| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
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 |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Who trusts Microsoft's Palladium? Not me | |
|
||
| Time: 09:39 EST/14:39 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
The words 'Microsoft' and 'trust' only really seem to fit together with the help of an 'anti' somewhere in the middle. I find it somewhat odd therefore, to find this particular company proposing the development of a 'trusted computer platform'. Trusted by whom? Not by me, that's for sure. It's not an altogether new idea, of course. In 1998 Intel came under fire for its processor ID idea, which enabled software -- or a Web site -- to quiz your CPU for its unique 64-bit serial number. This CPUid, which is built into almost every Intel processor since the Pentium III, is now switched off by default after initial outrage at the discovery that Web sites and applications could record it without the users' knowledge. Now, you have to download a utility from Intel here and switch the CPUid feature on. Not that any software or Web sites actually use it. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 343 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:29:23 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 6/27/2002 9:56:06 AM |
| Maybe HE doesn't trust palladium. But there are more than plenty of blind Microsoft sheep running around in the world that trust them no matter what they do. Oh shit, i forgot ... lots of them hang out in this forum. |
| #2 By 531 (208.212.83.68) at 6/27/2002 10:19:53 AM |
|
right... which is totally different than the anti-MS sheep who don't care what merits the project might have, just that Microsoft is involved, so it must be totally evil.
Why don't you people wait until you see how the system is going to be implemented before spreading your FUD and fairytales? Nobody is going to care about your paranoia if it's based on wild speculation. Wait until there are actually some details that you can base a decision on. Oh, and by the way, my condolences on having to register a screen name to be able to post your drivel. I'm sure it's a real pain... |
| #3 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 6/27/2002 10:30:34 AM |
|
tgnb - Mooooo!
I always love sheep comments, they show so much intelligence. |
| #4 By 6859 (204.71.100.215) at 6/27/2002 10:51:47 AM |
|
I wonder if Kevin Siembieda will sue MS over the use of the name Palladium, even though it's an element, it is also the name of Kevin Siembieda's game system...and we all know MS would sue him if the tables were reversed.
|
| #5 By 37 (216.43.88.209) at 6/27/2002 10:58:53 AM |
| #1 said Shit. |
| #6 By 2459 (24.206.97.178) at 6/27/2002 11:04:32 AM |
| You can't sue over a code-name (Actually you can sue for almost anything as long as have the cash, but you know what I mean). It isn't like a normal product name that a company claims ownership of. Most people won't even know the product by its codename, anyway. Also, they are arguably in two different markets: game systems vs. security. |
| #7 By 2459 (24.206.97.178) at 6/27/2002 11:27:58 AM |
|
Maybe from the "anti-MS sheep" that swear their allegiance to Microsoft's potential competitors as if those competitors are gods. Then they get pissed at MS when MS brings a better product to the table while their chosen company (or group) does nothing to counter (besides possibly suing).
They also like to spread FUD about MS yet conviently overlook their chosen entity that actually engages in conduct they say they don't approve of. This post was edited by n4cer on Thursday, June 27, 2002 at 11:31. |
| #8 By 531 (208.212.83.68) at 6/27/2002 11:34:08 AM |
|
"Gee? I wander [sic] (not) where ms gets that reputation? "
Probably from people like yourself with nothing better to do than follow the anti-MS crowd so you can feel special. I mean, seriously... not everything MS does is bad... you people just can't, or choose not to, see that. That's fine. It's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but if you're going to post flamebait, be prepared to back it up with a solid argument. This post was edited by mikekol on Thursday, June 27, 2002 at 11:38. |
| #9 By 20 (24.243.51.87) at 6/27/2002 11:44:15 AM |
|
It's funny how ignorant people are about this, and how they just make stupid comments off-the-cuff.
