Cryptographers Find Fault With Palladium 345
FrzrBrn writes "Whitfield Diffie and Ronald Rivest raised concerns about Microsoft's Next-Generation Secure Computing Base (formerly Palladium) at the RSA Conference in San Francisco on Monday. They are (naturally) concerned about vendor lock-in and having computers turned against their owners. See the story at EE Times."
In Other News... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In Other News... (Score:2, Interesting)
Better they find fault with it now, (Score:5, Interesting)
And now we're supposed to trust 'Trusted Computing'?
Re: Better they find fault with it now, (Score:5, Insightful)
> And now we're supposed to trust 'Trusted Computing'?
"Trusted Computing" is supposed to fix it where content vendors can trust us.
Or rather, trust our computers.
Platform shift (Score:5, Interesting)
Going to a DRM OS will change how personal computers work. People aren't always happy with change, and if forced to, they will review their options. That would be the perfect time for a Linux distro that does a painless install/conversion for Windows users, and installs a "best of breed" set of packages that are either compatable or equivilent to MS Office and friends. (If you really want 101+ different editors, make it an option.)
With the right package at the right time, the MS DRM "trusted" OS could be Microsoft's PS/2.
Re:Platform shift (Score:2)
there was a thread.. (Score:3, Informative)
here [fark.com].
just a not-so geeky viewpoint there.
Privacy (Score:5, Interesting)
They're cautious for a good reason. Making every PC an Xbox with push content delivery just opens up an ugly vulnerability in your system. I can't wait for the distributed Palladium cracking project!
From accounts of Microsofts other presentations they are there primarily to advertise the future of their technology rather than to actually discuss the future of security with others.
Re:Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
You're going to be waiting for a while. With M$'s army of lawyers, any attempt to organize such a project will quickly be shot down by any one of a number of current laws. Let's see how many we can name....
Re:Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides... we all know there will be someone [nsa.gov] M$ won't be able to stop.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Privacy (Score:2)
that is, rightfully, wrong.
_Correction_ (Score:5, Informative)
I suppose the NSA stopping all development on SE Linux is the reason that they just posted updates one week ago [nsa.gov] to SE Linux, as well as in January 2003, December 2002, and October 2002, all of which took place after this article reported them dropping the project (August 2002).
Not to flame, but just check your sources first next time
Re:Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
I can imagine 7 years or more down the track, when innovation has been finally eradicated from the US economic landscape, India (for example) will have observed and learned from the USA's mistakes, and become the largest economic superpower on Earth.
Once again, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside to know deep in my heart that no matter how you look at it, I don't live or work in the USA
Re:Privacy (Score:3, Interesting)
Yet another European/Asian/Other citizen bashing the US.
Look, the system over here works the way it does. One of the problems with the system is that corporations have been given too much political control.
Many European countries are already enacting their own versions of the DMCA and other rediculous laws. Europeans, don't think you're immunne.
"India... largest economic superpower on Earth"
Wrong. China will likely be the largest economic superpower on the planet.
"Once again, it makes me feel a
Re:Privacy (riiiiiiight) (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Privacy (Score:3, Interesting)
Forget about it. The XBox key is 2048 bit RSA key. You can expect that to be the minimum key length Paladium will use. Last I heard 512 bit RSA keys could be brute forced, but 2048 bit keys are far too difficult to even attempt. I'm sure people will try (as they foolishly have with the X-Box), but it's highly unlikely it'll be broken in any amount of time where the key would still be useable. Think about it for just a minute. Do you real
Re:Privacy (Score:3, Funny)
Do you really want me to answer that ?
The key is not the point (Score:5, Informative)
The point actually is that any theoretical construct like a cryptographic scheme or a TCP protocol needs practical implementation in code. And this is where the bugs creep in. And with things like Microsoft, those bugs are as common as snow in Greenland. And so all these hackers/crackers out there working their fingers on their keyboards and peering into bright screens into the fading night can 'hack' Palladium.
Microsoft has taken on itself to make errors wherever possible and remain as human as any one of us. Trust them to repeat their humanity and come up with enough holes in their Palladium implementation to let most hacks through.
Re:Privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. Does that answer your question?
