|
|
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
©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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time:
00:21 EST/05:21 GMT | News Source:
Microsoft |
Posted By: Jonathan Tigner |
Discover new security technology for the Microsoft Windows platform—Microsoft's Next-Generation Secure Computing Base (NGSCB)—another way Microsoft is building a trustworthy computing environment to help customers realize their full potential.
NGSCB will be included in a future version of the Windows operating system. Employing a unique hardware and software architecture, NGSCB will create a protected computing environment inside of a Windows PC—a "virtual vault" that will sit side by side with the regular Windows environment to enable new kinds of security and privacy protections for computers.
Among the benefits:
- Critical programs are visible and in the user's control
- Programs and computers can "prove" themselves to each other (even over networks) before engaging in communications and transactions, ensuring a safe environment before exposing critical data
- Important information can be stored so that only the program that created it can access it, protecting it from loss due to theft or viruses
- Personal information can be distributed so that it can only be used by entities the user authorizes, ensuring that data will remain safe during a remote transaction
- Data can be protected with a secure pathway from the keyboard through the computer to the monitor screen, preventing it from being secretly intercepted or spied on
NGSCB technologies will help provide better system integrity, information security, and personal privacy and will offer a solid foundation for user trust: a basis on which privacy- and security-sensitive hardware and software can interact with greater integrity.
|
|
#1 By
2960 (156.80.64.196)
at
5/7/2003 9:21:46 AM
|
This is a completely frightening scenario that I can do without.
TL
|
#2 By
2960 (156.80.64.196)
at
5/7/2003 9:22:07 AM
|
This is a completely frightening scenario that I can do without.
TL
|
#3 By
2960 (156.80.64.196)
at
5/7/2003 12:51:20 PM
|
It's not the security that bothers me. I'm not the only one that things the 'security' they are talking about is partially a Red Herring.
I'm not forcing you to agree. You are free to purchase as many as you wish :)
TL
|
#4 By
1896 (208.61.157.221)
at
5/7/2003 12:59:33 PM
|
What they are showing is fine with me. Obviously I will have a definitive opinion when all the peculiarities of this technology will be defined and published. The product is in a development phase so we can just wait and see. Btw speaking about security keep in mind that any product or software sold in the US has a backdoor to ensure Law Enforcement Authorities access to investigate supposed wrongdoing.
|
#5 By
1896 (208.61.157.221)
at
5/7/2003 1:00:48 PM
|
What is this "Red Herring"?
|
#6 By
2960 (156.80.64.196)
at
5/7/2003 1:02:01 PM
|
It's not what HAS been done, it's what CAN be done, and the EU would have no say or recourse.
It's too open-ended in favor of everyone BUT the owner/user of the computer.
TL
|
#7 By
2459 (69.22.78.22)
at
5/7/2003 1:15:10 PM
|
What exactly CAN be done?
There isn't anything detrimental to the consumer that NGSCB can be used for besides strengthening software rights management controls that are already in place. Content providers protecting their content, maybe? This is done currently.
There is no restriction on what software can be run on a PC using this technology. There are protections provided to better secure data that travels through the PC. What is the bad part of this? Please give some examples.
|
#8 By
1896 (208.61.157.221)
at
5/7/2003 1:45:34 PM
|
Kevinu, by law any "encription program" or other security program must have a backdoor; it is always been like this. No I don't think there are backdoor in Windows or Apple OSes right now because they are not "Secure" or locked systems; if these new systems will be "Secure" they will have a backdoor of some kind. I am not a paranoid and I don' t have problem as long as a Judge authorize a search warrant based on consistent evidence of wrongdoing by someone; what really bother me is when someone propose to allow RIAA to check your computer just because they think that you could be swapping music, or when your medical records are given away to insurance companies etc. etc.
What am I worried about? Surely not about thechnologies, by definition they are neutral. The problem is the environment when they are used and or the way they are deployed, used and, eventually mis-used. A quick example: as you know when you use your cellular phone is possible to pinpoint your exact location; obviously this is not a problem in a free society but what about an Orwellian one?
|
#9 By
1896 (208.61.157.221)
at
5/7/2003 3:32:23 PM
|
Kevinu, no it is something older than the DMCA, I don' t remember exactly but I will try to find it.
I don't blame cell phone maker or operators because the technology itself allow the pinpointing. The Authority in charge to allow the exploitation of this ability and, at the same time, to limit it in order to avoid abuses of the technology is the Legislative Branch. What is the Legislative Branch composed by? By the people we elect to represent us. This is the difference between a civilized society and the jungle where the only law is the one of the strongest.
Now, and this is the difficult task, the pillars of a modern, civilized society are several compromises balancing the rights of the individuals with the ones of the society itself, between the need to protect the weak without penalazing the most dynamic ones etc. etc.
Getting back to the subject in principle I am not against NGSCB as I am not against DRM, it is just the way thechnologies are implemented that make the difference. I am against stealing music or software but I believe taht when I pay something I have the right to use it. A clear example could be OEM software: I always buy retail editions because I believe that is a better deal. If someone wants me to accept the fact that if I sell my computer I loose my right to play the music I paid, downloaded and stored in it I say no thanks, I will stick with Cds; the huge success of the Apple music store seems to prove that when people are offered a fair deal they are willing to accept it.
