backtop


Print 60 comment(s) - last by theslug.. on Oct 27 at 1:40 PM

Intel's Trusted Execution Technology encrypts everything

Viruses, malicious code, spyware and other security threats may become a past worry says Intel. According to Intel, its R&D team is hard at work on a technology called Trusted Execution Technology -- previously called LaGrande. Abbreviated as TXT, Intel's Trusted Execution Technology will use hardware keys and subsystems to control what part of a computer's resources can be accessed and who or what will be granted or denied access.

Going beyond the NX bit, or the Non-execution bit that is currently enabled inside recent processors from both AMD and Intel, TXT will bring a whole new dimension of security to PCs. In fact, TXT will also be able to work in a virtualized environment on systems with Intel's VT technology. Guest operating systems will be able to take advantage of features on a TXT-enabled platform.

Starting from the use of more advanced Trusted Platform Module (TPM) chips and adding new hardware extensions to both processors and chipsets, TXT can perform the following:

Protected Execution: This feature allows an application that has the ability to execute in an isolated environment, to be shielded from other software running on the same platform. No other software may monitor or compromise the data or the application in the protected environment. Plus, each application running in PE mode has its own physically dedicated resources from both the processor and system chipset.

Sealed Storage: The new advanced TPM chips are able to store and encrypt keys in hardware. Only the same system that the TPM is integrated into can decrypt the keys. Any attempts at copying data out of the TPM will result in scrambling.

Protected Input: Intel is developing mechanisms that will prevent unauthorized monitoring of human input devices such as mouse clicks and keyboard strokes. Not only will traditional input devices be encrypted, but data traversing the USB bus will also be encrypted too.

Protected Graphics: applications that are running in the PE environment will have its graphics path encrypted. Data being sent to a graphics card's frame buffer from an application will be encrypted and cannot be observed by unauthorized code. For example, a particular notice box popping up can be encrypted, while other windows remain unprotected.

Protected Launch: this part of TXT will control and protect critical parts of the operating system and other system related components from being compromised during launch. OS kernel components for example are protected during and after launch.

According to Intel:

The hardware-rooted security enables the ability to increase the confidentiality and integrity of sensitive information from software-based attacks, protect sensitive information without compromising the usability of a platform, and deliver increased security in platform-level solutions through measurement and protection capabilities. It provides a general-purpose, safer computing environment capable of running a wide variety of operating systems.

Intel will also provide a mechanism called Attestation for TXT, which is a self-monitoring component that ensures that the TXT system was enabled properly. Attestation will provide monitoring, as well as applications running in protected space.

Processors will have split execution spaces called partitions, similar to the concept of partitions on a hard drive. These partitions can be labeled as protected or non-protected. Standard partitions, those that are not protected, are now referred to as "legacy" partitions. A TXT-enabled processor will be able to have both a legacy and protected partition coexist together. Chipsets will also be designed with TXT technology. According to Intel, every part of a TXT-enabled platform will have the technology built in so that every pathway that is traversed by data will be able to offer a high level of security. With TXT, Intel is taking a no-compromise approach to securing data. All components of a system will be protected:

  • Processor execution memory
  • Processor event handling
  • System memory
  • Memory and chipset paths
  • Storage subsystems
  • Human input devices
  • Graphics output

Currently close to being finished, Intel will demonstrate the first working implementations of TXT technology sometime in 2007 on Intel vPro platforms. The technology will make an appearance in business platforms first, before making a showing on consumer desktops. Major OEMs have begun sampling TXT-based platforms from Intel already this year.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I want no part of this (for a very, very long time)
By bersl2 on 10/19/2006 1:47:14 PM , Rating: 5
It stinks of DRM, among other authoritarian uses, and nauseatingly so.




By FITCamaro on 10/19/2006 2:02:24 PM , Rating: 3
Thats what I was thinking. The movie studios and record labels will be pleased.


By othercents on 10/19/2006 2:37:00 PM , Rating: 3
Actually this does help RIAA and DRM. Right now anytime you play a movie or try to access a movie disk you can. You will have full access to it. However with this new technology they can make it virtually impossible to access movie disks and make all movie video encrypted so you can't even record it while it is playing.