Palladium is based off the Trusted Computing Initiative which involves many companies, not just MS. In fact, they already have a chip or a few that are currently shipping in products. IBM has a few products as to many others. http://www.trustedcomputing.org/tcpaasp4/index.asp Check out "About->Member Companies" -d |
| #10 By 37 (216.43.88.209) at 6/27/2002 11:49:07 AM |
| Daz, don't confuse the anti-MS shills with Facts! :-) |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/27/2002 1:49:18 PM |
|
daz, that's exactly why I am against it. The TCI is already in place for systems that need it--there are already such chips for those that need it. MS's Palladium is based on TCI developments, but it destroys the whole initiative--MS is controlling Palladium and are essentially mandating these chips in 95% of the world's computers. And 90% of the "features" are designed to protect MS's and the media industries' interests not my security interests.
mike, saying we shouldn't criticize it yet is a joke. MS is the one floating this as the cure NOW when it is FIVE YEARS out. They are the ones creating FUD at this point. Until they can precisely tell me what it's about, I'll keep asking questions. soda will say this is just conspiracy theorists who will be proven wrong--I call this reigning MS in, getting to adjust their aims, and ultimately producing a product more in line with customers need. |
| #12 By 531 (208.212.83.68) at 6/27/2002 2:15:38 PM |
|
Jerk, I never said there was anything wrong with asking questions, I've got questions too, and I want them answered before I make up my mind about whether or not Palladium is a bad thing, but I haven't seen anyone post a good question yet. What I HAVE seen are a bunch of people who automatically assume that the end of the world is neigh because Microsoft has its name on one more thing.
Criticizing something when you don't have any information about it is a joke. Speculation doesn't lead to good questions, jerk, It leads to uninformed hysteria about something nobody can prove or disprove, and you're doing everyone a disservice by saying that there's nothing wrong with it. I also disagree with you about Microsoft being the one spreading FUD. There are obviously problems with security in IT industry, and Microsoft's software has its fair-share of them. Microsoft is now proposing a solution. I don't see that as FUD at all, in fact, I'm happy that they're taking notice, and responsibility. Granted, I want more details about Palladium, too, but I'll patiently wait for them if that's going to make them more exact and specific. This post was edited by mikekol on Thursday, June 27, 2002 at 14:21. |
| #13 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/27/2002 2:21:40 PM |
| mike, all we've got is a patent and a press release that describes something very similar to existing hardware solutions. What we are hearing is that this will be a required hardware/software component of all PCs with the next release of Windows and that it will require software and hardware to be architected in a new way going forward. A big shift that affects everyone (chip manufacturers, hw manufacturers, OEMs, software developers, entire platforms, etc...)--probably more so then it affects MS.That clearly produces fear, uncrentainty, and doubt in most people--clearly we are seeing this from most stories and comments. How can you say MS isn't producing fear, uncertainty, and doubt? What can you say you've seen from MS that dispells any fears, uncertainties, and doubt for you besides your own "trust"? |
| #14 By 1845 (12.254.162.132) at 6/27/2002 2:21:54 PM |
|
sodajerk, what is Microsoft spreading Fear Uncertainty and Doubt about? Perhaps you could call it product evangelization, but certainly the Palladium announcement isn't FUD. 90% of the features of Palladium haven't been fully designed yet, so how can you know whose interests are involved? Microsoft has also said that a consumer using a Palladium enabled OS still has to opt in to use Palladium services. That seems to me to say, they can choose to use it if they want. Microsoft isn't mandating anything to anybody at this point - previously Intel refused to do a similar security chip - they are simply moving in the direction that the industry in general is heading.