All they need is the DMCA to stop it from being legitimate. With the DMCA, good security is "not necessary" to keep the masses down, just the law and a police force.
Re:Privacy (Score:5, Funny)
Neither can Microsoft
Re:Privacy (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually one of the best attacks on Palladium is a hardware hack to dig the private key out of individual chips. With one of those keys you can run a palladium emulator in software and have total control.
The bad news is that every chip has a different key, and if you share the key with other people it will quickly be spotted and that key will be voided. You dig out one key and it's good for one person.
The good news is that once someone with the right equipment does it he can crack chip after chip all day long. He just has to keep a low profile. Perhaps set up shop in the country of Tokelau.
The result is that you will have a limited number of "elites" who are totaly above the system. It's the worst of both worlds - virtually everyone will be crippled under DRM, content will still be leaked onto the internet, and you still can't trust software that is running on someone else's machine.
-
Re:Privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I have no doubt that mandatory updates will be integral to paladium. Many (most?) palladium programs will only work if they have an active internet connection to the secure servers. This means they can push mandatory updates onto every machine almost instantaneously.
buffer overflow
I think Microsoft is going to come out with some supprisingly solid code for palladium core. They never really cared about bugs before. Now they
Excellent wording... (Score:2, Interesting)
This will give the whole "man over machine" persona to Palladium, thus making it unpopular.
w00t!
Laws of Robotics? (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Is palladium optional for the SO? Could Linux or Winshit98 be installed on a Palladium box w/ no ill effects?
2. Is palladium optional for developers? Can "Joe Shareware" still release his software w/out paying an evil corporation for the right to sell it?
3. Is there any way whatsoever in which this would help Joe User or Joe Hacker(not to be confused with Joe Cracker)?
4. Will this be integrated on Sparc and PowerPC or just PCs? Is AMD accepting this BS or just Intel?
5. Who will be in charge of licensing keys for palladium software?
The alleged benefit of the CBDTPA, Pd, etc. (Score:5, Informative)
Is there any way whatsoever in which this would help Joe User or Joe Hacker(not to be confused with Joe Cracker)?
The excuse given for the CBDTPA, which may apply to Pd as well, is that more authors would be willing to publish works in a digital restrictions management system than in a system that grants all fair use rights by default.
Re:The alleged benefit of the CBDTPA, Pd, etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
Many people throughout history have made great sacrifices to ensure our freedom. Now it seems there are some people willing sell everyone's freedom to use a general-purpose computing device in exchange for a few extra TV shows, video games and pop songs.
I say if the price of freedom is fewer published works, so be it. We're already wallowing in an ocean of media crap anyway; it's not even a big price to pay.
Re:Laws of Robotics? (Score:2)
2. Yes, almost certainly. Not even the menace of Redmond could get away with that.
3. No.
4. Intel and AMD.
5. Micros~1.
Re:Laws of Robotics? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except when such orders would conflict with the First law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Palladium violates all three. A user could be severely inconvenienced by it, it clearly will refuse to obey the user, and it tempts the user to take a sledgehammer to it.
In the Foundation series a "zeroeth law" is introduced which states that a robot must not harm humanity, or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm. Palladium screws that up too.
Re:Laws of Robotics? (Score:2)
Re:Laws of Robotics? (Score:2)
No, but people are harmed when their rights to fair use -which is not the same as piracy- are forcibly taken away, which Palladium does. Is it physical harm? No. But it's just as real.
The second law is even more laughable, since Palladium improves the ability to verify that commands are coming from a trusted source. So you can't spoof the commands from a valid user.
There is o
Re:Laws of Robotics? (Score:5, Insightful)
God some people just don't get this...Palladium will NOT stop most of the viruses and worms out there for the simple reason that a virus like code red or melissa or "I love you" does NOT run untrusted code...its a macro run by an application like OUTLOOK...in other words a TRUSTED application.
Palladium is NOT intended to make OUR computers safer from attack, as they are trying to tell you...Palladium exists to give THEM control over OUR hardware...period.
Re:Laws of Robotics? (Score:3, Insightful)
MORON Anonymous Coward.
If that were true then noone would be able to use macros at all unless they subitted it to Microsoft for approval and signing first. And it would cost thousands for evaluation.
Palladium will not prevent macros from running.