However all of this new encryption requires hardware upgrade and adds to computer overhead. This isn't the best choice especially since Intel would be the one saying what Microsoft can or can not patch since everything would be encrypted.

Other


By FightingChance on 10/19/2006 3:15:50 PM , Rating: 4
I see your point of view, but the criticism lies in the idea that this technology can also be used to restrict and observe usage as well.

While Intel would possibly never intend for this to be used in that way, other groups that have a high stake in what PC users do are very powerful and have a lot of influence, and could force Intel's hand.

This is somewhat similar to the current trend in anti-terror laws being approved; the power to contain and persecute the 'bad guys' (terrorists, spyware) is increased, with the problem that someone or a group could potentially wield this to their own ends (suspension of habeus corpus, instant tracking of p2p activity)


By RogueSpear on 10/19/2006 4:06:15 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
How thehell does this have anything to do with the RIAA or any other label company?

That question is either incredibly ignorant or you yourself are somehow connected to the RIAA. I really don't believe that any of these technology companies are so good hearted as to care one bit about your system's security or stability. What they care about, especially in Microsoft's case, is appeasing the media groups and getting them to jump on board.


By kamel5547 on 10/19/2006 4:59:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
This feature allows an application that has the ability to execute in an isolated environment, to be shielded from other software running on the same platform


Um... great, so now AntiVirus can't scan the processes running and neither can any of your other diagnostic tools. How long will it take someone to write a virus taking advantage of this to hide their program from everything? It also will allow ANY software developer to do whatever the hell they feel like doing without worrying that it will be easily detected.

There are too many problems with this approach IMO, jsut as there were problems with the execute-disable option on current processors (I still ahve to disable this option in order to get software to run correctly). On paper and features lists things sound great, in practice they're often as much of problem as a benefit.


By finalfan on 10/19/2006 5:50:57 PM , Rating: 3
"Execute in an isolated environment" also means the application can not see others outside of the sandbox either. So even if it is really a virus, it's harmless anyways.

The technology has been available on high-end server and mainframe for a long time.


By Wwhat on 10/19/2006 10:41:35 PM , Rating: 2
Unless a viruswriter finds a way around that, then all hell breaks loose.


By Xenoterranos on 10/20/2006 11:34:46 AM , Rating: 2
Or lets say the virus is coded to just destroy data. I'
d imagine that protected or not, it would still have disk access. Or, hrm... just use up all the resources to prevent other protected-apps from running?
I don't know, unless they (Intel? the OS maker?) "sign" every piece of software, and only signed software is allowed to run, I don't see how this is going to get passed the "Punch the monkey for an iPod" problem.


By Tyler 86 on 10/23/2006 4:08:01 PM , Rating: 2
Protected execution leaves me scratching my head... will there still be a ring 0 / kernel level / 'real mode' of execution?

It may help against the average computer virus of today, but it won't deter the average computer virus of tomorrow for very long.

Even then, protected execution environments are still subject to executable code they load (as opposed to say, the MS 'Singularity' approach)...

Although I welcome the total input / total output encryption, the DRM-style 'encrypted message box' on an unencrypted surface is not at all welcome.


By yacoub on 10/22/2006 8:36:14 AM , Rating: 2
No, it's still being executed and thus using up system resources.


By Wwhat on 10/19/2006 10:40:18 PM , Rating: 3
You really think this is developed to help the user? I'm sure the thing is developed for microsoft and other DRM fans no matter what they say and what sidebenefits it has.


By gramboh on 10/19/2006 2:19:48 PM , Rating: 2
Protected graphics path, awful, hopefully this crap can be disabled or cracked quickly.


By darkfoon on 10/19/2006 2:30:00 PM , Rating: 5
As I read the entire article I was thinking the exact same thing.

quote:
Any attempts at copying data out of the TPM will result in scrambling.

I doubt that they'd actually implement the TPM without some kind of backdoor. Users are too stupid (and private interests/governments too rich) to have this not come with a backdoor. The only way to convince (intelligent) users that this technology is actually safe, is to make the source available for inspection.
Yes, I am aware that the "bad guys" will also be able to see the source too. However, if it is designed properly and the backdoors don't exist, then the "bad guys" will have a very hard time breaking it.

The whole Trusted Computing Initiative is a danger to computer privacy. It reeks of Orwellian Totalitarianism. I don't care how many "positives" the tech has, it has an ENORMOUS POTENTIAL for abuse.


