From DRM to Rights Management Services 230
miladus writes "Microsoft has formed an academic Think
Tank on Trustworthy Computing. The Academic Board is to advise
Microsoft on 'security, privacy and reliability enhancements in[...]
products and technologies so that Microsoft can obtain critical
feedback on product and policy issues related to its Trustworthy
Computing.' An interview
with two members of the board is an interesting read, especially
concerning the global implications of privacy. Of note, is the absence
of DRM discussion.
But DRM shows up as 'Rights Management Services' in the promised Widows
Rights Management Services to be released later this year. it will
deliver a 'platform-based approach to persistent policy rights for
Web content and sensitive corporate documents of all types'"
Widows Right Management? (Score:5, Funny)
The question is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The question is... (Score:5, Informative)
Lord knows I've been shown to be full of crap often enough.
Richard Feynman was *famous* for being full of crap nearly all the time. It's that *nearly* that gets you. One of the great things about Richard is that he never, ever, self censored. He was willing be full of crap most of the time. It's an essential part of the process, but most people don't like to look "silly" so they hold back.
"Here's my idea."
"Here's where it's wrong."
"Oh, *THANK* you!"
That's the way it's supposed to work.
Commercial "science" almost always turns into a political issue of some sort. They're there to promote a concept. Not to find the truth.
It stinks.
KFG
Re:The question is... (Score:2)
Exactly. It seriously stinks:
If we at Microsoft work with academia to make sure they have the resources, time and information to infuse Trustworthy Computing concepts into education
we'd like to see academia work with the industry to inculcate more security concepts[Trustworthy Computing] into a technical education
Our board becomes a set of real people that Microsoft is willing to take seriously -- rather than a disembodied din -- advocating for trustworthiness
ensure that trust in a system becomes a foundational premise
Helping Microsoft increase the trustworthiness
Educating the public about risks and consequences [of not having trustworthiness] is a job [they share with industry].
And to top it off, their position is:
Trust in the e-world is not an option any more.
You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
-
Using MS-Office monopoly as a lever for Palladium (Score:2)
Right now many are less aware or concerned about the issue of proprietary data formats than they are over OSes. Another key is that MS-Office (for the time being) has even a higher market penetration than MS-Windows.
It extends Microsoft's MS-Windows monopoly by requiring at least one Serer 2003 at each site. It also has the potential to lock out non-Windows or End-of-Life'd MS-Windows distros:
If that wasn't clear enough, it has the potential to lock out competitors and End-of-Life'd MS-Windows distros: Palladium can be used to determine which hardware is allowed access:In short it's about control -- this would give the last bit of control of data away, out of the hands of users / businesses. This is not just a U.S. problem. It is also an issue for non-US companies, governments and agencies. Once 100% control over the data is given away, then both hardware and software budgets are effectively determined by outsiders. Access to data would be controlled by outsiders as well -- who is to say that there isn't a backdoor [techweb.com] or that product activation wouldn't be used to "blockade" the data of an agency or competing company.
What happens when MS has a new version of Office? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't like it. MS wants to control every 0 and 1 that flows through your computer.
Looks like its time to dig out the 'ole Commodore 64.
Just my 64k-is-enough-for-me's worth
-RickTheWizKid
Re:What happens when MS has a new version of Offic (Score:5, Insightful)
Will Microsoft use drm to make sure the DOJ can not investigate them for illegal practices. If Bill Gates unfamouns email about choking netscapes air supply timebombs then the doj would have no evidence. Case closed!
Re:What happens when MS has a new version of Offic (Score:5, Interesting)
It is very hard to go after a corporation. You have to prove that companyA knew about the corruption and hid it. Kenith Lay just recieved $200 million from his involvment with Enron and is retiring in peace as a wealthy man. Why? He claimed he didn't know about what was going on in accounting. Since he moved the money he recieved to his retirement fund he avoided litagation from angry stock holders and co-workers. A very sneaky loophole indeed. He can't be prosecuted or sued. Hiding information is key to avoiding prosecution and obsrtucing justice. With drm this makes the doj's and fcc's power void. Microsoft had been doing this for years and got away with an EU investigation in 93 because of it.
The doj could not even prove that Microsoft strong armed OEM's to bundle office because of lack of evidence. They decided to go only after IE because of the one email from Gates about chocking their air supply since someone forgot to delete the email.
Your innocent until proven guilty and corporations can drag court cases for years because they have so much money. Timebombing and drm is perfect. With no data you can not prosecute anyone.