Bottom line I strongly believe that in order to have a conclusive opinion about NGSBC we should just wait and see what the final product will be and how it will be implemented.
|
#10 By
135 (209.180.28.6)
at
5/7/2003 4:56:50 PM
|
Fritzly - "by law any "encription program" or other security program must have a backdoor;"
I don't think so. Such a discussion did come up , the FBI was pushing for it but I don't believe this actually became law. Look for discussion on the Clipper chip.
kevinu - "The implication here is that you won't be able to run non-signed apps and that only the companies who can pay Microsoft will be able to have software run on Windows. "
This would be like the setting that only allows signed drivers to be installed. i.e. it's optional and up to the user of the system if this is the way they want to run or not.
This post was edited by sodablue on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 at 16:58.
|
#11 By
1896 (208.61.157.221)
at
5/7/2003 5:50:00 PM
|
Oops, you are right Soda, both the amendments about a "backdoor" and a "key escrow" were not approved, apologies to kevinu for the incorrect statement. Besides you know who was one of the strongest opposer of these amendments in 1998? John Ashcroft:
"Ashcroft argued that the Founding Fathers, who used cryptography to encode their own messages, crafted the Constitution to reflect a sense of balance between the needs of law enforcement and the public."
"The FBI has argued that a system of mandatory access would make it easier for law enforcement to do its job. Of course it would, but it would also make things easier on law enforcement if we simply repealed the Fourth Amendment," Ashcroft added. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures."
Well, well well...
|
#12 By
1845 (12.209.152.69)
at
5/7/2003 10:06:36 PM
|
1 - you can loose access to your unprotected media due to a bug too. I just had an unhappy sound drive snafu a while back which prevented me from any sound. It didn't take a lot of effort to get things in order again. More than likely the same would be the case with an DRM bugs.
But wait! Next Generation Secure Computing Base is NOT DRM. Or perhaps you weren't referring to DRM'ed content?
2 - you can loose access to data today because of a hardware upgrade. If I bebop on over to my AIX or Solaris boxes, replace their hard drives with new ones, and toss the old HD's, I'd loose all of my data. What's the moral of this story? Before any major hardware or software upgrade, you should back up your data. There is nothing in NGSCB which prevents secure backup.
3 - It's interesting what you call your rights. If you agree to a usage license when you purchase media access rights, then you have entered into a contract which outlines your rights. Whether or not some DRM technology enforces the contract or not is the only difference. Regardless of that, DRM exists today already, so I don't see how NGSCB figures in the picture. Another reason that I don't see why NGSCB figures in the picture is that it is NOT DRM. It can be used as a foundation for DRM, but it is not DRM. If you don't want to accept a license for certain content which is DRM protected, then don't buy it. NGSCB really has nothing do to with you listening to stolen music from Kazaa or from listening to legal music which your ripped from CDs you legally purchased.
4 - Wrong again. You control whether NGSCB is enabled or disabled. You control from whom you purchase content usage rights. That means you control everything. Paying for usage rights to play controlled content is just like today when you use Per Per View cable TV to watch the prize fight. Again, though, you are talking about DRM and not NGSCB. NGSCB is only a set of APIs which are a good foundation for DRM soltions. It is not a DRM solution itself.
|
#13 By
1845 (12.209.152.69)
at
5/7/2003 10:06:54 PM
|
5 - I don't understand what you are referring to here. Whatever abilities NGSCB provides will be clearly defined by the time it is offered for consumer consumption. Microsoft has promised to not only publish a full API set for NGSCB, but has also promised to publish the implementation of that API. To me that means, if I want to, I can know exactly the abilties of NGSCB. That isn't the case today, but NGSCB hasn't been released yet today either.
6 - That is your choice. I'm glad you realize that you have the ability to make that choice. It seems today that consumers don't understand the power they have. I'm glad that you do.
I do want to comment though on this trust issue. If I trust Microsoft's SSL implementation enough to do online banking via Internet Explorer, why should I be afraid to trust Microsoft NGSCB implementation to prevent one application from snooping on another application. It seems to me that the greater trust is required for SSL, not for secure channels local to my PC.
I also don't understand what you mean by putting all your eggs in the Microsoft basket. In the SSL senario, I trust Microsoft's SSL, but they aren't the ones who issue SSL certs. I have to trust some CA for that. In like manner with NGSCB Microsoft will not be the only NGSCB CA, so if you don't trust them, go to another CA to sign your applications. Let your app vendor, content provider, etc. know that you refuse to use Microsoft Authentication services in any means, and that you boycott the vendor's products until a non Microsoft CA or auth service is available. You are a consumer. You have choice.
All in all, I continue to not see what the big deal is over NGSCB. There are no back doors. It's not a "You must have Passport to use your PC" technology. It's not a "You must use NGSCB to use all of your current applications" technology. It's up to the user if it is even enabled. Like cookies in a web browser, some apps might not work if you have NGSCB disabled, but you still have the choice.
|
#14 By
1845 (12.209.152.69)
at
5/8/2003 10:26:07 AM
|
*crickets chirping*
Once again the FUD of NGSCB is dispelled and the naysayers are silent. Does anyone think they've learned something here? I don't either. It'll start over again in a few headlines when once again TL starts a "the sky is falling" thread.
|
|
|
|
|