RE: I want no part of this (for a very, very long time)
By stmok on 10/19/2006 5:10:32 PM , Rating: 5
Do you folks have short memories or something?
LaGrande has been mentioned many times in the past! It was part of the original Trusted Computing Initiative!

Back in 2003!
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0%2C1697%2C127...

Intel Trusted Execution Technology is just the official name for it! Intel is marketing it under the guise of some security technology. But its bloody obvious what TXT is REALLY for.

The problem with this kind of technology, is that, it can be used and abused such that it forms the backbone of DRM infrastructure. The more people know about it, the more likely they're gonna boycott it. Especially the privacy advocates. Get them onboard against this initiative, and they'll be very vocal about it.

Deep down, this isn't about security at all. This is about providing hardware-based DRM infrastructure for content providers for their home media platform. (No doubt the version of Windows Vista with the media center features will round out the package).

It will take control away from the user and give it to other parties. Can you really trust other parties to control what you can do on systems YOU paid for? (especially large corporations?)

When are corporations gonna learn that its none of their f**king business what people do on their PCs?

The more control they apply, the more defiant people will eventually become. People (human nature) don't like to be held down by limitations.

It irritates me that Intel still pushes such technology like this!

Remember PIII's Processor Serial Number? People were very vocal about that, and they eventually provided the option for you to disable it in the BIOS. Following the PIII, the Processor Serial Number (PSN) was dropped completely. The problem with PSN was that it uniquely identified the system!

As the consumer, its your right to boycott such technology and let the companies know about it. Don't pay a dime for anything that features Intel's TXT.

If you continually think hackers will always break it, think again...Eventually, it will reach a point where no amount of hacking is gonna work. By then, it will be too late. Have a look how hard it is to overcome Xbox 360. That's the example you should hold in your minds.


By dwalton on 10/19/2006 5:47:11 PM , Rating: 2
One comment, don't buy it. Generally, people don't care and if you do, you need to band together with others like you and form a viable market for DRM free cpus.

Other wise, you are SOL.


RE: I want no part of this (for a very, very long time)
By cochy on 10/20/06, Rating: -1
By Etsp on 10/20/2006 4:17:25 AM , Rating: 2
I dont think that "YOU" can pick and choose easily which programs get isolated at this point, or set one program to have permission to see the data of another program. If the choice to run in an isolated environment is given to the end user, the DRM implementations of this are practically non-existant but the security benefits are. That is of course, assuming you have full choice rather than a limited subset of choices.

In particular the "Graphics output" and "Storage Subsystems" parts are what I think is making people cry drm. If we are left with the choice to disable TXT in those areas, then this would be truly a very good thing. If not, then its likely the mpaa and riaa developers will try to take advantage.

Of course, with all things considered, I get the feeling that there will be simply no way to do this and guarantee that all software will work properly with this, so you will probably have the option to disable it totally just like Execute Bit Disabled.


TCPA by any other name...
By mbf on 10/19/2006 9:11:39 PM , Rating: 3
...still stinks like crap. The only thing that's protected is the profit margin of so-called "content providers". Look forward to "Palladium" in Vista working hand-in-hand with this "exciting new technology". Worth a look: http://www.againsttcpa.com/




RE: TCPA by any other name...
By mbf on 10/19/2006 9:15:02 PM , Rating: 3
Actually this is a better link: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

Notice the mentioning of LaGrande technology et al.


RE: TCPA by any other name...
By Etsp on 10/20/2006 4:32:08 AM , Rating: 2
Last line of the third paragraph in Section 4 for those wondering. But please keep in mind, not everything posted on the internet is the truth, and some people have a great deal to gain by lying about things that might interfere with their "hobbies"

Not saying that that page is lying about anything, because frankly I dont know. But it is very possible, and people are more likely to believe bad things about corporations than good things, so its not even hard to do. There are too many people who read about something on one web page and consider themselves an expert on the subject and feel motivated to tell everyone else about it. Please, dont be that person. (Not referring to you specifically mbf, just people in general)


RE: TCPA by any other name...
By mbf on 10/20/2006 9:35:56 AM , Rating: 2
No offense taken at all.. :)

But that TCPA FAQ pretty much sums up most of what has been known about the "Trusted Computing" initiative for quite some time. This "technology" has been in the making for several years, as you can see, but lately things were a bit quiet on the TCPA front. So much so, that many may already have forgotten about it. And once out of mind the technology gets a new name and by sheer fortune coincides with the release of Vista.

As stated elsewhere AMD is as much to blame as Intel on this, since they're pushing a competing technology called Presidio. The name may be different, but the approach is much the same.

The idea is to protect the computer from the user for the reasons mentioned earlier, and I firmly believe TPM hardware will be mandatory at some point.

This technology *could* be used for good, but probably won't be unless the public outcry is huge enough. Here's to hoping this one will be shot down...


RE: TCPA by any other name...
By Christopher1 on 10/21/2006 3:34:09 PM , Rating: 2
People are more willing to believe bad things about companies than good, because lately it has been the bad things that are coming to light more and more and more.

Have you seen any good things said about big companies lately? I've even looked for them and the facts are that there are almost none out there.


RE: TCPA by any other name...
By Lazarus Dark on 10/20/2006 11:59:03 AM , Rating: 4
I expect that within ten years most hackers, including whitehats such as myself, will have to purchase all thier computer parts from the black market to avoid tcpa.There will be a huge market for this among all those who understand whats going on. Call me paranoid, but hey, we've all known what was coming for decades. 1984 anyone? Unfortunately, because it is the nature of some to seek absolute power and contol over others, we will be fighting against this type of thing for the rest of humanity's existance.
Whatever. Viva la revolution!

btw it is odd that dailytech reports this so calmly. Surely as tech journalists you recognize the significant negative impact tcp will have.


Big words, Big change, nothing accomplished
By Trisped on 10/19/2006 1:48:44 PM , Rating: 5
Today Intel said that by using big words they can make users feel more at ease. But will the actually be protected. For more we go to Bob, who is on the scene. Hey Bob, what do you have for us?

Bob: Today Intel introduced a new technology, claming it will remove all the security problems currently in computers. We have heard these claims before, and we are not buying it.

Bob: The problem is that anything that a legitimate program can do is doable by hackers and crackers (people who focus on cracking security). So, if you can update the Windows kernel to patch things, a hacker can do so also, to allow them access to files and processes previously blocked. All this does is give the hacker one more hurdle.

Bob: So while it will provide a form of protection, it will not fix all our security problems.

Well there you have it folks, Intel talks big and delivers small. This is just another day in multi-national conglomerate business.




RE: Big words, Big change, nothing accomplished
By ZmaxDP on 10/19/2006 2:02:52 PM , Rating: 5
Today, a private individual came up with an astounding suggesting that could completely rid our computers of all malicious software!

Called "Unplug" this initiative pushes for consumers to simply remove any connection to the internet, erase all information from their computers, unplug the power, and leave them like that for the rest of eternity. No more Virus, no more Malware, no more Trojans, no more (insert nasty software description here).

Seriously though, there is some possibility for something like this working well. It doesn't sound like Intel has it right, but then again, who knows. Point being, it is possible to basically seperate access to certain resources through hardware design so that certain things aren't susceptible to attack. My example above is an extreme version, but has the right result at least. On a more realistic note though, say for instance you have a computer with sensitive data on it and the goal is to protect it from any external hacking or "cracking" threats. If it isn't connected to any network, problem solved. Simple hardware restrictions to prevent attacks. I don't know how Intel would pull it off with a more elegant/usable solution that still allows unfettered networking but it could be done if they're clever enough. Then again, to do it effectively would mean relenquishing a lot of control for mocrosoft and security companies like Symantec, and we all know how well they take such "violations."


By othercents on 10/19/2006 2:40:25 PM , Rating: 3
The truth is that all viruses come from outside sources. Either the internet, your friends Cd or floppy, or from Apple iPods *snicker*. Anyways if ISPs where to use internet scanning techniques that large corporations use they could block out viruses from being copied into our out of their networks. Making more advanced ways of fighting viruses on computers is more complicated that just stopping them before they get to the machine.

