At WinHEC, Microsoft talked up the potential of 64-bit for forthcoming Windows Server products. And developers filled in the blanks regarding what Microsoft wouldn’t say. Elsewhere, we are informed about the future of Tablet PC and the modifications Palladium is receiving.
Microsoft Details Windows Server Futures
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I’m always amused by the sheer amount of hype around Palladium.
The latest crowing centers around secure memory and processing areas.
Rather funny, most of the same concepts (secure keys, process verification, etc.) can be (and is – we use smartcards for secure targeting and unique identification of disconnected one-way broadcast ip hosts) accomplished today with a processor (or to a lesser extent pin+storage) smartcard.
I have to conclude that a lot of the crowing is done out of the reporter’s sheer ignorance of the topic matter — its just unfortunate that whatever someone says is just quoted verbatim as fact.
We need trusted computing, it will help put an end to a lot of ‘cyber_crime’…
MS is very serious about this undertaking and they will be successful at it.
Does one really need Palladium. It does virtually nothing to the things most people care about such as SPAM, or Hacking. DRM theorectically can always be cracked or the great social engineer can use his con tactics to gain access to systems. I really dont see it protecting us there. The only thing it does is probably stop piracy, but then again with features like Call to Home built into some software, do we really need the OS to do this?
You’re absolutely correct. It allows Microsoft to enforce even more stringent vendor lock-in. And it will be used for other areas to their benefit too – like DRM for audio/video content (via windows media), prevention of piracy (I would say primarily of Windows, not of 3rd party applications that run on it — we have all seen the news articles about the broken windows product activation).
If they in fact did have the 3rd party software vendors’ (game producers, etc.) or content suppliers’ (and their respective DRM systems) needs at heart, they could have standardized on a removable secure processor device (smartcard) or other cheap hardware device ages ago. But then again these such devices are cheap ($2 and up per card, $10 for a reader – cheaper if supplied with a PC) and don’t by their nature enable microsoft lock-in.
On the other hand, the PCSC smartcard services on windows are critically flawed and open to attack.
You’re all a bunch of clueless conspiracy mongers attacking what you don’t have the intelligence to understand. Yeah, based on MS’s history, they’ll attempt to use this for things you don’t like, but saying that it offers nothing of value to ordinary computer users just shows how ignorant you all are.
Good going on the personal attacks vs. actually detailing what you’re talking about. Of course there are benefits for users (how could there not be??!). Next time think before you assume.
To be honest I think that was pretty well said. I get annoyed with all the rumors spread from Slashdot. One thing I have noticed about all the Linux users I meet is that they all seem to be full of wrong information and hate for Microsoft. Dual booters (like me) are not as bad and there are always exceptsions, but the few Linux users I have met in “real life” are generally very poorly informed.
Quote:
“One thing I have noticed about all the Linux users I meet is that they all seem to be full of wrong information and hate for Microsoft. Dual booters (like me) are not as bad and there are always exceptsions, but the few Linux users I have met in “real life” are generally very poorly informed.”
You’re a “dual booter”?
So you’re a linux user too?
Please, pretty please…
Don’t judge an asshole to be a linux user or vice versa.
Both sides contain anti social nerds that have hate for the other side. Unfortunatly, these are the ones the post the most and get heard the most.
But, this is a wrong image, as most people are NOT that way.
I’m a linux user, but I look with great anticipation to anything new on Windows or MacOS, or any other system.
If MS does something really wrong, it will kill itself. You can be sure about that. The same for any other system, like linux.
Speaking as someone who doesn’t know much about Palladium, I just have one simple question to ask…
In a system that has all these secure areas, can I still add operating systems to the computer, or have full control of what I install? Or does the palladium OS get to decide if I am allowed to install something? What if I write a small application? Will I be able to install it and distribute it if I want or will I have to pay some one (like Verisign for instance) to get the right to install?
In short, am I free to fiddle with the system setup etc?
Sorry, if the question isn’t simple!
Yohn
In a system that has all these secure areas, can I still add operating systems to the computer, or have full control of what I install?
