
So even on that "Microsoft bios" I am sure you can still run linux/bsd without too much of a hassle !!
Catch this is going nowhere. I'll KISS it for you.
First:What link were you referring to? You want to talk about links, then ok. How about the link to that totally useless attachment you have in your third post!! An outline to a presentation. That supplied no useful information unless perhaps you attended the presentation, certainly no useful information to a reader here. Did YOU read it?Quote:
You posted a link to a document that discusses all of LOCK, SMG, and SecureOS... you posted links but you didn't read the document
Yes, that is a question. What version of SecureOS are you talking about. Did it not run on BSD and was also ported to Linux ? Or am I wrong about that too ?Quote:
SecureOS based on Linux ??
I ask for enlightenment, you give useless opinion with no substance.
You brought up these other systems, not me.
My question put more simply:
How did these systems you referred to use bios integration that would correspond to the type integration which Palladium, apparently now named “Next Generation Secure Computing Base” (NGSCB), and DRM will use ?
Instead of ranting and calling people ignorant how about trying to educate and teach.
Instead of spewing forth attitudes how about offering facts so readers have something to form their own opinions from.
How is this integration going to help my 70+ year old mother ?
How about my 80 year old father-in-law who uses a couple of custom made databases by small companies with 10,000 plus entries? And more to the point of this thread, will it hurt them?
And last, in keeping with the theme of this site:
COULD this new technology be be misused or corrupted by anyone ( be it government, corporation, virus writer, whatever ) to harm, damage, censor, or otherwise infringe on the rights and privacy of ANY individual?
Unless you or someone else can answer the above questions satisfactorily I will not purchase nor will I recommend to anyone else they purchase any device or software with NGSCB or CSS within, I don't care who is “behind” it.
( KISS “Keep It Simple Stupid” )
http://www.securecomputing.com/pdf/lockcost.pdfQuote:
What link were you referring to?
That link, that you posted which discusses the architecture and hardware integration involved in LOCK, SMG and the evolution of SecureOS, which runs Secure Computing's Sidewinder G2 firewall. Don't you read the documents you post?
Yes, I did read it and it nicely demonstrates the evolution of windows security and how themes and ideas are shared among systems and which ideas (primarily from Secure and later Trusted XENIX) were unique to Microsoft products. I did not attent any such presentation and the data there in should be easily understood by any student of computer security.Quote:
You want to talk about links, then ok. How about the link to that totally useless attachment you have in your third post!! An outline to a presentation. That supplied no useful information unless perhaps you attended the presentation, certainly no useful information to a reader here. Did YOU read it?
This is a little murky to the layman... essentially SecureOS is a kernel that can run linux or BSD work alikes ontop of it, but since the kernel is different it is not in fact Linux/BSD, though I can see how this would be confusing since it is often written as "A secure BSD." Due to the very architecture of BSD/Linux they can never be the basis of high security, high assurance systems. The very core feature of a trusted operating system is the microkernel, which neither the BSD line (modular kernel) or Linux (monolithic kernel) offer.Quote:
Yes, that is a question. What version of SecureOS are you talking about. Did it not run on BSD and was also ported to Linux ? Or am I wrong about that too ?
Useless because you fail to read, you just wish to argue, again you failed to comprhend either document in question and you have made it very apparent that you fail to comprehend the YCG guidelines as well.Quote:
I ask for enlightenment, you give useless opinion with no substance.
Yes, I did as examples of secure systems that utilize hardware/bios integration. Is the logic here still in question in your mind?Quote:
You brought up these other systems, not me.
You may recall that I did not say LOCK and AITOS, and XTS-300 are just like Palladium, I stated them in a response to: "For security purposes I think the OS should be separate from the BIOS. Period." Which is a blantant inaccuracy and casts a shadow of doubt on everything else you say.Quote:
How did these systems you referred to use bios integration that would correspond to the type integration which Palladium, apparently now named “Next Generation Secure Computing Base” (NGSCB), and DRM will use ?
Firstly, since when did it become my job to educate you? Secondly my posts have been more or less devoid of opinion, just because I state something that is different than what you'd like to hear, does not make it opinion.Quote:
Instead of ranting and calling people ignorant how about trying to educate and teach.
Instead of spewing forth attitudes how about offering facts so readers have something to form their own opinions from.
I have already answered this question above with the discussion of rented digital media, and end to viruses, trojans, and simplistic remote administration (ISP can set your computer up for you) not to mention a vast improvement of plug and play hardware. No more install CDs or anything, literaly just plug it in. Grandma will be happy.Quote:
How is this integration going to help my 70+ year old mother ?
Perhaps you should read the TCG guidelines as you have so clearly not done. the system will still run all of these this, it will just break the system into two parts, much like NCSC B level systems do, only with less granularity (aka simpler) These parts or levels as it were will be decided as trusted and untrusted. Untrsuted software will still work, for example your pirated mp3s will work, so long as you use an untrusted player and have to click to accept that the untrusted player is exactly that and the untrusted player will not be able to make changes to trusted levels components. If you have trusted mp3 files, they however will not be playable with untrusted software. End result? All of your current media files and your 80 year old dad's DB files will all continue to work _exactly_ as they do now.Quote:
How about my 80 year old father-in-law who uses a couple of custom made databases by small companies with 10,000 plus entries? And more to the point of this thread, will it hurt them?
No more so than current systems, in fact less so than current systems. As it is now, web sites and streaming media servers can both spy on your cache and see where you've been. (I have documents on this if you are interested) these media attacks will be a thing of the past. The only abilities you'll lose will be to share trusted media. Keep in mind, these abilities can all be disabled as well. It is the goal of the TCG to make this so desirable that people want it. As it is, businesses and novice home users have the most to gain. Users like you and I have the most to lose, which is why it is so important that we be educated in order to make the system (which will extend well beyond our home computers) work for us in a tolerable manner.Quote:
And last, in keeping with the theme of this site:
COULD this new technology be be misused or corrupted by anyone ( be it government, corporation, virus writer, whatever ) to harm, damage, censor, or otherwise infringe on the rights and privacy of ANY individual?
catch