Register Log in

Ministry of Innovation / Business of Technology





From a jungle to an ecosystem of walled gardens








A page from the Web



Pick any two




Expand full story

168 Reader Comments

  1. I don't like the way this is going. Couldn't this have a huge negative impact on open source software?
    109 posts | registered
  2. Who watches the watchmen?

    This world is too big and disjointed for "trusted computing" like this to ever take hold. Governments won't allow it. Crypto will also never stay un-cracked forever... a country like China or even a company like Google can apply massive computing resources to a problem over an extended period of time. How do you handle any number of scenarios such as shifting political allegiances, civil war, crypto export restrictions? Do these countries just not get access to computing resources?

    Better to assume it's insecure from the get-go, that way you can take the proper precautions.

    EDIT: Thought about this some more and the civil rights implications of this can be massive. If a trusted computing infrastructure is in place, and a government wants to restrict speech... they stop issuing certificates for whatever they don't want you to do, or enforce restrictions on the apps they will approve. Suddenly all web browsers require a content filter. It's not hard to imagine any number of draconian methods that can be used once the capability to control what people run on their computers exists, and one company controls the infrastructure... Once it can be done, it will be.

    Last edited by Exelius on Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:35 pm

    1522 posts | registered
  3. If Intel limits what I can run, surely AMD will get my money. Secondly, it will be a cold day in hell when anything with the word "McAfee" finds it's way on my machine again!
    172 posts | registered
  4. Yet another eager addition to the scrap heap of "clean slate" would be panaceas. They always forget about this one little problem, just because some piece of code is signed and authenticated out the wazoo, doesn't say a thing about whether it's safe or not.
    277 posts | registered
  5. Ignoring the other monumental problems with a walled garden for desktop software, what happens to legacy programs?

    A fully secure system as described in the article is not backwards compatible with the millions of extant unsigned x86 programs. As such I can't see this ever catching on for the desktop.

    I think you're completely right that this is about phones, set top boxes, smart-appliances etc.
    29 posts | registered
  6. What about program you write yourself? You have to get Intel's permission to run your own programs?
    7 posts | registered
  7. They have to provide a way for you to sign your own stuff.
    3359 posts | registered
  8. Chuck Baggett wrote:

    Yeah, how about this?
    2224 posts | registered
  9. Fourth time's the charm? Yes, that oughtta work!

    Last edited by tigas on Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:46 pm

    2225 posts | registered
  10. I can see Intel going this way on x86 MeeGo phones. The phone world is new enough and innovation is happening fast enough that I think consumers will swallow the walled garden approach if they have to. Trying to apply this to the Desktop will just end Intel, and I think they know that. Every attempt made by Microsoft or Intel to fundamentally change the way that users interact with their computers meets massive resistance. Controlling the market is as much of a curse as it is a blessing. Look at what happened with Vista, and that was just a shift of some parts of the core OS, with no overarching shift in the way we actually use the damn thing. If Intel thinks they can take x86 desktop/laptop chips into the walled garden, they are out of their minds.
    57 posts | registered
  11. The first thing someone wonders about is script or intermediary language programs in web applications (javascript, java, etc.).

    How does Intel propose to deal with content that includes programming? In particular, where certifying content from particular content providers might open up liability concerns when a violation of either the computer security act, privacy act or other laws might occur. Contributory culpability.

    Extending the circle of trust to every content provider on the planet doesn't appear to cure any problems associated with using the web in the first place.
    17 posts | registered
  12. I'll just say "No thank-you".
    345 posts | registered
  13. I don't see how their McAffee acquisition in any way helps this plan - McAffee's products would become just as irrelevant as any other security vendor.
    325 posts | registered
  14. I don't like the sound of this one bit.

    What problem are they really trying to solve? This isn't going to protect from eg stack overflow exploits, such as those plaguing Flash and Acrobat, unless the whole binary's encrypted - and what a waste of processing power, decrypting and encrypting code as you run it. This won't protect from the common web-based attacks, cross-site scripting and so forth, which rarely attempt to root a system.