You will still be able to install what you like, and you will have full control over your computer.
Or does the palladium OS get to decide if I am allowed to install something?
Palladium (which isn’t the name of this technology anymore, its now called the Next Generation Secure Computing Base) does not decide anything. Its as intelligent as a firewall. You set up rules, it follows them.
What if I write a small application? Will I be able to install it and distribute it if I want or will I have to pay some one (like Verisign for instance) to get the right to install?
You can absolutely still distribute it, and you don’t need anyone to sign it for it to run.
In short, am I free to fiddle with the system setup etc?
Absolutely.
Sorry, if the question isn’t simple!
That is not a silly question at all. Knowledge doesn’t just magically appear in ones head. Except in the case of a few of the zealots here.
Yohn
Well, Longhorn is still vapourware
It’s not vapor if code exists, and guess what? It does. Microsoft does indeed have technical isses that need to be dealt with, but it seems that you are spreading little more than misinformation yourself.
Let me guess, it’s just a hobby right?
You will still be able to install what you like, and you will have full control over your computer.
Yes, in even more of the same way as you are free to install Windows today. Can you guarantee that I will be able to copy information and documents from Windows to another OS on my computer without impediment, and that if copied, these documents will not be encrypted and tied to Windows?
Palladium (which isn’t the name of this technology anymore, its now called the Next Generation Secure Computing Base) does not decide anything. Its as intelligent as a firewall. You set up rules, it follows them.
Does it really? The fact that you have pointed out that Palladium is now called NGSCB tells me that the Microsoft advocates have come out of the woodwork. You can set rules for Palladium, but no one has pointed out what point those rules can be set up to. Palladium may not define anything, but the surrounding Windows components and applications will, and you won’t be able to change them. Nice try.
You can absolutely still distribute it, and you don’t need anyone to sign it for it to run.
Whats the point in having a secure architecture then? But, from this perspective it depends what you mean by ‘free to run’. Microsoft will almost certainly give basic free applications freedom to run, but anything that interfaces with Windows or the hardware (or basically anything that threatens them) will need to be signed, bought and payed for.
Absolutely.
Is he able to fully fiddle with the system set up, and make sure that any e-mails or documents sent to him are not deleted or controlled by a third-party? Deleting documents on someone elses’ physical property is a very real legal issue.
Except in the case of a few of the zealots here.
Sorry, but you’re not going to magically wave these issues away by calling people zealots. Microsoft seems to think that it can quieten things down and make the concerns over Palladium go away – they won’t.
The reasons for Palladium are incredible and varied. We’ve had the non-existent keyboard sniffing threat, the malicious programs threat which has all been used an excuse to restrict what can be plugged into your computer and what programs you can run and communicate with others on your system.
The security threats supposedly solved for the end user are non-existant (and don’t exist today), and it only benefits software companies like Microsoft. Palladium is an attempt, with hardware, to make sure that software that should be a commodity is locked-down, bought and payed for and to really grab other software and hardware companies by the balls and dictate to them what can and can’t be done with Windows. If Microsoft doesn’t like it, Palladium is a great architecture to make sure it can’t happen. Pure and simple.
It’s not vapor if code exists, and guess what? It does. Microsoft does indeed have technical isses that need to be dealt with, but it seems that you are spreading little more than misinformation yourself.
I’m afraid it is not misinformation. Having code and demos available is one thing. Having a working WinFS and architecture that doesn’t need a ridiculous set of hardware requirements to run it is quite another.
Let me gues – you’re another one out of the woodwork?
You are all so far removed from reality that it’s funny! Have fun in your dream world guys, because obviously there’s nothing here for you!
Everything you can do today with Windows, you’ll be able to do under Palladium. The normal Windows OS will remain as it is, with only a few lines added. Palladium will operate using a separate security kernel which provides services for applications that need higher security. This kernel (called the Nexus) prevents other apps from touching or seeing anything running within it and controls access to cryptographic keys generated on the TCPA chip. Each TCPA chip contains a keypair that uniquely identifies it, and this is what MS and others will use to perform DRM. The nexus, however, will be open-source and compatible with multiple operating systems (they have to modify less than 100 lines of the NT kernel to get it to work with a nexus) and anyone can write their own nexus. A user chooses a nexus at startup.