#1 if you don't like the crowd, go and hang out somewhere else. Perhaps a more useful way to discuss the ideas put forth in Palladium would be to discuss the ideas that are put forth in Palldium. Leave Microsoft and the RIAA out of it and talk about what sodajerk calls what "customers need". In other words, why not try for a meaningful conversation rather than a flame war. |
| #15 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/27/2002 2:29:33 PM |
|
Bob and mike, Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt:
I do not need spam protection (I don't use hotmail or Outlook so this isn't a problem) I do not need DRM (I do not steal software and even so, I find these "protections" intrusive when within my own legal usages) I do not need my software to be "trusted" (I already trust the products I use) I do not need my hardware to be "trusted" (I trust my hardware providerers to buil good stuff; I do not care for a software vendor to be rubberstamping things just to make their concerns easier) The only problems I do have concerns about are privacy, hacker vulnerabilities to my systems and web sites, and virus infections. The first concern I feel will be made even worse, and as for the other two--well, these are the only remaining problems but I have five other "features" that create greater problems or drawbreaks... I'd prefer a different solution. Bob, MS has said this will be built into all future realaes of WIndows--it will essentially require it to go anywhere. So basically going forward this would be required of all new hardware as well. There's little choice if the only choice is to stay with the current hw/sw you are using the day before it hits the market. |
| #16 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/27/2002 2:40:26 PM |
|
"Criticizing something when you don't have any information about it is a joke. "
No, it's being critical of the lack of information. It's being critical of a proposal to radically change everything with the promise of answering MS's security problems without any specifics as to how it will do so or what problems it will create for others. It's criticism that will force MS to discuss what they are proposing; it's ciriticism that will force them to modify their positions. This change isn't just a small one. This change would affect everything. This change is something people have been working on for 20 years--MS has proposed this just this year as a result of their own very serious problems. The idea that we should just sit around waiting for answers while MS talks it up is a great big (and, yes, I'll go this far--evil) problem. MS had been talking up Hailstorm and then My Services for two years... where is it? It's been modified, re-thought, repackaged as other services, redeveloped into TrustBridge and maybe a year or two it will be what the customer wants. Criticism did this--and it never debuted, MS never (and still hasn't) answered all the questions. But it is moving toward what the customers want--if there hadn't been criticism before the information was out, we may have had paid subsciption My Services hosted by MS last year. I'm glad I'm critical in the presence of a vacuum of information. |
| #17 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/27/2002 2:54:29 PM |
|
Questions:
Who will be the administrative Org of the "trusted" relationships? Will there be multiple administrators of "trust"? Will the chip accept multiple "trust relationships/configs" to support non-Microsoft-approved software? Will the chip accept multiple "trust relationships/configs" to support non Wintel/AMD hardware? Can you mix non-trusted software, docs, etc... with those trusted if you are within a Palladium system? (In other words, can developers opt-out of supporting this tech or is this a new fundamental requirement of all technology going forward?) What exactly are the DRM controls? Can they be reporgrammed and modified by content providers at any time or will they be established from the beginning and locked down? Will Microsoft enforce the DRMOS patent and require licensing of this technology? Can Palladium be designed and will it be designed to coexist and relate with other hw/sw security solutions? I could keep going but that's a start? One of the reasons I think it's silly to ask these questions though is MS either doesn't have the answers or they will be very willing to change the answers as they proceed. |
| #18 By 531 (208.212.83.68) at 6/27/2002 3:02:33 PM |
|
"all we've got is a patent and a press release that describes something very similar to existing hardware solutions. "
Yeah, you're right... "What we are hearing is..." ... and that's where your problem is. You can "hear" whatever you want, but it doesn't necessarily have any basis in reality. All we know for sure is what's in the patent, and what's in the press release. Anything that seems to have more information than contained in those two documents (and, perhaps, anything a Microsoftie in a position to know what they're talking about says...) is speculation and heresay. "No, it's being critical of the lack of information. " But you're not being critical of the lack of information, you're making assumptions based on someone else's assumptions to fill in the gaps. If you want to criticize the lack of information, do so, but don't mix it with someone's prediction of impending doom just to make more people worry. "One of the reasons I think it's silly to ask these questions..." I thought you wanted to ask questions... "though is MS either doesn't have the answers or they will be very willing to change the answers as they proceed." Gee, could that be because they don't know what the implementation will be like yet because it's still being spec'd and designed? Hmm... maybe that's why it's a stupid idea to get all bent out of shape about something that doesn't even have a specification yet. This post was edited by mikekol on Thursday, June 27, 2002 at 15:07. |
| #19 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/27/2002 3:12:50 PM |
|
mike, you are still saying I should shut the hell up until Microsoft can deliver every answer on a plate. That's a joke. For one thing, they'll NEVER have all the answers.