Re:What happens when MS has a new version of Offic (Score:3, Insightful)
While the implications of Microsoft being able to leverage ("embrace and extend") any built in DRM/CRM (Digital Rights Management/Content Rights Management) is disturbing, what worse is that companies are going to jump all over this kind of technology. It literally allows the company to control information from CEO right down to the mailboy's desktop. To a corporation that doesn't respect/trust/value its employees, this technology is a godsend, up there with keystroke loggers.
What's worse, is it will allow corporations to act with even more impunity. Microsoft isn't the only corporation whose business model could stand to gain something through DRM. They're talking about restricting what a person can do with data -- including preventing that "We're Dead if this thing shows up in court" memo from being printed by a Whistleblower.
Letting corporations act solely in their best interest, and preventing the individual from counter acting in his, is a dire formula for a free society.
Re:What happens when MS has a new version of Offic (Score:2)
What happens when all media (from DVDs to web sites) is delivered with MS RMS?
Or easier... What happens when all mail from Outlook users come with this?
At least with this technology MS will not suffer so much with email leaks.
Maybe rights management is a needed solution to actual problem, but a real solution all should be based in open, free, and universally available standards.
No. MS is more subtle than that (Score:5, Insightful)
But it isn't *forward* compatible.
So all you have to do is get one company that a lot of other companies need to do business with in on the plot and get them to make the switch.
Your Office documents are perfectly readable by them, but everything they send YOU your older version can't read. So if you want to continue to do business with them you have to switch too.
It's a very effective way to force upgrades without giving any overt appearance that that's what you're doing.
They don't lock you out of your documents. They lock you out of everybody else's.
KFG
Re:No. MS is more subtle than that (Score:2)
For this reason, I always insist on RTF. If they send it in RTF, then all versions of most WP software can read it.
BTM
Re:No. MS is more subtle than that (Score:2)
Re:Word won't save in RTF any more (Score:2)
Oh well. All those Visio users are shitting their pants with jealousy over OmniGraffle. Maybe they'll switch to Mac and OpenOffice.
Enterprise Customers already are forced to upgrade (Score:2)
Good stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, where I work, we are required by law to have a level of security on certain information; this info should never be reaching people who do not fall under the same laws.
With a technology in place to protect that data, our jobs as the IT staff becomes much easier.
MS is, in my view, breaking new ground with this; some people may not like what they are doing, but you have to admit that nobody else is putting this stuff into their OS (when there is clearly a need for it).
Re:Good stuff (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good stuff (Score:4, Funny)
The problem with MS software is that after all these years it still has elemental flaws in its software. Before talking about things like confidential e-mail, they should consider supporting plaintext ASCII messages in their e-mail software. MS Outlook and MS Outlook Express choked (maybe they still do?) on messages that start with the word "begin" followed by two spaces. Their fix? You should use the word "commence" instead.
Re:Good stuff (Score:3, Interesting)
No. Good security is essential for people handling confidential information. Would you want your bank records littered around insecure networks, protected by unbreakable MS-Word encryption? I'd rather trust my information to people I knew had no Microsoft software anywhere.
You need to keep information separated at work? For things like that, most people would consider PGPDisk and BSD firewalls not enough protection. At one place I work, any computer connected to certain network has to have its disk removed daily and locked in a safe. At another place I visited, there were no network connections leaving the site at all. Anyone who uses Microsoft security solutions has no business being given access to confidential information.
I must be paranoid . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
"With a technology in place to protect that data, our jobs as the IT staff becomes much easier."
It's very simple, if, say, my medical information gets out 'cause some MSCE stopped thinking about security 'cause MS told them to, you better believe I am going to do everything in my power to destroy that incompetent individual's career.
I see people stupidly pick MS all the time for no other reason than it is "MS." Well guess what, most of the time things are NOT working as a result. That's fine, but when we are talking about security required by laws, you better make damn sure YOU actually understand the system you are implementing, and I have yet seen an MS product implemented by someone who actually had an understanding of the innerworkings of the product (though they did read the marketing brochure . .
Again, I must be paranoid . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
If you consider the above "MS bashing" then I think you have been exposing yourself to too much "MS marketing," 'cause I am just telling you how it is. If that is my personal data you are handling, and you are using the MS "black box" to "protect" it, I will sue you and your organization if that information gets out.
Clear and simple. You are not performing your duty, you are just maintaining a black box on the basis that MS marketing would never lie, and marketing buzz words like "trusted computing" does not change that fact.
I fail to grasp your logic (Score:2)
Should I go through the merits of Open Source, as I have done countless of times here and at other forums? If IBM, HP, Dell, Matsushita, Sony, and, even, Sun are able to understand these merits, how could I expect to open the eyes of an individual who STILL doesn't get it?