The hardware side of this is being done by people other than Microsoft, so they really don’t have an overwhelming incentive to destroy linux and the cross-platform stuff is probably going to work out. Sure, programs written under Palladium can store their data under encryption, but that is up to the program authors, there’s no reason to suspect it’d be done directly by the OS. Last, but not least, all of these features can be turned off if you don’t like them. How exactly can this be used for lock-in? I mean, yes, giving developers new tools that are tied to your platform does force them to use your platform to use these tools, but would you force MS to stop adding features to their platform because they’re a convicted monopolist? And if the specification is open, with open source, what is the downside for Linux?
You’re all a bunch of clueless conspiracy mongers attacking what you don’t have the intelligence to understand.
That’s rich coming from somebody who makes the following statement:
There’s no sense wasting the time trying to reason with retards like you. Linux: delivered today, half baked as always.
As a software developer who works on many different systems, I could write tomes about why Linux and the other unix-like operating systems are better than Windows; but my experience with Windows disciples and/or cheerleaders is that they wouldn’t read it anyway. However, I would venture to guess that what you are calling “half-baked” is what a knowledgeable user would call power.
Yeah, based on MS’s history, they’ll attempt to use this for things you don’t like, but saying that it offers nothing of value to ordinary computer users just shows how ignorant you all are.
You contradict yourself here and in another post. Here you say that MS may use this technology for things we don’t like, yet elsewhere, you claim that the user will have complete control over Palladium. You can’t have it both ways. Also, if Palladium does things we (meaning end users I assume) don’t like, how can you claim that it is beneficial to us?
The fact is that Palladium was created to benefit one entity and one entity only; Microsoft. Enjoy.
“Is it just me, or does anyone else think Eugenia Loli-Queru is obsessed with Microsoft/Windows. Every time I turn around, OS News is saturated with that colorful Windows flag icon and another article *bit* detailing another *piece* of a not-yet-released Windows version.
”
Actually, I think she is making a good and honest attempt to not turn this site into a Slashdot clone.
With Windows being the largest portion of the market, it certainly deserves space here and on every other OS forum as well.
You contradict yourself here and in another post. Here you say that MS may use this technology for things we don’t like, yet elsewhere, you claim that the user will have complete control over Palladium. You can’t have it both ways.
Yeah, I was a bit rushed there, but nothing I said was really contradictory. I was however unclear. I guess what I meant to say is that the (formerly known as Palladium) technologies aren’t going to prevent you from installing what you want, or from distributing your own files (and that has no bearing on its security related functionality David. Think for crying out loud!).
Read up, that’s factual information. DRM solutions implemented on top of this technology may well prevent you from doing as you plesase with “other peoples” files (crap Disney content etc.), but that has no bearing over how much control you have over your own machine.
Whining about the fact that you aren’t free to mess with other peoples DRM’d stuff that you’ve downloaded onto your machine is pretty silly when used as an argument against TCPA.
Use your head dude.
I meant to say is that the (formerly known as Palladium) technologies aren’t going to prevent you from installing what you want, or from distributing your own files (and that has no bearing on its security related functionality David. Think for crying out loud!).
Oh my goodness! I’m afraid that you’ll find that they have a massive and huge bearing on the security related functionality – either that or you can’t read. The security reasons also have a knock-on effect on what I can do with my system – something which you said people would have complete control over. You’re chasing your tail here. These are totally legitimate points, totally ignored by people by you and others.
The fact that you mention me by name shows I’ve touched a rather raw nerve here. I’m afraid that you’re not going to justify Palladium to anyone until you address these points. Do some reading for God’s sake.
DRM solutions implemented on top of this technology may well prevent you from doing as you plesase with “other peoples” files (crap Disney content etc.), but that has no bearing over how much control you have over your own machine.