As I said, jsut questioning them is also silly, they don't have the answers and/or the answers will change. That is why I will loudly say, "I don't want this, I don't want that." If YOU, Microsoft, or anyone else interpret that to mean, "I think and know it will be like this and I don't want it," that's your prerogative. I am saying that since it's impossible to get EITHER a YES or NO answer, I will tell everyone exactly what I DON'T WANT... whether or not it is in the plans now (which I've already said is a joke, MS has know idea what will end up at then end of this... As I said, Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt...) More than just criticizing the lack of information, it is also being critical of proposing a "solution" which is clearly not one--they haven't done anything to demonstrate it is a solution. I am not just criticizing the lack of information, I am criticizing the posture that MS has the answers, but I should just hold tight for a few years while they figure out what they are. |
| #20 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/27/2002 3:19:55 PM |
|
By the way, mike this does have a specification... it's called the TCPA. It's developed by Intel--they themselves call their chip the Fritz chip after Fritzy Hollings--yes, this is directly and primarily related to the SSSCA and DRM protection... this is also related to the original Pentium controversy of ID tagging chips... so other questions....
Will Palladium divert from TCPA? How do those orgs involved in the TCPA feel about the current state of their technology? How do they feel about deploying it mainstream? Have they answered the DRM questions? Have they answered the censorship questions (you can turn "off" content remotely)? Have they answered the privacy questions? Have they identified the overlaps and answered the questions where such a security system becomes a matter of Federal and/or state law? What about the ramifications for international law? What affects does this have on business issues (patents, antitrust, open source, etc...)? What are the affects on business models (DRM, subscription services, etc...)? |
| #21 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 6/27/2002 3:49:17 PM |
|
sodajerk - You're in luck, they even make an Herbal!
http://www.wellbeing.com/shop/product_details.jsp?productid=1010289 This post was edited by sodablue on Thursday, June 27, 2002 at 15:55. |
| #22 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/27/2002 4:04:44 PM |
| Brilliant rebuttal once again, soda. You're a real class act who knows how to intelligently discuss things that for sure!! |
| #23 By 2960 (156.80.64.164) at 6/27/2002 4:12:37 PM |
|
"You can't sue over a code-name "...
Oh, yes you can :) Ask Apple Computer! A certain astronomer took exception with their use of his name as the Code Name for a project several hears ago, and they had to change it. They changed it to "BHA". I'll let you figure out what that stands for :) At one time, Apple had a serious sense of Humor. That was before Stevie came back... TL |
| #24 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/27/2002 4:18:28 PM |
|
Completely unrelated but I know you'll get a kick out of it, Tech--did you know the origin of the Apple sound "sosumi"? It had to do with the whole Apple Records thing--when they sued Apple they alleged they were in the same business because Apple developed their own sound system... after all of that was cleared up, Apple further developed integrated sound components and actually "authored" sounds, sosumi being one of them, and there was valid legal ground to say that they were in the same busines as Apple Records. At that point though, Apple Records was close to closing and the issues had been relatively settled so it was just a bold, uncompromising, and hilarious joke.
It wasn't just you know who. Didn't Bobby Dylan have a problem too--that was disappointing--he should have appreciated that it was just a code word and a nod to the respect and influence he had with the people at Apple. |
| #25 By 2459 (24.206.97.178) at 6/27/2002 6:15:09 PM |
|
Carl Sagan
He also apparently sued Apple again when he found that they changed the codename to BHA, short for Butt-Head Astronomer. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 343 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:29:23 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