Other


.
By hans007 on 10/19/2006 3:26:35 PM , Rating: 3
almost any new technology can be used to "reek" of drm.

i mean, logging in to world of warcraft with a password is DRM. you can only play wow with one account at once right?


i think its good that they are actually bothering to do this. its like a VPN for programs. i think its a good idea , what it can be used for, well thats up to whoever uses it in their software. if its for DRM well ... thats what it is.




RE: .
By anilpassi on 10/19/2006 3:32:16 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you intel....but why dont you disclose that software viruses will be replaced by embedded viruses....will crash your PC when you browse for AMD chips

Anil Passi
http://oracle.anilpassi.com


RE: .
By Aikouka on 10/19/2006 11:29:59 PM , Rating: 2
Hans007:

I've opened two WoW's at once and logged on two separate accounts. It's not that hard and the game still runs just fine ;).

Just thought I'd throw that in there :D

Frankly, dealing with this secure computing initiative... I'd like to see more, but if it is what Intel says, I think it's a step in the right direction. I really don't think it's ever possible to have a 100% fullproof OE (Operating Environment) until you have both secure hardware and software. Let's hope this helps it, but if there's some evil forces pulling the strings in the background Sith style, then I'm a bit wary of the true intentions of Darth Chipious. (Such a bad pun, sorry :P)


Black Hole
By TimberJon on 10/19/2006 2:39:31 PM , Rating: 2
I would think it would be illegal.. but I think a unit should be produced that would allow you and I to connect to the internet from it, while remaining a ghost as far as IP, ISP and MAC addy is concerned. The data would be generic and no hardpoint addresses would be used. You could anonymously browse and send email to a friend at his email address located on a free email provider or elsewhere. As far as being hacked, pinged or ported, you wouldnt even exist. A Internet Black Hole.




RE: Black Hole
By CharlieL on 10/20/2006 2:02:35 AM , Rating: 2
I don't see any reason why it would be illegal. However, if your IP address is "ghosted," where would the web servers send your pages? If you make it impossible to address something to your computer, you might as well just snip the receive wires on your Ethernet cable.

If you are proposing instead that such a box would use its own IP to make requests and pass on the requests it had made to the appropriate computer, what you are proposing is similar to or identical to a NAT. You can pick one of those up for less than about $50 these days.


RE: Black Hole
By odiHnaD on 10/23/2006 1:42:31 PM , Rating: 2
That's like saying I'm sending you a letter, please get back to me as soon as you get it...sorry but an IP is just like a return address on the letter, no IP no way to get back to you...

PS - Brush up on your TCP/IP knowledge J-man ;-)


Forever
By Wwhat on 10/19/2006 10:47:03 PM , Rating: 2
Notice how it says that TMP'ed stuff can only be used on the computer with the same TMP chip? so what if the mobo gets fried for some reason? all your data is forever lost? good plan that, that would mean you need ot back up all stuff on an unprotected medium constantly, is that so secure?




RE: Forever
By goku on 10/20/2006 8:47:05 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, basically! Thats just a wonderful 'feature' of technologies such as this. If it truely is impossible to crack the keys, it will make data recovery for fried sysems a thing of the past! You more recovering data! You'd have to be pretty naive to think that intel and microsoft would use these technologies for the sole benefit of the consumer, their biggest customer they're trying to please is the RIAA and MPAA. The only way they can prove that this isn't shoving DRM down our throats is by requiring it to be an option. Problem is, they're likely make it an option in the beginning and later make it required.. Bunch of BS I say..


RE: Forever
By ED666 on 10/20/2006 1:27:19 PM , Rating: 2
I tried out encryption in Windows on a large portion of my Pr0n collection.

Then i Re-Installed Windows...

Whoops...

We should be responsible for our own security, teach the end-user how to set up his Router/Firewall/Modem properly, and the net will already be a better place...


good and bad
By waamatt on 10/19/2006 5:36:32 PM , Rating: 3
I'm in agreement that in very specific applications (banks, government), that this TXT idea is good. In fact, a lot of times any sort of security measure is good, it just gets horribly abused. I'm also in agreement, though, that in the home or even small office environment, TXT is VERY bad. It's far too restricting. No home user should be forced into a situation where they're denied things covered by copyright laws. If I go buy a DVD and I want to record it, either by duping the disc or dumping it onto my computer, then I should still be able to do that.