Er, yes it does Sherlock, because I may be running those applications on my machine (or be forced to run them because of a monopoly situation) and I will have basically no chance at all of finding out exactly what they are doing. The definition of other peoples’ files will get broader, and broader, and broader and…. Give me a guarantee that this won’t happen.
Whining about the fact that you aren’t free to mess with other peoples DRM’d stuff that you’ve downloaded onto your machine is pretty silly when used as an argument against TCPA.
I thought that TCPA had nothing to do with DRM and that Palladium was all about security? Anyway… So I take it this means that others have the power to delete files, e-mails and other material stored on my physical property after it has been sent to me.
Thank you – that is all I needed to know. We’re slowly getting there.
Use your head dude.
That’s what we are doing, unknown to you.
This kernel (called the Nexus) prevents other apps from touching or seeing anything running within it and controls access to cryptographic keys generated on the TCPA chip. Each TCPA chip contains a keypair that uniquely identifies it, and this is what MS and others will use to perform DRM.
Who has access to those keys, and can I get access to them? If I can’t, then the system isn’t secure – is it? If it is Microsoft and their partners then that means that my data is not secure, because I then do not know who will give a backhander to get into my systems. If I was a company, I wouldn’t touch this with a bargepole. The possibilities for espionage and corruption are mind-boggling.
The nexus, however, will be open-source and compatible with multiple operating systems…
Doesn’t mean anything. This is about locking people out of Windows, and tightening the noose so that hardware will be tied and will only ever be geared to work with Windows.
Sure, programs written under Palladium can store their data under encryption, but that is up to the program authors, there’s no reason to suspect it’d be done directly by the OS.
This is a cop-out, since Microsoft writes most of the major applications on Windows anyway people will be forced to use them. Nice try. Besides, shouldn’t it be me that decides whether the application uses encryption and not the application author? We’re getting closer and closer.
Last, but not least, all of these features can be turned off if you don’t like them.
Yes, in the same way that you can switch from Windows on the desktop today
. Sorry, but this is an oft-used argument and doesn’t wash. If Windows, and all the major applications on Windows written by Microsoft are using Palladium, trust me, you will get no choice to turn it off if you want to get any work done.
I mean, yes, giving developers new tools that are tied to your platform does force them to use your platform to use these tools, but would you force MS to stop adding features to their platform because they’re a convicted monopolist?
Err, yes. That’s what monopoly laws are for.
And if the specification is open, with open source, what is the downside for Linux?
Doesn’t wash, and I’m sorry, this argument is not going to stand up. Open source or not, this will mean that you will never be able to move away from Windows to another platform. Your documents and all of your personal and confidential information will be tied to this architecture through encryption, under the excuse of security.
You’ve only made the argument against lock-in even worse, because that is quite clearly what it is for. There is no getting away from that.
The arguments for Palladium are same old, same old and have been swept aside over the past few years. If it is for security then convince people. If you can’t convince people of that, don’t bother. There are a lot of people out in the open source, computing and academia worlds who really do know there stuff who Microsoft will need buy-in from. Trust me that you will not be able to pull the wool over their eyes.
The arguments for Palladium are same old, same old and have been swept aside over the past few years.
Just like your arguments against it. The trusted computing platform architecture is a good and needed thing. If you can’t see that it really doesn’t matter, as in about a decade, it will be mainstream anyway, and important things like online business and banking and medical information will pretty much require it, as current hardware and software do not provide anything really suitable for these sorts of endeavors. If you still chose not to use it, then it will be you who will lose out, not anyone else.
Just like your arguments against it. The trusted computing platform architecture is a good and needed thing.
Nope – see my comments above, which you have not even attempted to sweep aside. Address them and tell us all why. You can’t just say that it is my word against yours and dismiss everything. That’s not the way that discussions work. You do actually have to say why, believe it or not.
If you can’t see that it really doesn’t matter, as in about a decade, it will be mainstream anyway, and important things like online business and banking and medical information will pretty much require it, as current hardware and software do not provide anything really suitable for these sorts of endeavors.