Palladium will not prevent you from getting a virus.
Palladium
Re:Laws of Robotics? (Score:2)
Nope - it decides to kill YOU...
If you gotta violate a rule, make sure it's a BIG violation...
Is this legal? (Score:5, Funny)
WinHEC (Score:2, Funny)
Re:WinHEC (Score:2)
Or when the computer is labelled as such. I am worried that the marketing guys who usually print every possible buzz word on the box will hide this in the small print.
Re:WinHEC (Score:2)
Don't upgrade?
Take up another interest?
Re:WinHEC (Score:2)
I hope they're right (Score:5, Interesting)
You know it's comming... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: nice timing (Score:3, Funny)
In other news:
(hint: $ man 7 signal)
Sidenote about RSA (Score:5, Informative)
This sums it up (Score:5, Informative)
Does anyone think Microsoft would have it any other way?
Re:This sums it up (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone think Microsoft would have it any other way?
DOJ sues MS for violating U.S. antitrust laws. Courts whole-heartedly agree and rule that MS is guilty. Courts do virtually nothing to protect consumers and tech industry, and literally nothing to punish MS. Courts do not implement any *preventive* measures against MS - as required by the law. MS goes on breaking the same law again and again - nobody pays any attention. MS widely announces its plans (as a marketing campaign) to break the same law again in many-fold worse than before - Palladium - nobody cares.
MS has literally and (seems) legally bribed all - legislative, executive, and judicial - branches of government in order to escape and be exempt from the law, even after it has been convicted of violating it. At some point, the government corruption needs to end, but noone knows how; in the information age where most of the "information" is spoon-fed by corporations that are part of the corruption scheme, the masses will never be on the reform side.
Cryptographers Find Fault With Palladium (Score:2, Insightful)
we now return you to your catch-22 free life . . . no we don't
Re:Cryptographers Find Fault With Palladium (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cryptographers Find Fault With Palladium (Score:5, Interesting)
Damn good point. Your comment gathers up and bundles rather nicely the hard cold facts. And of course, once MS has made this REQUIRED to use any software of any consequence, I am sure the price of Windows will jump again.
THIS is EXACTLY why I am working very hard to learn Linux on the Desktop and hone my *nix server skills as well. It isn't a matter of 'bad old MS' to me as much as it appears that they are on the verge of imploding, and they don't realize it. Its a simple matter that I think Linux will end up overtaking MS not on merit, but by simply having less DEmerits at the same time it becomes 'as good enough as'. When the change happens, I want to be up to speed, and ready to capitalize on it. (read: make $)
Free people don't like this kinda shit, it sounds so, well, unfree (as in speech). As the computer gets cheaper, windows gets more expensive, Linux gets better (RH9 is about as good as win95 to me, which is a compliment) it WILL put pressure on windows. Unlike others, I do NOT think that Linux will gain a percent of market share here and there. I think that it will happen in a very short period, BANG, and over 2 years, half of everyone is no longer using MS. History shows this is the most common method for change.
This is why I am not a MS basher (Really, I use Windows). I don't have to be, they are becoming their own worst enemy, and beginning in 2 or 3 years, they are going to be very shocked in a very short period of time.
Related Story (Score:2)
"In a related story, Whitfield Diffie and Ronald Rivest are spending this evening at St. Francis Memorial Hospital in San Francisco. It would appear that sometime on April 15th 2003, they were rendered blind. Though it's not obviously clear what brought on this sudden flash of blindness, they are expected to recover soon. This news comes shortly before they were each to recive honorary promotions to
Paladium is "Optional" (for varying definitions..) (Score:5, Interesting)
In Microsoft's NGSCB approach, users would have to consciously evoke a secure operating mode that would be turned off by default.
Now as we all can imagine, it won't take long before various applications will not work unless Paladium's controls are in effect. Anything that accesses potentially copyrighted works are the most likely to begin with. Windows Media player, E-Books, and later Office products will be the first to require this.
Microsoft is already pushing to get their media formats to be the default. Websites are frequently given discounted access to Windows Media creation software. Colleges and other low-budget places are frequently targets. They have to agree to use only those formats, not quicktime or MPEG, in return. This forces users to get Windows Media player to watch this content. Later MS will require these sites start saving in the newer, Paladium-only, versions, and we'll have our transition to lockout today.