No, you appear far too lost in your own assumptions to be able to benefit from such an explanation. But I will make a prediction. I give you 3 scenarios of your future:
1. You embrace open source and find yourself catching up with the rest of the world. You learn the difference between security and illusion.
2. You continue to turn your back to open source, until such a time that MS' makes a final effort to create a competing TCO with Open Source by making your position obsolete (some would argue it has already happened).
3. You continue to turn your back to open source, until such a time when ALL organizations require ALL alternatives to be considered. You are terminated for being incompetent.
Pick one soon before one picks you.
Re:Good stuff (Score:3, Interesting)
If you are using [goldmark.org] a Microsoft document format to transfer confidential information, you have problems DRM cannot solve.
MS is, in my view, breaking new ground with this;
I'm sure attempting to use an umbrella as a submarine would be equally revolutionary. That doesn't make it a good idea.
RMS != security (Score:4, Insightful)
You could have rights managment systems out the yinyang, but if the software running it is full of bugs, buffer overflows, back doors, code that auto preruns unauthorized stuff, or sends private info to MS headquarters (Yeah I know MS would never have eny of these problems) Then it will not matter a bit, even if every damn piece of data and code is digitally signed, registered, and pre-authed - it won't matter. In fact it could make things worse as people actually leave their systems less secure - assuming that they are less hackable or that they will know when people copy stuff. BZZZT. God help them, they'll need it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:RMS != security (Score:2)
Re:Good stuff (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good stuff (Score:2, Insightful)
For example, if all one wishes to do is help insure that internal memos are not leaked to f*ckedcompany [fuckedcompany.com], this technology will provide a useful barrier. However, if you are trying to protect patient transcripts, one would hope that a suitable technology is already implemented. After all, MS Office, and MS Office, has many insecurities because it tries to be a business and consumer level jack of all trades. To me, security is enhanced by having only the necessary features integrated into a packaged built for the type of security mandated by the regulations
Even for stopping leaks, success is probably dependent upon enforcement of DCMA. Anyone who copies and pastes will be guilt of circumvention.
Re:Good stuff (Score:2)
I hope you would agree that the procedures and rules that apply at your workplace are highly unusual, and that it would be a bad idea to try and apply them to the general public.
This is not some one-off facility, targeted toward a very narrow market segment. This is something Micros~1 is going to cram in to every copy of Windows. It will appear in every new computer shipped, whether it is appropriate for it to be there or not.
Schwab
Re:Good stuff (Score:2)
If you're willing to depend on MS being bug free in order to meet a legal requirement to protect data, you're likely in for some serious problems down the line. The one and only way to protect sensitive information is to not put it where unauthorized people can see it.
I'm not opposed to information security at all. The problem I have is that MS has (by their own press releases) shown that they want to apply it to all the wrong things for all the wrong reasons. That implies (to me) that their engineering is unlikely to be appropriate to security of the right things for the right reasons.
Re:Good stuff (Score:2)
Also, I would certainly hope no-one in you office ever heard of
let's all thank Microsoft, tomorrow you need a camera to archive your email.
Re:Good stuff (Score:2)
RMS is based solely on encryption and permission flags. Documents are converted into encrypted XrML, which an RMS enabled application can decrypt and interpret, and apply the proper permissions to.
To make it simple for your sake, this translates to:
Win 2K3 will use proprietary document formats.
This is not Palladium, this is not "Trusted Computing". This is an application dependant security measure. Really no different that password protecting a zip file.
So if I have read permission to a file, I can open up that file with Open Office or whatever application is first to reverse engineer the encryption and strip the XrML and copy the file as I see fit.
The idea that I couldn't still copy the binary, or simply the information from a screen grab is ridiculous. I just can't manipulate it within an RMS enabled application. If I have read permission to the binary, I can move it. If I can move it, I can manipulate it in any way I please.
Looks like you got suckered by the M$ propaganda machine, and like so many other clueless "Windows power users" you blindly throw all your faith in it with out understanding what it really even is.
You're a pathetic fool. I hope the company you work for realizes how usless you are and replaces you with inexpensive software.
Re:Good stuff (Score:2)
The funny thing was, not only was I not whipping out buzzwords, I was explaining how RMS worked in simple and easy to understand terms. And you STILL couldn't understand. Instead you hide behind cowardly, completely non-sensical accusations.
You're a sad, small man.
Re:Good stuff (Score:2)
Re:Good stuff (Score:2)
You keep up with this buzzword argument, and you don't even know what the word means. "Synergy" and "Downsizing" are buzzwords. DRM and XML are acronymns for existing technologies. Learn to make the distinction.