Nice one! I thought we were going to get a choice? Or was that all lies?
If you still chose not to use it, then it will be you who will lose out, not anyone else.
Nope, I think quite a few people will be losing out. It is just unfeasible to have a systems so widely used and so locked-down at the same time.
…current hardware and software do not provide anything really suitable for these sorts of endeavors.
Yes it does, but it hasn’t been used – I wonder why. GPG for e-mail is one widely used method that Microsoft is reluctant to use.
Nice one! I thought we were going to get a choice? Or was that all lies?
You are dim. You have a choice on your own hardware, but as more and more businesses require it, it becomes a foolish choice. Nothing I’ve said has been a lie, and you know it.
Yes it does, but it hasn’t been used
Ever heard of “break once, break everywhere?” I guess not, or else you’d not use such a silly argument. The technologies you refer to on their own do nothing to prevent this situation. TCPA does. Read up on it before you say anything more. Your ignorance is astounding.
You are dim. You have a choice on your own hardware, but as more and more businesses require it, it becomes a foolish choice. Nothing I’ve said has been a lie, and you know it.
I think you’ll find it has, I know it and you know it. As more people use it no one will get a choice – that is out of anyone’s hands and is something you’ve admitted. Choice on your hardware, however large or great that is, means nothing.
Ever heard of “break once, break everywhere?” I guess not, or else you’d not use such a silly argument.
LOL! So all of those people currently using IPSec and various encryption methods are stupid then?! The break once break everywhere argument only applies when you are talking about DRM and complete vendor lock-in. Unfortunately, I’m talking about security, not about this. This is yet another brainless argument.
You keep saying “lock-in, lock-in, lock-in” without addressing the actual architecture of the technology. You call for others to sweep aside your complaints when you do not even defend them yourself. Take a look at the NGSCB spec on MS’s website:
Can you tell me specifically why you can’t write a nexus for linux? If MS Office encrypts files on a computer, how do you transfer the files to another computer? Wouldn’t you need a standard way of decrypting the file to open it on the other computer?
Who has access to those keys, and can I get access to them?
According to the spec, the chip releases the public key and the private key is burned onto the chip by the manufacturer and forgotten (or made by a process that ensures no one can know it).
According to the spec, the chip releases the public key and the private key is burned onto the chip by the manufacturer and forgotten (or made by a process that ensures no one can know it).
No, its not forgotten (how would anything work if this was the case — what a nonsensical comment). Its kept secret. Who is the owner of the private keys? There’s your vendor lock-in hint for today (pardon the pun).
You keep saying “lock-in, lock-in, lock-in” without addressing the actual architecture of the technology. You call for others to sweep aside your complaints when you do not even defend them yourself.
Yes I have. The comments and concerns I have made are valid. What I have written about is defence in itself.
Take a look at the NGSCB spec on MS’s website
I’d rather look at the technology itself, thank you.
Can you tell me specifically why you can’t write a nexus for linux?
I’m dead sure that you can, but that Linux Nexus will never have access to anything locked up by the Windows Nexus. Through their monopoly this will mean that people will find it impossible to move away from Windows, as transferring anything will be impossible. Over time Microsoft hopes that Windows will be more and more tied to the hardware, and people will stop using alternate operating systems as a result. Through their monopoly, this is theoretically possible.
The fact that you could write a Nexus for Linux alters nothing. Microsoft will not allow it to communicate with Windows. Even if they do initially, it will be completely at their discretion in the future.
If MS Office encrypts files on a computer, how do you transfer the files to another computer?
If anything on Windows encrypts files, how do I decrypt them on another platform? If MS Office encrypts files, how do I decrypt them with another application? This is at the discretion of Microsoft, the application writer, not me. See where I’m going with this?
According to the spec, the chip releases the public key and the private key is burned onto the chip by the manufacturer and forgotten (or made by a process that ensures no one can know it).
The post above has captured this.
Do I get access to those keys? If not, then Palladium is not designed for security, is it? Microsoft telling everyone that it is, is a lie. Saying that I can get access to them through Windows is a contradiction in terms.