What can you do to prevent this? Stay with open formats. Ogg-Vorbis. MPEG. XML/OpenOffice.org.
It'll be very interesting to see if this subtle push backfires or succeeds. Ten years ago, there's no doubt Microsoft would have been able to back us into any corner they wanted. But the last few has shown some strong distrust - people no longer take MS's word as law.
Let's hope that trend continues.
It's called "Boiling the frog" (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's called "Boiling the frog" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's called "Boiling the frog" (Score:3, Informative)
For example, one reason that the Supreme Court gave for not striking down the latest Mickey Mouse copyright extension act (in Eldred v. Ashcroft) was that it had not struck down other previous copyright extensions. Give an inch and they take a mile.
Not all authors will switch to DRM (Score:4, Informative)
Optional as in you won't need it if you don't want to [use any new copyrighted works]
You assume that all authors would switch over to a digital restrictions management system. This may be true of the studios in the Motion Picture Association of America, but there remains a thriving community built around limited free sharing of copyrighted works, especially computer programs [opensource.org].
And if you claim that free software won't be allowed to boot on future computers, I don't find that substantiated. What I've read of the Palladium specification states that Palladium comes into play only when the system is booted with Palladium support turned on in the BIOS, and only for those processes that import palladium.dll. From Microsoft's marketing material [microsoft.com]: "A 'Palladium'-enhanced computer must continue to run any existing applications and device drivers." And the TCPA TPM FAQ (pdf [trustedcomputing.org]) states that "The trust model the TCPA promotes for the PC is: the owner runs whatever OS or applications they want".
Re:Not all authors will switch to DRM (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not all authors will switch to DRM (Score:2)
And if you claim that free software won't be allowed to boot on future computers, I don't find that substantiated. What I've read of the Palladium specification states that Palladium comes into play only when the system is booted with Palladium support turned on in the BIOS
The fear isn't of what the specs claim so much as it is that MS will pull a dirty trick (not exactly unknown, just ask DR or Stacker). Consider, unless you're good with a soldering iron, you'll be just 1 flash update away from a lock
The bit I like (Score:5, Insightful)
Which means it will only work on approved hardware - guess who profits from approving the hardware and drivers? Why would I need a secure framebuffer exactly when I'm already in full control of the code executed on my machine?
Approved hardware (Score:5, Insightful)
You missed Part Two: you can't get your hardware approved if you don't agree to keep the operational specs under lock & key. So, in order to sell display devices to the monopoly market, they have to be Microsoft-only display devices. Et cetera.
Re:The bit I like (Score:2)
You may be in full control of the code you execute, but whats to stop a malicous display interface displaying the number "0" when it should display the number "9".
I could then send you a message saying please transfer "9" credits to me - you would see, please transfer "0" credits to me, and might be inclined to do it (not a great example, but you see the reason for needing secure hardware as well).
Unfortunately... (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously though, read the following:
"The right way to look at this is you are putting a virtual set-top box inside your PC. You are essentially renting out part of your PC to people you may not trust..."
Aren't people who download Kazaa already doing that, since Brilliant Digital's spyware is installed with the program and can use the computer's CPU cycles and hard drive space without warning? It seems that unless there is a big enough hoopla made about Palladium, unsuspecting customers will have no idea of "Trusted Computing"'s true effects and limitations on usage. Just ask a non computer geek Kazaa user if they're concerned that Brilliant Digital has so much control over their computer, and if they give you a response other than a blank stare accompanied with a "wha?" I'll give you a Gummy bear (It's warm from being in my pocket).
info on dr. Diffie e.g. karma whoring at its best (Score:2, Informative)
For a dozen years prior to assuming his present position in 1991, Diffie was Manager of Secure Systems Research for Northern Telecom, functioning as the center of expertise in advanced security technolog
It's about who "owns" your ID (Score:5, Insightful)
To understand why this is not a good thing, imagine if a commercial company had the monopoly of passport and driving license production, and were able to prevent you from using the ID they issued to verify who you were except in "microsoft approved" shops and venues (or countries).
