If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Intel corp: computer OWNERS are the ENEMY and we must protect ourchips from them.
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/06/2132247
(notice that they call the locked down execution part "TXT". I don't trust anyone who has to resort to [W][O][R][D][G][A][M][E][S] to try to sneak stuff like this under the public radar. From the same page http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?s...7&cid=26351915 I am a programmer, and in particular I have studied the Trusted Platform Technical Specification documentation. All 332 pages of dense technicaleese. There is one particular page I would like to cite. In the TCPA Main TCG Architecture v1_1b.pdf on page 277 the documentation comes right out and announces the fact it is designed to be secure against "rogue Owners". You are either mistaken, or you're full of crap. The chip is in fact designed to lock the computer against the owner. Yes, locks that are designed to protect the computer against it's owner will also prevent outside attackers from doing things that the owner himself is forbidden to do. However that is incidental. A hostile Trusted Computing system trying to lock computers against their owners is fundamentally different than a system designed to secure computers for the owner. If you really do believe that this is solely intended for the benefit of the owner, perhaps you could answer some questions for me. Why the absolute refusal to implement the EFF's Owner Override proposal? It would give the owner full control of his own computer while still securing against remote attacks. You could even secure against local attackers (other than the owner) by placing adding some sort of Owner Authentication element to the Override system. Or how about my proposal? I merely want a printed copy of the master key to my own computer. I merely want the option to buy a computer that comes with a printed copy of my master key. (Technical note: I am referring to the PrivEK key, and having the option to export the RSK key encrypted to the PrivEK would be beneficial for ease and security reasons.) Go ahead, explain to why I am absolutely forbidden to know the master key to my own computer. Go ahead and explain why they absolutely refuse to PERMIT anyone to manufacture any compatible Trust Chip that permits the owner to know their own master key. And best of all, explain to me all of the documented systems and plans to REVOKE and (for all practical purposes) brick any chip if they ever detect that you have learned the master key locked inside you computer, if you ever learn the master key to control your own computer, if they ever detect that you have the power and control to override any DRM system based on the chip. And don't even try the line about how this revocation system is "not part of the chip itself". The chip was explicitly designed to secure the computer against the owner, the chip was explicitly designed to to support that revocation system, and the chip's technical documentation and design specification explicitly mention this revocation system. The design specs endlessly list all of the things that the owner MUST be forbidden to be able to do, all of the things the owner MUST be forbidden to know, the specification even has a section that mandates that any owner's data under "non-migable keys" MUST be effectively impossible to back up and MUST be irretrievably lost if the chip ever dies. And on and on and on. Yes, the chip was explicitly designed to consider the owner to be the enemy. The chip is explicitly designed to be secure against "attacks" by the owner. Yes, the current generation of chips are relatively vulnerable to physical attack - by the owner or by a hostile attacker. However it is fundamentally designed to lock against the owner, there is a supplemental specification on how to increase the physical security against the owner and how to certify hardware as possessing stronger anti-owner physical security, and there is mention in the CHIP speck itself and in supplemental specifications on how to revoke and lock-out any chip where an owner does manage to gain local override control over his own computer. Yes, there are some people working on Trusted Computing with the intent of securing your computer for you, of protecting you against remote attackers. However that does not change the fact that the system is indeed designed to lock computers against the owner, that it is indeed designed explicitly for DRM support, that it is explicitly designed to be hostile to the owner, it does not change the fact that they COULD design a pro-owner system to secure your computer for you without these anti-owner aspects, but that they refuse to permit any compatible pro-owner chip that does not also impose these anti-owner DRM style enforcement systems as well. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Intel corp: computer OWNERS are the ENEMY and we must protect ourchips from them.
On a sunny day (Thu, 8 Jan 2009 06:33:46 -0800 (PST)) it happened
wrote in : http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/06/2132247 (notice that they call the locked down execution part "TXT". I don't trust anyone who has to resort to [W][O][R][D][G][A][M][E][S] to try to sneak stuff like this under the public radar. From the same page http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?s...7&cid=26351915 I am a programmer, and in particular I have studied the Trusted Platform Technical Specification documentation. All 332 pages of dense technicaleese. There is one particular page I would like to cite. In the TCPA Main TCG Architecture v1_1b.pdf on page 277 the documentation comes right out and announces the fact it is designed to be secure against "rogue Owners". Now there is an argument that is in favour of this idea, not a day goes by without some idiot doing a web attack on my server, so lock everybody out and it will be safe??? ;-) Of course, in reality it is a dumb idea. 1) it will never work (will be hacked). 2) there are many kind of 'owners', some program for a living, and some need to be close to the hardware. Luckily we have competition, Vista flopped, Linux made big inroads (netbooks, Asus quickstart), so Intel may well shoot itself in the foot with this. I will not buy such a beast period, even if I have to go to use something completely different, like arm or PPC, or whatever, I want control of my hardware, I like to tinker with it. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Intel corp: computer OWNERS are the ENEMY and we must protect ourchips from them.