    At best, this is trying to protect the Bob Pebkac from running enl4rgeY0rePensi!.pdf.exe directly out of his spam folder, as it "won't be signed." Thanks, Momma Intel! But wait: What are the real requirements for getting it signed? Are there going to be a panel of experts reviewing all source code for compliance with some Terms And Conditions Of Service? Who's paying for that, developers? Under what conditions are the certs verifying the code revoked, and how often does every PC have to phone home - or multiple homes, as there will likely never be a central signing authority, and under what conditions can our nannies revoke the certs for those programs?

    So in essence I see a large number of rubber-stamp departments designed to suck money out of developers and give a rather flimsy facade of security in return. Can someone fill me in on what else we *really* get from code signing?

    I suppose this does protect against is a proliferation of variously obfuscated scam viruses of the ilk mentioned above - which I suppose would make signature-based virus scanners such as those sold by McAfee more reliable and effective - but I am not sold.

    Apple's total vertical integration of the market makes their situation a little different, allowing them to apply [notoriously in]consistent standards to the software they approve and reject. I sincerely doubt a scattered Wintel market with multiple approving agencies and an inconsistent set of standards and regulations will do a decent job of it.

    edit shitty grammar

    Last edited by lyngvi on Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:57 pm

    104 posts | registered
  15. I think a secure hypervisor and two OS instances would work too, one for secured code and the other protected sandbox for unsecured code. The average user would run on the secured image and the power user would run in the sandbox but both would exist on the same system.
    36404 posts | registered
  16. No f'k'n way in hell. I am *always* root on my own hardware.
    11367 posts | registered
  17. While the hardware provides the support for this, wouldn't the OS have to take advantage of this in order for it to be applied to running applications?
    1449 posts | registered
  18. Chuck Baggett wrote:

    I was just going to ask this. Good question. What does this do to open source, and what about regular amateur programmers?

    They can't be serious.
    13603 posts | registered
  19. I just realized there is probably a First Amendment issue involved, too.
    17 posts | registered
  20. NuSkoolTone wrote:

    1723 posts | registered
  21. I see a few issues with this from a desktop perspective.

    First, there MUST be a way to switch this off. It becomes impossible to develop applications while that isn't the case.

    There will also have to be a transition period. So for the next five years you will get a popup warning saying "Application X is not signed/approved, are you sure you want to run it?" Look familiar? I don't think we get a security boost here, not for a long time yet.

    Secondly, the modern security problem isn't people downloading infected applications with old school viruses. It's people installing Adobe Acrobat which in turn decides it's a good idea to executable code found in a document. The current zero day Acrobat exploit won't be helped by this. Nor will the various flaws in Windows, bad versions of Debian ssh or any other flawed program. I don't see this helping at all.

    Finally for a malicious program like funky_screensaver_you_have_to_see.exe it's fairly easy to work around this.
    Step 1, create a non-malicious program which can execute code from the internet.
    Step 2, get application approved by whoever.
    Step 3, put malicious code on the internet.
    Sure it's a little more work, that reassuring green "Approved" logo will be worth it though. You can't flag executing code from the internet as malicious either, that's what Firefox does to update itself or anytime it runs Javascript.

    The better solution to the security problem is an SELinux approach. Binaries aren't given a tick yes or no. Binaries are given a list of allowed permissions (accessing the Internet, modifying the filesystem, executing other programs etc.) That way your screensaver CAN'T phone home and your document reader CAN'T execute other applications. And none of this needs additional hardware support.
    8 posts | registered
  22. You all are getting a bit hysterical. Intel can't (and won't) force users to run signed code.

    Ultimately, the OS is responsible for loading and executing programs, not the CPU. Intel will provide the iron, but Linux, Windows and Mac OS X will need to be updated to take advantage of it.

    If code signing does become popular on the desktop, it will likely adopt the same model as Java: escalated privileges granted to code signed by trusted authorities (Verisign, Thawte, etc.) and lower privileges for unsigned code with manual override for a user to grant higher privileges on a case-by-case basis.

    Of course, the whole idea of this is silly to begin with. This whole article is based on an 8 word quote from Otellini, which is a pretty flimsy basis for this wild imagination about walled gardens.

    Signing executables isn't a panacea anyway. Mobile Safari on the iPhone is signed, and yet a vulnerability in a PDF font library earlier this year allowed a hacker to root other people's phones remotely. Lots of popular programs have vulnerabilities (Adobe Reader) that allow similar exploits. And finally, the program that the average user uses the most (the browser) executes third party code as one of its core functions! How can intel ever protect us from all of this danger?

    The irony in all this is that Intel (and indeed, MS and Apple too) are going to have their lunch eaten by Google's NACL project. NaCl executes native code in a sandbox using a limited, safe API and does static analysis to determine whether the code about to be executed would be able to escape its sandbox. It's really freaking cool technology.
    103 posts | registered
  23. This is still going to be a hard fought battle for Intel on two fronts -- it has the feeling of being driven by abstract goals from higher-ups in the company but without any clear plan for how/why people are going to adopt these things. In the mobile/embedded area, where Intel can control the entire hardware-software stack with MeeGo, Intel still has the problem that that x86 is simply a less efficient architecture than ARM and they don't have the advantage of being an entrenched standard. In the desktop/laptop arena Intel's problem is that app stores are really the domain of the OS maker, not the hardware makers. McAfee is not ubiquitous enough to be made into the standard app store for Windows. Of course, Intel could try forcing everyone to use their x86 security extensions by having their new processors run *only* trusted code, but this is bound to piss a lot of people off and I'm sure AMD would be happy to take advantage of this.
    11 posts | registered
  24. It's very hard for me to imagine how this is going to work out well, because for development's sake you NEED to be able to run arbitrary code through some method. I guess you could have some sort of BIOS/Firmware level toggle that allows you to run untrusted code and then toggle that on platforms where you want this sort of locked-down environment and require developers for, e.g. MeeGo, to code on other hardware / via emulators / virtualization but there's no way that this is going to work on the desktop where, ironically, you have the biggest security problems.
    220 posts | registered
  25. kray28 wrote:
    Chuck Baggett wrote:


    They can't be serious.

    I'm also curious about this. This simply seems like it would kill both Intel (via making AMD's offerings preferred by developers) and many FOSS projects (by severely the potential number of users). Personally I'd be somewhat surprised if something like this was permitted by most governments around the world.

    ajmas wrote:

    I'm curious about this as well.
    432 posts | registered
  26. So, AMD for the next box then...
    753 posts | registered
  27. diogratia wrote:

    Just to let you know the first amendment applies mainly to government restriction of speech. Since Intel is not a government is is not rally bound by the First Amendment. Just ask anyone fired from a job for speech even speech on time off. It has been upheld that companies can fire anyone for what they say at any time. Most companies don't do anything about off duty time speech but people have been fired just google it. Facebook comments about work etc.
    1074 posts | registered
  28. If I have to ask anyone's permission to run code, I don't own the computer.

    If I get the keys to the TPM module, sure, I'd be interested in a setup like that. If I could sign my own binaries and use the hardware to protect ME, I'd be all ears. That would be a real benefit.

    This doesn't sound like it's for my benefit, but for Intel's, and there is no freaking way I'll pay thousands of dollars for a computer I don't even own.
    2851 posts | registered
  29. This leads to extortion. Basically what we have right now for the web signing.
    1622 posts | registered
  30. "Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither and will lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
    421 posts | registered
  31. Everyone hates giving up control, this much is clear. However, there are some very nice benefits that could be provided here. e.g. Assuming an opt-in scenario, it could be massively beneficial for a corporate IT department to turn this on for certain subsets of users. Just saying...
    134 posts | registered
  32. Intel just can't stop trying to push palladium or whatever it was on us. Oh yeah, let's start this whole trusted computing initiative again, with none other than market share leader Microsoft, who at least isn't as hated as it was in the win9x days.

    Corporate setting? Go right on ahead. No wait, I enjoy my ability to hack my computer so as to run my un-approved Firefox which ignores proxy filtering.
    4847 posts | registered
  33. I like the idea of having multiple official signing houses for code, like websites. But I would still want the system to be designed stock to run unsigned code. Not like the iPhone where if you jailbreak it, its usually less stable and harder to keep updated. If you attempt to run unsigned code it should give you a warning, and you should be allowed to proceed.

    Why? For one example, if all software has to be signed, who is going to sign the software that lets me make backups of my DVDs? Who is going to sign the software that lets me find the administrator password on a Windows machine when my sister forgets it? Who is going to sign the software that lets me strip the copy protection from the music I bought online?

    There are many completely legal, completely ethical uses for software that I fear would get blacklisted if all software had to be authorized by an oligopolistic, collusive hegemony of a few signing authorities who all would all have to worry about what the RIAA/MPAA/Business Software Alliance thinks of them.

    I don't know, to me this seems like a slippery slope.
    59 posts | registered
  34. Shannara wrote:

    ++ That's just about what I came here to write. Look at the state of self-signed SSL certificates and the hoops that users have to jump through to use them in modern browsers. That's become nothing more than a money game, a racket - only those who can afford it get the green icon. Do we want that with our applications? Please, no.
    3958 posts | registered
  35. F##K no! That's the most polite way to say it. It's one of the main reasons I'll never purchase another iPhone. That, iTunes, poor bluetooth and ass backwards USD support. I don't need an app to exchange files on any other device.
    22 posts | registered
  36. i highly doubt this will find its way into desktops it would be the nail in intels coffin and ultimately kill x86. ironically this is what intel really wants case and point IA-64 if it was not for amd x86 would be dead and intel would have a complete strangle hold on the market with 100% share

    Last edited by Maxius on Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:04 pm

    468 posts | registered
  37. ColinABQ wrote:
    Shannara wrote:


    What are you talking about? The only "hoop" involved in a self-signed certificate is installing your own CA in your browser, which takes about 5 seconds.

    If you're mad that your personal CA isn't a trusted authority that ships with browsers by default, well then you've completely missed the point of SSL certificates.

    The price of certificates seems reasonable to me considering the amount of work that those companies have to put into managing their PKI infrastructure and doing background checks (in the case of EV SSL).
    103 posts | registered
  38. Furthermore, I do not condone piracy, and nobody should steal intellectual property, but what I am going to say is conventional wisdom that might as well be discussed out in the open:

    Apple got rich off content piracy. PC hardware vendors got rich off content piracy. Hell, even Microsoft got rich off piracy, by making their own software just a little bit harder to pirate than anything else that runs on their systems (funny how that works, eh?).

    Nobody has bought freaking 160GB of music from the iTunes store. I figured it out once, conservatively it was like $53,000 of music. And yet somehow Apple has managed to sell tens of millions of iPods with up to 160GB capacity, and even the smaller iPods would cost many thousands of dollars to fill from the iTunes store. The iPod was worthwhile because of piracy. It plays MP3s, the common format of pirated music. In contrast, look at Apple's failed AppleTV products: the only format it plays well is h.264. H.264 is in many ways a good format, but it is not the common format of pirated video. And so nobody wants an AppleTV.

    Same for PC and parts vendors, where there are X% of their users who are using pirated software. Free software makes their hardware more valuable, lets them charge more for it.

    Intel would be suicidal to do too much to eliminate piracy. It drastically reduces the value of their own product.
    59 posts | registered
  39. Does Intel want to fight another anti-trust battle if McAffe is the only vendor that can produce A/V software?
    4908 posts | registered

You must to comment.

You May Also Like

    Need to register for a new account?

    If you don't have an account yet it's free and easy.