I'm liberal with my insults only to keep it at your level. Read the thread. Who started with the cheap shots? You. You couldn't come up with a decent argument so you had to resort to insults. I simply responded with both a technically sound discussion and insults to match.
Re:Good stuff (Score:2)
If you can't even comprehend basic english vocabulary, I certainly shouldn't expect you to understand any of the terms or technologies used in the IT industry.
Not only are you not an MCSE, I doubt you even have a high school diploma. Even your grandma knows you don't know shit, and she's tired of pretending like you do too.
Re:Good stuff (Score:2)
Actually that would be attributed to your illiteracy. You can't even come up with a sensical insult, much less a valid argument.
Re:Good stuff (Score:2)
Re:Good stuff (Score:2)
a. "But seriously, all kidding aside, the day I need IT advice from a retarded, poorly educated jargon monkey like you is the day I hang up my hat and sell shoes for a living."
Read: I'll quit my job and sell shoes as soon as I need advice from
b. "In fact, is there an opening at the store you work at?"
Read: Condition a is true. Can I have a job at your shoestore?
You tried to insult me, but you've done a better job of insulting yourself. This is an effect of stupidity. You need to confront your problem, hiding from it is only going to make it worse.
Re:Good stuff (Score:2)
You haven't had anything intelligent to say throughout this whole thread, including your original post. At first I just thought you were stubborn and didn't want to admit how wrong you are, now I know you truly do suffer from chronic stupidity.
I think there are certain programs aimed at helping people like you cope with your limitations.
Re:Good stuff (Score:2)
This whole stupid exchange started because you didn't understand the article or the technology used. I pointed out that this technology already exists, so you defended yourself by berating me. So I berated you back, but I also provided backing to substantiate my point. You respond with more berating, with ridiculous accusations for good measure. If you aren't prepared to discuss and support your assertations, as it is obvious you are not, then perhaps you shouldn't make such assertations on a technical discussion board. Go post on Windrivers where they won't know any better.
So let's see you come up with a technincal defense. What will this bring to the table that we don't already have? And "XML is a buzzword" is not a defense, it's idiocy. I hope you've realized that by now.
As far as intelligence goes, I'm not dumb enough to insult myself more than the guy I'm trying to insult. Really that one was great man, all my friends got a kick out of that.
As far as technical knowledge goes, I'm decades ahead of you. Try poking your head out of your 1 OS and 2 application world and you may find that there are OTHER technologies out there. Your xenophobia really shines through with remarks like "I don't need to know this stuff, I have other stuff I need to know right now." and "XML is a buzzword!"
Re:Good stuff (Score:2)
Piddling around in Win2k's excuse for a command shell doesn't count as expertise in MS-DOS. And it's MS-DOS not DOS. DOS was an operating system released by apple circa 1979. I doubt you've ever seen anything other that 6.22. I was lecturing the differences between MS-DOS 1.1 and 1.25 and the relations to IBM PC opposed to PC Compatable while you were trying to figure out LOGO on your public libraries Commodore 64.
" Wow, that has to be the most loser-ish statement I have EVER heard. Bragging to all your friends about something you posted on slashdot. "
They laughed at your post, not mine. I found it quite amusing, and so did they. Why would I brag about you being stupid?
You still haven't been able to present a single argument as to how I was throwing buzzwords around or how RMS isn't anything new. You haven't done anything but reword the same, tired, unoriginal insult.
Speaking of throwing industry jargon around as buzzwords, explain this perl of wisdom:
You: "POSIX: Hax0r'd"
How was POSIX "Hax0r'd"? Find out what POSIX is before you try to use the term. Did you and your script kiddy friends steal the original document from IEEE HQ and deface it with "u r t3h sux0r"?
All your continued attacks at my personal life and status are irrelevant and childish, as well as grossly inaccurate. I guess that's just the kind of defense mechanism simple minds fall back on.
Re:Good stuff (Score:2)
"Also, you are bragging about being an expert on some old-ass versions of shit. Who give a damn? Things now are a hundred times more complicated now, and can do a whole lot more."
Proof you are full of shit. Who gives a damn about old-ass versions of shit? How about First National Bank, who runs legacy applications to be run in a virtual machine. Things are a hundred times more complicated now? Yeah, Plug and Play sure is a bitch to understand. I'm sure you find it quite difficult to find the right check box to click, I however have no problems with it.
"I guess now I see why you resort to bullshitting. You just cant compete any more, and in order to fill this great void in your ego, you just try and impress people who dont know anything. Regardless, I still see through you."
