ActiveMac - The Most Activated mac Resource

ActiveMac

User Controls

New User

Edit/View My Profile

ActiveMac

Articles

Forums

Links

News

News Search

Reviews

News Centers

Windows/Microsoft

DVD

ActiveHardware

Xbox

MaINTosh

News Search

ANet Chats

The Lobby

Special Events Room

Developer's Lounge

XBox Chat

FAQ's

Windows 98/98 SE

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows "Whistler" XP

Windows CE

Internet Explorer 6

Internet Explorer 5

Xbox

DirectX

DVD's

TopTechTips

Registry Tips

Windows 95/98

Windows 2000

Internet Explorer 4

Internet Explorer 5

Windows NT Tips

Program Tips

Easter Eggs

Hardware

DVD

Latest Reviews

Applications

Microsoft Windows XP Professional

Norton SystemWorks 2002

Hardware

Intel Personal Audio Player 3000

Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer

Site News/Info

About This Site

Affiliates

ANet Forums

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Links

Member Pages

Site Search

Awards

Credits
�1997/2004, Active Network. All Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by Designer Dream. Content written by the Active Network team. Please click here for full terms of use and restrictions or read our Privacy Statement.

Briefing Book: Microsoft Palladium

Time: 07:08 EST/12:08 GMT | News Source: TechWeb | Posted By: Alex Harris

No IT vendor can set off a fire-storm quite like Microsoft. Its latest initiative -- the hardware-based security scheme it calls Palladium -- might be the most controversial yet. Not only does it bring with it the usual fears of Microsoft's monopoly-like powers, it has thrust the software vendor into new areas, like security, digital rights management and privacy/identity, that could give it a broader reach than ever before.

So what is Palladium? It combines hardware-based storage of an encryption key with software that will be provided by the next version of Windows. Together, those measures could provide a much higher degree of security for user data. To make it happen, Microsoft is teaming up with Intel and AMD to provide the required hardware. But critics and competitors are worried. Why should we trust Microsoft with the keys to the kingdom? The potential for abuse is staggering. Microsoft, of course, says "just trust us," but it won't find too many takers these days on that offer.

Write Comment
Return to News

Displaying 1 through 25 of 321
Last | Next

The time now is 7:27:00 AM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us

#1 By 8589 (65.100.120.51) at 8/3/2002 10:04:08 AM

I wish people would stop worrying about "Vaporware." Also, the only people that don't trust Microsoft, are its competitors. So it really doesn't concern the lay user. I would trust Microsoft, a company that is always in the public spotlight because it is No. 1, rather than a competitor that would stoop to anything to get a market share.

#2 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 8/3/2002 11:21:33 AM

m00, judging from the past? What past? Microsoft does not have a past of hacking into your computer.

And you STILL seem to be bitching about something you STILL know NOTHING about.

First, it would incredibly stupid to make Windows dependant on Palladium based hardware, it's not going to happen.

It will be just as hard for MS, Intel, AMD, or any other company that has detailed knowledge of Palladium to hack into it as it would be for any other cracker or hacker.

How would Palladium ensure a company's revenue stream, I don't see how you could have dreamed that one up?

Quit bitching about something you literally know absoultely nothing about.

#3 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 8/3/2002 12:02:30 PM

moozilla, I'm with CPUGuy... in asking you to explain your "judging from the past" comment.

EWWHWW... you are exactly right. The ONLY people who don't trust Microsoft, are its competitors.

#4 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 8/3/2002 3:37:15 PM

m00, I find it funny that you are complaining that other people aren't contributing to the board, yet, your posts are ALL dribble, complaining about how you think you are somehow superior so no one should be critisizing you, or namecalling.

Honestly, ALL your posts are like this, and you SHOULD be banned, but lucky for you, I don't volunteer at Activewin.

You want to speculate about something? OK, the government COULD watch out every move, Microsoft COULD put a backdoor in and gather your information and sell it to any company it chooses, everyone COULD be out to get you... these are all possible scenarios, but have very little possibility of being true, and thus, you just don't talk about them, same goes with what you are talking about with Palladium.

#5 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 8/3/2002 4:19:31 PM

I see the anti-MS nonsense is out in full force again.

XMLSOAP - "but to defend Microsoft on it's business practices is just stupid when you look around and see what they've done in the past"

I'm assuming you feel the same way about Netscape, AOL, Sun, Oracle, Apple, etc?

#6 By 665 (64.126.91.172) at 8/3/2002 4:37:58 PM

I think most people don't understand business ethics. What is the point of a business? To make money. To make as much money as possible. Sure, some companies will come out with some line about serving community or doing good for humanity, blah blah blah, but that is marketing. I would go as far as to say there are no ethics in business. The line starts where the law starts. Saying that because company A forced company B out of business and that is unethical is completel BS. The point is to make as much money as possible by selling the most product's possible and if that means taking out the compitition, by all means, go for it.

#7 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 8/3/2002 4:48:12 PM

XML, so let me get this straight, you think it was unethical of Microsoft to put in a statement (in a BETA none the less) that Microsoft could not guarentee that Win 3 would work on top of DR-DOS.... yeah, ok.

As Todd has said, EVERY company does the SAME EXACT things that Microsoft does (either factual or alledgedly), it's not just an MS thing, it's what companies do to make money.