On Jan 8, 6:42 am, Arno Wagner wrote:
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc wrote: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/06/2132247 (notice that they call the locked down execution part "TXT". I don't trust anyone who has to resort to [W][O][R][D][G][A][M][E][S] to try to sneak stuff like this under the public radar. From the same pagehttp://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1082397&cid=26351915 I am a programmer, and in particular I have studied the Trusted Platform Technical Specification documentation. All 332 pages of dense technicaleese. There is one particular page I would like to cite. In the TCPA Main TCG Architecture v1_1b.pdf on page 277 the documentation comes right out and announces the fact it is designed to be secure against "rogue Owners". You are either mistaken, or you're full of crap. The chip is in fact designed to lock the computer against the owner. Yes, locks that are designed to protect the computer against it's owner will also prevent outside attackers from doing things that the owner himself is forbidden to do. However that is incidental. A hostile Trusted Computing system trying to lock computers against their owners is fundamentally different than a system designed to secure computers for the owner. This is very old news and well known in the academic IT security community. It is also the main counterargument to this hardware. From the refusal to give the user control at need, I deduce that this chip is indeed primarily targetted at taking control away from the user, and that protecting against external threats is only a secondary goal, or maybe just somethign invented by marketing. Still important to explain this to people until this technological atrocity goes away. Arno What this needs to be is shown on mainstream media. Or course, given that mainstream media is a bunch of corporate whores it might be very hard to do so, but it has to be done. Any ideas? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Intel corp: computer OWNERS are the ENEMY and we must protect our chips from them.
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 14:33:46 UTC, wrote:
(notice that they call the locked down execution part "TXT". I don't trust anyone who has to resort to [W][O][R][D][G][A][M][E][S] to try to sneak stuff like this under the public radar. You obviously aren't aware that the term 'text' for the execution part has been around since the early 1970s, and wasn't originated by Intel even then. I first encountered it in 1976 when I started using UNIX. Not that I agree with all this either..! -- Bob Eager Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Intel corp: computer OWNERS are the ENEMY and we must protect our chips from them.
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Arno Wagner wrote in part:
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc wrote: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/06/2132247 The chip is in fact designed to lock the computer against the owner. Yes, locks that are designed to protect the computer against it's owner will also prevent outside attackers from doing things that the owner himself is forbidden to do. However that is incidental. A hostile Trusted Computing system trying to lock computers against their owners is fundamentally different than a system designed to secure computers for the owner. This is very old news and well known in the academic IT security community. It is also the main counterargument to this hardware. From the refusal to give the user control at need, I deduce that this chip is indeed primarily targetted at taking control away from the user, and that protecting against external threats is only a secondary goal, or maybe just somethign invented by marketing. Still important to explain this to people until this technological atrocity goes away. While I don't encourage complacency, it will -- just like the Intel CPU Serial Number was a flop. A few content providers have always tried to increase their control over their customers. Starting with trying to licence paper books. Rapacious. While some have accepted the restrictions, enough have always rejected them to make it an economically losing proposition for the content providers. However, there is no guarantee this will always be the case. TiVo is a counter-example. -- Robert |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Intel corp: computer OWNERS are the ENEMY and we must protect our chips from them.
Can you say "Computer Appliance"?
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Intel corp: computer OWNERS are the ENEMY and we must protect ourchips from them.
It will be a very sad day if they manage to dupe the masses by selling
it like that. Even worse, it will probaly work. Just give it some cheezy name (iTrust?) and a slick marketing campaign, and the masses will buy it. You can probaly still buy basic PCs you have the key to (marketed as pro or business) for the low low price of $8,000. JAD wrote: Can you say "Computer Appliance"? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Intel corp: computer OWNERS are the ENEMY and we must protect our chips from them.
"JAD" wrote:
Can you say "Computer Appliance"? There's always "software as a service" and tiers of internet access marketed by which webpages you can go to. Jon |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
No Intel Application accelerator for non-raid 865PE chipset owners? | tk | Asus Motherboards | 1 | June 11th 04 04:30 PM |
Enemy Territory - CPU not fast enough? | Kev | Ati Videocards | 7 | December 19th 03 08:45 PM |
Forcewares and Enemy Territory / Punkbuster | Granulated | Nvidia Videocards | 2 | November 21st 03 01:27 PM |
Enemy Territory...with 52-16 | Granulated | Nvidia Videocards | 6 | October 29th 03 10:32 PM |
Computer Owners Bill of Rights | Dave C. | Dell Computers | 5 | July 26th 03 04:14 PM |