Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel to Build DRM into Next-Generation CPUs

Comments Filter:
  • Who cares? (Score:2, Informative)

    by stevew (4845) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @12:23PM (#4228944) Journal
    Look folks - if you are reading Slashdot, then the odds are REALLY good that you run an alternate OS like Linux. Did you note it's a MS DRM technology??? That means poor folks running MS code will be subject to it - not people intelligently choosing to run Linux, etc. ;-)

    MS users - have a nice day - if you can!
  • by futuresheep (531366) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @12:24PM (#4228960) Journal
    This is the most comprehensive read on Palladium available. Forward it to family and friends.

    http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
  • Re:Mod up! (Score:2, Informative)

    by Dalcius (587481) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (todhsals+3143msirhc)> on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @12:37PM (#4229146)
    Just like if we don't buy Windows, nobody will use it, right? Microsoft will just go out of business?

    That's why they run ~95% of the desktop market.

    Look around! That libertarian "vote with your money" argument doesn't work often in the real world, simply because most folks are not intellectuals. Most folks don't care.
  • by tylerdave (58777) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @12:38PM (#4229157) Homepage
    The Register has a report about this w/ some good insights:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/27047.html [theregister.co.uk]
  • by bfields (66644) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @12:42PM (#4229208) Homepage
    I mean if you do not plan to run Palladium, where's the problem? This would not stop you from doing anything you do now.

    Currently, you can play DVD's on linux with a minimum of hassle, and you can do perfectly normal and legitimate things with them like make backups, copy and manipulate screen shots, etc. After the adoption of Palladium, DVD's (or their successors) could be designed to play only on trusted players that don't allow you to do these things, and circumventing these restrictions will require hardware modifications.

    Do you see a problem now?

    --Bruce F.

  • by Carnage4Life (106069) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @12:43PM (#4229215) Homepage Journal
    That article was mostly speculation short on technical details but long on Micro$oft bashing.

    Being a geek I got more mileage out of reading the technical details on palladium by a member of the EFF (Seth Schoen) who was at a presentation [loyalty.org] and TCPA and Palladium: Sony Inside [kuro5hin.org] an article on kuro5hin by a former Microserf.


    Disclaimer:The opinions expressed in this post are mine and do not reflect the opinions, thoughts, strategies or plans of my employer.
  • by jsse (254124) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @12:53PM (#4229309) Homepage Journal
    It's called Pentium III serial number, a permanent, unique, 96-bit serial number. This number can identify your machine not only to vendors, but also to remote Web hosts.

    Intel initally insisted that since all models where shipped with this functionality disabled, there was no privacy threat. In fact, Intel contended that only users could reactivate it, and therefore only users who wanted to be tracked would be exposed.

    This was untrue. [heise.de]

    This time, howover, Intel is not alone.... :(
  • Re:redhat and AMD. (Score:3, Informative)

    by n3k5 (606163) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @01:00PM (#4229405) Journal
    firstly, your OS doesn't have to support DRM in order to run on a DRM chip. if it doesn't, it's just untrusted and totally unable to play any protected media etc. (until someone cracks the protecten, which should happen much faster than microsoft/intel think.)

    secondly, DRM doesn't imply closed source, and open source doesn't imply "without DRM". it would be perfectly possible to release an OS with a media player under a open source licence and just keep some cryptographic keys secret, without breaching the protection of "secure" content.
  • Slashdot yet again creates the myth that Palladium is in fact DRM, or Digital Rights Denial.

    It simply is not.

    From the Microsoft FAQ on Palladium: PressPass: How will Palladium differ from digital rights management (DRM)?
    Manferdelli: First off, Palladium will not require DRM, and DRM will not require Palladium. Palladium is a great complementary technology to the DRM solutions of tomorrow, but the two are separate technologies. You can think of DRM as a way to define policy or a set of rules for a specific piece of information. DRM gives a person who creates a piece of digital information the ability to specify the rules by which it gets used. It lets you say, "This file can only be opened by a certain person or used in a certain way," and it ensures that your intentions are carried out. The technology then locks up the information and ensures that the rules are enforced even when it leaves your computer and goes out into the world. People tend to view DRM in terms of protecting online movies or music, but we see much broader applications, particularly among businesses. What Palladium offers is a new and powerful way to enforce the rules that DRM specifies. Every DRM solution requires some method for storing the keys used to lock and unlock protected information. Today, DRM systems have to store those keys in software, and that represents an inherent vulnerability. Palladium, on the other hand, will offer ways to store keys in hardware, and that's simply harder to break. Plus, with Palladium, you can be sure that your DRM is running in a trusted environment on trustworthy machines. So while Palladium won't create DRM, it will provide a more trusted base on which to build it.


    Lets review. Palladium is infrastructure based on a hardware version of PKI. Additionally code and data that are signed with matching keysets run in a physcially seperated portion of memory so that outside programs cannot touch them/modify them/view them in an unencrypted manner.

    People will build DRM on top of Palladium. That's all.

    Infrastructure that can be used for good or bad is not itself good or bad. Lovers of PGP, the Internet, p2p, and freedom should realize that.
  • by pdiaz (262591) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @06:24PM (#4232356) Homepage
    Wrong. Very wrong, in fact.

    You can divide CPUs
    in two groups: the "wired ones" (only "hardware")
    and the microprogrammed ones (IIRC the first
    CPU of this kind was some IBM mainframe - 360
    maybe??).

    Wired ones rely the implementation of all the
    intruction set on hardware gates (ORs, ANDs, XORs,
    etc) while microprogrammed ones rely on a
    control memory which contains the microcode
    that actually implements the instruction set. Each
    microinstruction basically controls all the
    signals in charge of the CPU (register bank
    selection, multiplexers of the CPU operands,
    main memory R/W, etc...).

    I wont go in further details, because you
    can read all of this things (and more) on almost any
    computer architecture book (Hennessy & Paterson
    Computer Architecture series is an excellent
    start point). Go learn

Save a little money each month and at the end of the year you'll be surprised at how little you have. -- Ernest Haskins

Working...