If I do have access to those keys, who else has access to them? As a company I would be worried about well-connected people performing corporate espionage and digital theft without my knowledge and this is highly feasible. What written and legally binding guarantees will there be that this will not happen? If there aren’t any, we are a great deal more secure with the existing infrastructure.
Sorry, but there is a bit more to this DRM, Palladium thing than just music and digital entertainment. It is deadly serious.
ah, I found the spec again: http://www.microsoft.com/resources/ngscb/documents/ngscb_tcb.doc
Under How NGSCB Works: Sealed Storage and Attestation, this document says: “Each TPM includes a private key that never leaves the TPM and is used for the PKUnseal operation.”
Further on, it mentions that the TPM manufacturer will “ideally lose trace” of the private key that is burned into the TPM and give the customer only the public key. Is it all that ridiculous to do the necessary cryptography without letting the private key leave the chip?
Further on, it mentions that the TPM manufacturer will “ideally lose trace”…
Ideally, meaning that they won’t. I will not have a clue who has access to this key, prior to me buying the hardware, nor who will have access once I get it up and running.
…of the private key that is burned into the TPM and give the customer only the public key.
Thank you. This means that I get no decryption facilities outside of Windows. The killer line?
The nexus has the ability to cryptographically authenticate an NCA and to store one or more secrets (private keys and symmetric keys) that it only provides to the cryptographically-identified NCA running on a specific hardware platform.
Each nexus and each NCA is self-rooted, and does not depend on central authorities to sign, approve, or assign identities to them.
Mmm, interesting. I take it this will just be a lock-in ploy then.
* Sealed Storage?Each NCA has access to one or more secrets that it constructs. The secrets are not available or observable by any software.
No migrating from Windows then.
* Attestation?Each NCA has access to a software-authentication mechanism that allows it to prove its identity to other NCAs, locally or remotely. (The mechanism providing this property is called Attestation.)
Bye, bye Samba. It will not authenticate the NCA for any other operating system other than Windows – or if Microsoft feels generous.
* Secure I/O?Each NCA has access to a user’s I/O operations (trusted keyboard input and trusted video output) that cannot be snooped or modified by any software.
Let’s make it difficult for any hardware to be built for anything other than Windows.
The NCA properties must be safe from malicious users and code (which could be part of an operating system).
That means you, any software you want to run on Windows and any other operating systems you wish to run gets denied access. (You’re the malicious user).
I take it this will just be a lock-in ploy then.
You take it??? Well, if that’s what you’re looking for, then sure. I don’t take it that way, at least not at this stage. All of these facilities here are independent of Windows (i.e. part of hardware) and implemented in an open-source kernel. One of the segments of the specification is that it is to require minimal alteration of the OS (on the order of less than 200 lines in the NT kernel). The specs as outlined in that document are simple, nothing really windows-specific in there.
Ultimately, this conversation doesn’t matter and by now you think I’m a paid shill. Since I am not in fact being paid, I have no incentive to help you refine your paranoid delusions
Yeah, David does seem to be a paranoid delusional.
All of these facilities here are independent of Windows (i.e. part of hardware) and implemented in an open-source kernel.
No they aren’t, and you haven’t read anything I’ve written have you? I’ve talked about how writing a Nexus for Linux will not matter a jot. Microsoft knows this.
Since I am not in fact being paid, I have no incentive to help you refine your paranoid delusions
Do some reading first. I’ve just taken apart the document you’ve referenced and you haven’t addressed any of these issues.
I’m sorry, but labelling people as zealots and delusional will do nothing unless you can address the issues laid out in these posts about Palladium. If you can’t, then I;m right.
Yeah, David does seem to be a paranoid delusional.
Yer, just like your delusions of Windows performance and memory management, and just like your delusions of non-existant articles with Linux developers
.
Nice short comment and easy to make
. Address the issues or I’m right. That’s the deal.
Anyway, the fact that I’m being labelled as delsuonal means I have more than hit the mark on this topic. Whats the score? 2 – 0?