What THIS reeks of, is other big corporations and agencies (ie, RIAA, MPAA) strong-arming Intel into developing this technology. You really think the IRS would sit back and go, "Gosh, let's suggest to Intel that they protect computers on the hardware level." No, of course not. They're busy hunting down Wesley Snipes! :P




RE: good and bad
By msva124 on 10/19/2006 6:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Good for secure applications, but not most home/business users. This technology will be *very* unpopular with developers. Where they go, users follow. If this feature is not already switched off by default, Intel will make it very easy to do so.


abl
By Nik00117 on 10/19/2006 4:30:50 PM , Rating: 2
This is terribale much like Trusted Computing, if Intel comes out with this i'm sticking to AMD hardcore. It is my compoutermy business. And any person smart enough can get anti-virus software. I got Avast every few months I get a update I need to install, and it autoimically updates its self and constantly is scanning my computer. I got Ad-ware which does the same thing! This move would be terriable can be abused to easly. Frankly if they make this move, I will buy the highest end system I can, and live off of that for as long as I can.




RE: abl
By dwalton on 10/19/2006 6:02:48 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't know that AMD was an advocate from DRM free cpus? I guess AMD is going to rip up those plans for those future DRM laden GPUs that ATI been planning on releasing like Nvidia?


Some useful tools for high-security computers
By Hoser McMoose on 10/19/2006 4:33:51 PM , Rating: 2
This set of tools could be quite useful for certain high-security applications. Things like computers used for important security informtation, tax records, bank records, etc. Areas where companies need to be VERY certain that the information on the computer STAYS on that computer.

However I can't see this flying in the home. It's going to be hugely complex to implement when you have millions of software applications out there from thousands of different vendors. Try to mesh all these applications together without breaking legacy applications would be an absolute nightmare! The probably end result is that the only "valid" applications would be those written by Microsoft and Symantec, everything else would come up as being some sort of unsigned or invalid application. Everyone would then just get so used to saying "Yes I trust this application" or simply turn the feature off altogether (more likely) that it would be useless.

Just look at how far TPM has gone. It's implemented in many big OEM desktop systems and most laptop systems released in the past 3 years. Who uses it though? Damn near nobody!

As for the recording and movie studios liking the DRM prospects, that only works if it's used. If no one by military and banks are using this stuff then there is no market to sell music and movies protected by this technology and therefore it's all just a waste of money for the recording and movie studios.




By waamatt on 10/19/2006 5:38:09 PM , Rating: 2
Quick thought/question... Everyone keeps tying all of this to companies like MS and Symantec. What about Apple? Apple's a big DRM offender, but would they be inclined to shy away from something like TXT, or are they pretty much ready to go along with whatever Intel gives them?


or
By AppaYipYip on 10/21/2006 11:14:54 PM , Rating: 2
You could just buy a Mac.

=)




RE: or
By Aikouka on 10/23/2006 12:55:48 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, because it's not like Macs use Intel hardware or anything :P.


Sad plans for the consumer....
By lagrander on 10/22/2006 6:21:32 AM , Rating: 2
As a consumer, should I accept the following from my hardware makers ??

- slower performance due to encryption and memory protection
- more expensive hardware due to these added functions
- risk of losing access to own data on the trusted pc

Seems like a pretty bad deal!




RE: Sad plans for the consumer....
By odiHnaD on 10/23/2006 1:36:09 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the idea of Hardware based encryption is to minimize or eliminate the slow down of software based encrytion, for Server enviroments this will be a boon to keeping things in order, and I'm very much looking forward to it, also in workstation class computing (office computers) or anywhere that is a managed business enviroment this will be quite useful, at home however...I agree it can definately be misused and abused for the will of the DRM whores...


By Chudilo on 10/20/2006 2:02:08 PM , Rating: 3
How could you not see the DRM connection here.
Yes this technology can be used for good things, but the more obvious and more immediate use for it is DRM protection.

Come on now. Do you truly believe that if you provided a way to create a data path all the way from a Media Drive to the screen locking out ALL external processes from seeing/accessing the data, that would not be taken advantage of by the RIAA?
That's what they wanted all along. And guess what? That's exactly what they're going to get and you can't do anything about it.

They are the big movers behind the development of this technology. You can choose to boycott the technology but only temporarily until your system starts holding you back. Maybe AMD as the People's CPU manufacturer will stick with us for a while, for that extra profit margin ... but it won't last.