#8 By 2459 (24.206.97.178) at 8/3/2002 8:54:44 PM

moo - As I understand it (recognizing that there is very little official info on Palladium and MS is still working on its implementation), Palladium doesn't stop any programs from running on your computer. It only stops things like viruses from taking over other processes or core system services, or escalating permissions, etc., because it does the equivalent of sandboxing all apps, as well as separating core system services from application space. It greatly limits access to OS core components so that malicious programs can't co-opt their processes to take advantage of bugs in the code.

It is sort of like how .NET provides security to running apps, but with the added benefits/security that a hardware implementation provides. A better example would probably be how apps were able to crash other apps until separate memory space was implemented. This is kind of the same thing, except certain things are further separated to prevent access by malicious code. The malicious code can run, but it will be ineffective.

MS will not be the only vendor implementing Palladium (and it won't be required to run Windows -- certain features, yes, but not the entire OS), the spec will be available for anyone to use. There will probably be implementations of *nix that make use of Palladium.

Going back to .NET, it will be one of the other layers of security added in future Windows versions. This, in combination with Palladium should make it very hard for malicious code to have any effect.

The thing that will prevent demo software from running beyond its trial date and other similar things is DRM. This can be implemented with or without Palladium, and has been. Palladium will simply make it harder to crack. MS is extending DRM to more than just media, now. Users get benefits from this, but so do publishers. I think you will also see Palladium in more than just PCs because of its benefits. Game consoles, cell phones, PDAs, any device where a manufacturer or user sees value in that device not being compromised (firewalls, maybe).

The end result: Users get a more secure system and OS. There will be some programs/files that can only be run by adhering to certain rules (DRM). In most cases this will only be a large problem for pirates. Apps won't be able to as easily affect other apps/system processes. And, if all goes well, hacking one computer gets you nowhere with another computer. One immediate benefit I see is that it should even make it harder for the buttheads at the MPAA/RIAA to hack your computer if one of their moronic bills ever passes in Congress.

#9 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 8/4/2002 12:22:09 AM

XML, as I've seen nothing of this, and would probably not believe it unless I saw it directly from the AP, then I can have no judgement on that issue.

However, if you somehow think that other companies are somehow better than Microsoft, you really need a reality check.

#10 By 665 (64.126.91.172) at 8/4/2002 12:30:14 AM

<Deleted because it didn't make sense>

"#14, right so it's okay to screw consumers, screw partners, screw everyone else in the process of making money. That's remarkable logic."

Um... Did I say anything remotely like that? I don't think so. Try to keep up and not just pull stuff from your ass when you don't have a good counter argument.

This post was edited by ToddAW on Sunday, August 04, 2002 at 01:11.

#11 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 8/4/2002 12:56:12 AM

XMLSOAP - If you are unfamiliar with how other companies operate, exactly how is it that you can make any sort of value judgement?

#12 By 5444 (208.180.140.230) at 8/4/2002 6:20:46 AM

# 17,

Perhaps. but the issue becomes when the full circuit is done.

TCPI which is what Palliadium is a derivative of. Is about security of personal local information and tightly controling that information. It will also tie into Digital Signatures (but that is another issue altogether)

DRM is another issue. while it could use palladium as a basis for the hardware secuity. But in the future you may be looking at this type of system.

1, the CD and DVD industry will probably go to an entirely new encoding scheme. TCPI and DRM will be the central part of that. Since computers have gotten to the point that 128 and even 256 bit encodeing is becoming trivial. they will move to those standard encoding.

There will be a transistion to new technology in the near future, the move from red laser to blue laser, this new technology will bring MUCH higher storage compacities. (the ability to record a 2 hour HDTV movie for one on a dvd) This transistion will also bring in higher security.

Currently CD's are not secured in general a few have tried it. when CD's move to blue laser they will carry the same security features of dvd's although the new high encoding scemes.

The point I am making with a hardware sceme it is much harder to break and steps up the entry point to do it. (takes someone with some technical skills to get inside the box to by pass the hardware side of things.

What I do see happening is a DRM which uses all 3 levels of security to prevent piracy on a device by device basis.

Who you are (a fingerprint or other feature) what you know (a password or other info) and hardware.

although the whole idea of palladium would require law changes on what companies can release.

El

#13 By 1913 (68.14.48.57) at 8/4/2002 11:56:39 AM

First thing first ...I don't know much about Palladium, but I can't wait to learn about the technology.

The good part about this is that MS knows that it cannot make your system totally secure with just their efforts and software ...they know they need help with AMD and Intel to make it more secure.

Another thing, and I'm sure that you've all of heard this, that people out there complained about the security of Windows in the past. Now that MS is trying to make its OS secure w/ the help from AMD and Intel, everyone is bitching about it. People what do you really want?

I'm sure some of you will say ...I don' want MS touching my stuff, or I won't trust MS when it comes to security. Well to bad ...MS is on everyones desktop, and they know that they have to do something about it because plain ole security software is not enough ...it could easily be hacked.

This post was edited by rommels on Sunday, August 04, 2002 at 12:47.

#14 By 665 (64.126.91.172) at 8/4/2002 7:44:18 PM

Ceazar, you are probably right, that wasn't appropriate for me to say, however, what he accused me of saying was not what I had said at all.

#15 By 4240821 (45.149.82.86) at 10/25/2023 9:14:30 PM