IDs and trust systems should be standards based, not proprietary. They should be secure, and openly peer-reviewed or audited. And the ID should be under the control of the person being identified (or at least issued by a "neutral" government body, as passports are now).
But I've just started thinking about this... so I might change my mind some more. Would that make me a bad slashdotter?
Re:It's about who "owns" your ID (Score:3, Interesting)
what is the fault? (Score:5, Insightful)
Im not saying there isnt a technical flaw, just
Re:what is the fault? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd say that the owner not having control of their own keys is a major technical flaw of "trusted computing".
Re:what is the fault? (Score:2)
No, I wouldn't. It says "Cryptographers Find Fault With Palladium". To me that means that they perceive a problem with it, since "to find fault" is a very common idiom for "to criticise".
If the title had been "Cryptographers Discover Flaw In Palladium", that would have been misleading...
In Soviet Russia... (Score:3, Funny)
Palladium simply brings this 'innovation' (in the grand tradition of Microsoft 'innovation') to the U.S.
Great.
Suprised MS isn't cyring "conflict of interest" (Score:5, Insightful)
Wittfield Diffie is an engineer at Sun Microsystems, one of the only corporations that can be considered a Microsoft competitor. Ron Rivest is a professor as his day job, but gets quite a bit of cash from RSA, and Microsoft isn't using any of the code that RSA provides (BSAFE, etc) in Paladium, so that's a big chunk of change that won't be coming his way.
We here on slashdot may realize that Rivest and Diffie are actually quite excellent individuals in their field, but these kinds of conflicts of interest are frequently what will be pulled out to counter an argument, rather than working from the facts themselves.
Misleading headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Misleading headline (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you separate these two? Having a car you don't hold the key to, but instead have to call some central bureau on your cellphone to unlock wouldn't just be a philosophical problem, but a technical one. It would totally suck technically if your cellphone wouldn't work, for instance - and this vulnerability would be technically more likely than if you carried your own key - a higher rate of failure at car starting. Now philosophically, you may be against always reporting to a central bureau when you'd like to start your car; but technically the scheme still sucks. Same if it's a key to your computer.
Re:Misleading headline (Score:2)
No. How you drive your car if your cellphone dies is a technical problem--which, oddly enough, could be "solved" by sufficient network redundancy.
"Technically" the system has no problems if it works as advertised. The problems the cryptographers have are "philisophical" or "marketing", not "technical
this just won't fly.... (Score:3, Insightful)
if foreign governments are having misgivings about using Windows because it is closed source, they surely won't accept Palladium if MS has undue influence and control over the architecture.
Re:this just won't fly.... (Score:2)
Not A Crypto Fault (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not A Crypto Fault (Score:4, Interesting)
That depends on what the meaning of the word "secure" is. Or to which party (i.e., user, vendor, etc.) the word "secure" applies.
With Palladium, I won't be able to inspect the memory or other operational aspects of any program that is running in the "nexus," and which doesn't give me permission to do so. Supposing some kind of virus or, more likely, spyware starts running in the nexus layer, I have no way (short of pulling the power plug) of preventing it from running. That doesn't sound like the kind of "security" I'm interested in.
Not owning your computer eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
debates? opposition? (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate to take this stance, but the above says it all. Just like the vast majority of /. that would rather post than write to their representatives, Palladium will simply be buzzworded and adopted by the masses. Regardless of how the technical community kicks and whines, the forces of market domination will likely persevere.
Hmmm... (Score:2, Funny)
Listen folks (Score:4, Funny)
Why do you think all the latest M$ software from Bill says 'My Computer' ?
"No." (Score:2)
"No."
No, I'm not going to buy a Palladium computer. Vote with your wallets on this one, and it'll sink into the historical curiosities bin with Divx. Apple, hopefully, will have nothing to do with this, but if they get
Does microsoft arrogance know any bounds? (Score:2, Interesting)
The main thing... (Score:2)
Trust (Score:2, Interesting)
"I'll pretend to trust you if you'll pretend to trust me."
How eerily accurate.
Windows 98 all the way (Score:2)
Re:Windows 98 all the way (Score:2)
Had enough of DMCA, DRM and "Trusted Computing" (Score:2, Interesting)
Monopoly (Score:4, Insightful)
You might be missing a point (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's a somewhat odd quote from the article. (Score:3, Interesting)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't *nix been doing this for oh say 30 years?
You'll still be able to install linux on your PC (Score:3, Funny)
Nobody owns the keys (Score:5, Interesting)
The keys are generated internally in the secure hardware. They are public and private keys, and the private keys never leave the chip. Neither Microsoft nor the user nor the chip manufacturer can get at those keys.
These keys are used by the secure hardware to lock data and to report a hash of an executing "secure" program. Because no one else has the key, neither the user nor Microsoft, no one can forge such a message (modulo the issue of breaking the hardware security).
This is how Trusted Computing has to work. If anyone could get access to the secure keys, then they could misuse them and make false statements with them, and there would be no trust and no security. Only by embedding the keys in a well-defined piece of hardware, with predictable and known behavior, can the keys serve to transfer trust to other software.
So when we see these complaints about the users not controlling their own keys, keep in mind that the point is not to put control in someone else's hands; it is to make it possible for the hardware to make trustworthy and believable cryptographic statements. The keys can't be owned or controlled by anyone, for this to work.
Who owns you? (Score:4, Insightful)
From TCPA / Palladium / NGCSB / TCG Frequently Asked Questions [cam.ac.uk]:
This means that this whole Palladium/TCPA monstrosity requires support from both hardware and software. It is entirely up to the end-user whether or not he wants this. However, senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina is working on getting a law that will make TCPA mandatory, see here [salon.com]. Until such time that this bill becomes the law:
1. Don't buy the hardware. Unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Well if you are working for the military then go knock yourself out.
2. Don't buy^H^H^H lease/rent/license/WTF the software. There is no compelling reason to do so.
It will only be compelling to use Palladium/TCPA software and hardware only if it becomes illegal not to use it.
Secure computing is not the aim of Palladium/TCPA. Its aim is to provide a way for software peddlers like Microsoft and content pushers like Disney to monitor what you run on your computer and assert control over your computer. In the long run, it will provide them a way to assert control over you.
Secure computing can be achieved through a combination of secure computing practices, secure operating systems running secure applications, and plain-old common sense.
If Intel, Microsoft and their cohorts push through with this stupidity it could spell the end for them. Just think, why in the hell would I want to run this sort of crap? Unless it's mandated by law, there's no reason for me to do so. With the recent slew of news about stupid laws being implemented in the U.S. it's a real possibility.
0xB00F, stands in front of Bill Gates, raises hand, extends middle finger.
Re:I'm not getting palladium - ever. (Score:2, Funny)
How fitting.
Re:I'm not getting palladium - ever. (Score:2)
look! it's paranoia! (Score:2)
Now, you're paying for that chip, and non-palladium chipsets might be cheaper...
But the point is that palladium hardware won't affect linux. or bsd. or openXYZ.
Re:Questions: (Score:3, Interesting)
If MS has it's way
Re:Questions: (Score:3, Insightful)
the killer app (Score:3, Interesting)
For example company big$co wants to sell data file D to john doe. big$co gives a copy of D encrypted with the secret key on john doe
Re:Questions: (Score:5, Insightful)
Palladium cannot stop viruses at all unless all "trusted" programs that could be told to execute the virus instructions actually can't do anything, which would mean the computer is useless. Outlook viruses work by doing things that the "trusted" program Outlook thinks are perfectly benign, the actions are harmful either due to bugs in Outlook or mistakes in it's design. All palladium does is "sign" the bugs in programs and then claim they are "trusted" as though that magically made the bugs go away. It provides no more help than the kernel-mode bit that is already in the hardware and is used by Linux and Windows and does not seem to have stopped viruses on either one of them.
The purpose of Palladium is for Digital Restrictions Management (DRM). There is NO other reason for Palladium. NONE. It's purpose is to make sure that certain programs (everything not written by MicroSoft) does not run on the machine.
The "target" audience is MicroSoft themselves. They are trying to make a machine that is acceptable for playing digital content, with a design that guarantees that alternative operating systems are totally unable to play this content. Far more reliable DRM systems (hardware cards) that would work under Linux are discouraged because of the bogus promises of Palladium.
The big picture (Score:5, Informative)
It is well worth a read giving an insightful historical perspective and with translations to a number of other languages available.