A Critical Look at Trusted Computing

mod12 writes "After just attending a two-week summer program on the theoretical foundations of security (one of the speakers was from Microsoft research), I have been interested in trying to find out if the "trusted computing" initiative was still alive. I got my answer today in the New York Times from an article that was fortunately rather critical of the concept."

Microsoft . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as Microsoft is there, there is no trust.

Re:Weasel wording

[letxa2000]

My favorite line in the article was:

• For example, Mr. Juarez, the Microsoft executive, said that if the company created a more secure side to its operating system software, customers might draw the conclusion that its current software is not as safe to use.

NO!! Y'think? :)

Re:It's full of hex!

[I Want GNU!]

Didn't you hear? Microsoft is programming the DRM system with their patented HexCode (TM). While it may decrease productivity, programming in hex and binary turns a simple 7% profit into a 111% profit, making MicroStock more attractive to inventestors.

huh?!?

[alitaa]

where are we getting to when M$ teaches about security?!?

Re:Two terms that don't work together

[alitaa]

yes, they do: Trusted Computing + Microsoft = windoze

Re:Markoff!!!!!!

[I Want GNU!]

Excuse me? Are you accusing the honorable New York Times [google.com] of paying reporters who invent the 'facts' of their stories? That, sir, is absurd!

Trusting Trusted Computing

[somethinghollow]

"...one of the speakers was from Microsoft research..."

I trust Microsoft R&D to come up with good security concepts, but I don't trust Microsoft to implement the good security concepts without having giant security holes in them. Then they can make programs that monitor/protect the security holes in the other security programs, and they will have holes, too. This would be an infinite recursion, BTW.

I can see the ad now:
Security programs with security problems. Only from Microsoft.

It's simple...

[Sebby]

The words 'Microsoft' and 'trust' do NOT go together, UNLESS 'anti' is in there somewhere too...

Doublethink

[TitanBL]

"The company is dealing with both technical and marketing challenges presented by the new software security system. For example, Mr. Juarez, the Microsoft executive, said that if the company created a more secure side to its operating system software, customers might draw the conclusion that its current software is not as safe to use. "

he went on to explain:

"What I mean is that we cannot have our customers using deductive reasoning to come to an obvious conclusion which might jeopardize our market share (control). Could you imagine the implications? We would rather them just trust us - and relax - big broth.. uhhh... I mean Microsoft has it all taken care of"

Re:You know, this is irritating...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Others have pointed out that, frex, since Outlook would be a "trusted application", it would follow that any code executed by Outlook, including viruses, would necessarily be "trusted" as well.

And based on how fucking hard it is to remove that abortion from XP (not "hide its icon", I want the fucking executable the fuck off the hard drive, Gates, because it's my box, not yours!), never mind 2k3 or whatever's coming down the pipe, holy fuck, it'll be harder to get rid of Express Outbreak than it will be to brute-force the TCPA uber-uber-key.

(Oh, and the backdoor that overrides the uber-uber-key and allows RIAA to wipe your drive is 53N4T-0RH4T-CH1505-4M4B1N-L4D3N-IN4P1-65U1T. Figured I'd save you geeks a few quadrillion times the age of the universe by leaking the key here.)

Re:It's full of hex!

[Malfourmed]

Everyone knows that hex sells.