The only way for RIAA to protect their content 100% from any future hacking and/or even spending the money on encrypting or otherwise protecting their data from ALL piracy software is to lock it down at the hardware level. And that is exactly what is going to happen. The technolgy in this article may not solve this completely, YET, but it's certainly a step in THEIR direction. It's only a matter of time until they lock down all the loopholes.
this is definately how they're going to stopp all this piracy. They can never outsmart all the hackers with software. Any software protection can be broken by other software. Locking it down at the hardware level requires a large initial investment from them(an investment they're willing to make). that way it benefits both the RIAA and the hardware manufacturers and protects RIAAs future without exteme amounts of future investments.


Creating custom hardware to get to the protected content to decrypt it and convert it to something we would be able to access in the unlocked parts of the system is a lot more involved. But doable.. I'm sure we'll see a rise of those relatively quickly. Meaning somethign like a card with a software configurable decoding processor. And then you can have your way will all that protection. But again that will take some time to develop by the pirates and traking the sale of these is easier to do then tracking all the piracy software. However it's all a matter of time until those cards become cheap enough and are readily available.




This just in...
By Chernobyl68 on 10/19/2006 3:55:02 PM , Rating: 2
the new TXT initiative by intel has made Microsoft's "Notepad" and "Wordpad" programs unusuable... :)





Protected Graphics
By Some1ne on 10/19/2006 4:29:53 PM , Rating: 2
...they really need to get rid of that one, otherwise people will just try to protect their next-gen DVD's from being ripped with a framegrabber kind of thing, and that's just sad.




what's wrong with the way it is now?
By theslug on 10/27/2006 1:40:08 PM , Rating: 2
I think I'll just stick with anti-virus software and employing intelligent computing practices, namely not opening unknown attachments and installing shady malware.




By chrisdent on 10/19/2006 8:31:04 PM , Rating: 1
Symantec and McAfee are calling in their lawyers as you read this




By ElJefe69 on 10/23/2006 10:33:43 AM , Rating: 1
It will take maybe a week before a virus is put out that blows away this. everyone knows that. A computer is always bested by a computer. It will never be stopped. That's a rule. Anything can be hacked, and I will add: easily and quickly.

"Protected Execution: This feature allows an application that has the ability to execute in an isolated environment, to be shielded from other software running on the same platform. No other software may monitor or compromise the data or the application in the protected environment. Plus, each application running in PE mode has its own physically dedicated resources from both the processor and system chipset."

There was an article a few months ago I read about a researcher woman who proved that a malicious program could run and be impenetrable because of this technology or other virtualization sorts of computing.




Just another pipe dream
By Beenthere on 10/19/06, Rating: -1
RE: Just another pipe dream
By zsdersw on 10/20/2006 7:03:25 AM , Rating: 4
SOS, DD for you as well. What's your excuse? Are you on very bad crack or something?


A true public service
By Justin Case on 10/19/06, Rating: -1
RE: A true public service
By shadowzz on 10/19/2006 2:40:56 PM , Rating: 1
Ah, good to see Mike Magee posting again. Listen, I am the first to bash DT whenever possible, but I read through your bullshit during the whole Rydermark thing. Is this article a little too pro-Intel? Maybe.

But then again, at least they used complete sentences and I was able to understand WTF was actually being conveyed. (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35...

Hey by the way, Dailytech != Anandtech.


RE: A true public service
By The Cheeba on 10/19/2006 2:42:45 PM , Rating: 1
I am sure Mike is too busy running his site into the ground to be posting on DailyTech.


RE: A true public service
By DallasTexas on 10/19/2006 8:11:44 PM , Rating: 1
No need to get your panties in a wad with Anandtech. Once AMD comes out Presidio (their copy of Intel's LaGrande) then you can be all gushy with this site again.

In the mean time, you can get your dose of AMD propaganda from Inquirer.net. Just take in in small doses because their stuff comes in pretty thick.


RE: A true public service
By zsdersw on 10/20/2006 7:02:15 AM , Rating: 3
That's a very good point. I expect that when Presidio comes out, many of the same people here who decried LaGrande will be pushing Presidio like there's no tomorrow.


"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki