Hardware security in PCs to accompany new Windows

[Joseph Kubik]

The MAJOR issue for MS is that they can't do anything to piss everyone
off at once. If they upset the hardware vendors and the app vendors in
one move, then it just forces more people to use linux.
If they can come up with a way to help the hardware people "sell more
hardware" then they can really screw the rest of us bigtime.
In the meantime, I don't think that MS has enough of the hardware
people in their pocket to force this sort of thing down our throats.
-Joseph-

On 5/19/05, Colin McGregor <colinmc151-bJEeYj9oJeDQT0dZR+AlfA at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> --- Henry Spencer <henry-lqW1N6Cllo0sV2N9l4h3zg at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 May 2005, Peter wrote:
> > > Oh, [now] I see what you meant by 'not removable'.
> > I was suggesting the
> > > possible use of a dallas ibutton or chipcard as
> > the identifying device...
> >
> > Chairman Bill is likely to write his own specs for
> > this rather than
> > relying on existing designs.  I think it all too
> > likely that the specs
> > will demand that the identification hardware be an
> > integral part of the
> > CPU or motherboard chipset and *not* readily movable
> > from machine to
> > machine.  He *wants* you to have to buy new software
> > licences when you
> > replace old/dead hardware.
> 
> Very true, and the other thing Chairman Bill wants is
> to crush Open Source OSs (Linux and the BSDs), as
> Microsoft's true cash cow is the OS market. Microsoft
> will not let go of the OS cash cow without a major
> fight, and from what we have seen in the past
> Microsoft fights (very) dirty. If the hardware is
> set-up in a way that requires some sort of patented
> crypto code be passed around before the CPU will run
> it, then Microsoft wins on several levels, anti-virus,
> anti-open source, and a way to @#$% all other
> proprietary application vendors (who will have to bow
> down and obtain Microsoft's blessing in order to stay
> in business, plus pay some sort of licence fee...).
> 
> Now, a move like the above would be very clearly
> monopolistic, but given the sort of near non-existant
> slaps on the wrist Microsoft has received to date,
> well, the Bush Administration is very unlikely to
> anything real about Microsoft. Further 3.5 years from
> now Microsoft knows they may get another U.S.
> Government as unwilling to take serious action as the
> current administration.
> 
> In other words if I was enough of a S.O.B. to work for
> Microsoft, the hardware security thing as a way to
> score a few more 10s of billions of $ would be a
> no-brainer...
> 
> There is a joke that says you should never mud wrestle
> a pig as you both get filthy, and the pig enjoys it.
> The question for us as fans of open source is how to
> avoid mud wrestling Microsoft? A fight is comming were
> we can expect Microsoft to use hardware, PR, and the
> legal system to crush open source (Microsoft's passing
> tens of millions of dollars to SCO should I suspect
> just be seen as the first shot of many...).
> 
> Colin McGregor
> 
> --
> The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
> TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
> How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml
>
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml