A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Processors » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Intel corp: computer OWNERS are the ENEMY and we must protect ourchips from them.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 8th 09, 03:33 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default 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.
  #2  
Old January 8th 09, 03:42 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Arno Wagner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,796
Default Intel corp: computer OWNERS are the ENEMY and we must protect our chips from them.

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 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.



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
  #3  
Old January 8th 09, 03:46 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Jan Panteltje
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 166
Default 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  
Old January 8th 09, 04:00 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default 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?
  #6  
Old January 8th 09, 04:42 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Robert Redelmeier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 316
Default 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  
Old January 8th 09, 06:41 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
JAD[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 88
Default Intel corp: computer OWNERS are the ENEMY and we must protect our chips from them.

Can you say "Computer Appliance"?



  #8  
Old January 8th 09, 09:27 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default 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  
Old January 9th 09, 04:19 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Jon Danniken[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 153
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 09:45 PM
Forcewares and Enemy Territory / Punkbuster Granulated Nvidia Videocards 2 November 21st 03 02:27 PM
Enemy Territory...with 52-16 Granulated Nvidia Videocards 6 October 29th 03 11:32 PM
Computer Owners Bill of Rights Dave C. Dell Computers 5 July 26th 03 04:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.