I'm 25. I get payed at least twice as much as you. At 8 I was twice as knowledgable about computers as you are now. You're the one who can't compete. I know more about the subject you claim to be an expert on than you do. I also know a hell of alot more than just that one particular subject. You don't measure up, not even close.
"Another way you reveal how little you know about anything is your defense of POSIX. Its well know among anybody who actaully DOES security (rather than bullshitting about it like yourself) that many POSIX sub-system have quite a few security holes."
You still don't understand what POSIX is. The security holes don't lie within the standard, doof. They lie within the implementation of applications. I can write code to an unchecked buffer in BIND 4, so that is POSIX's fault? POSIX is yet another concept you fail to grasp.
"If you give a hundred moneys infinite parts and infinite time, eventaully a few computers will come out with the right IRQs configured. I did all that stuff when I was a kid, so how much brains could it possibly require for a grown man?"
I hope for your sake that you're the monkey that gets it right. However, I actually understand hardware, so it's not a problem for me. You better hope you never come across any legacy applications or systems, it's best you stick to fucking up Aunt Gracies HP. You couldn't even make it as junior tech.
As I said, your personal attacks are irrelevant, childish, and grossly inaccurate.
So let's get this straight.
You're not an expert with Microsoft products.
You're not knowledgable about any other technologies.
You don't understand the terms or concepts used within the industry.
You can't come up with a single technical defense to prove your point.
Yeah I'd have 0 trouble taking your job.
I know how that scares a know nothing like yourself. That's why you get so irate and flustered when your ineptitude is brought to light. I know how you're scared of any new unfamiliar technologies, because you lack the mental capacity to adapt.
I take back what I said about you being a script kiddy. You're gonna need alot of education before you can even claim that rank.
Re:Good stuff (Score:2)
"Ya, because their BULLSHITTER is too fuckin dumb to get those legacy systems converted to something better, or to write a front-end for their legacy database, or whatever the hell it is. Put together a decent project, loser."
This is hilarious. What a ridiculously stupid statement. Ok, you compete with me for the contract and convince them why you need to throw hundreds of thousands of dollars to replace their existing setup which has worked reliably for 20 years, instead of paying me $150 an hour to fix one terminal, in one hour. You know nothing about the real world, much less the IT world. I'm sure you hear "No, I don't want fries with that" quite often.
Talk about throwing money at bullshitters. "I can't fix this small technical problem, because I don't understand comuters, only Win98. So we're just going to replace everything with Windows at a huge cost with little or no return." Dumbfuck.
"ah, just proof you really dont know whats going on. The world has just passed you by. Fortunately I dont have to worry about configuring hardware anymore, because it was pretty time consuming and unrewarding. There is a lot more going on under the hood that toying with eisa configs, and its really nice we (I mean the we of my profession, not the we of us two, since you sell shoes) dont have to waste time with that stuff now."
Proof you've never even worked on a quality controlled enterprise server. Hardware settings haven't gone away, you clueless moron. Plug and Play PCI may cut it on your Gateway, but when you have 4 NIC's, 2 Serial cards, and a Cisco HDLC, you are going to run into conflicts. You however, will NOT know what the hell to do, and you will NOT get the hardware working, and you will NOT get paid. This is exactly the kind of statement that shows what kind of two-dimensional world you work in, if you work at all. I highly doubt it.
"Another of your famous 'I have no reading comprehension' statements. Specifically mentioned was "posix sub-system", wasnt it? Look up that phrase in google, you may learn something. "
Again showing what an idiot you are. First off, you said POSIX was h4x0r'd, not the subsytem. You just tried back tracking out of your own stupidity. But you're still wrong. POSIX subsystems only exist in Win2k and OS/2 (NT and IBM) and even then only HPFS and NTFS support the subsystem. Also, it was never "h4x0r'd" just poorly and incompletely implemented, like the majority of Microsoft's products. All Unices conform explicityly to the POSIX specification, so they have no subsytem. Attacking POSIX instead of M$ for it's inability to implement a standard properly is the kind of lack of critical thinking skills I've come to expect from you.
"Really, you are gonna write an unchecked buffer in BIND 4, huh? You good with any other 'languages'?"
Ok this one had me in stitches. In this short statement you managed to be stupidly wrong, not once, but twice. BIND is a DNS server. DNS is what maps IPs to hostnames, and ISC's BIND is the industry standard. Yes, I know it's hard for you to understand that software other than Microsoft's is industry standard, but try hard to conceptualize it. So do you now understand the difference between a programming language and a DNS server? It's a pretty big difference. Also, you showed you know nothing about security. BIND 4 was traditionally known to be highly susceptible to buffer overflows. A buffer overflow is when an application writes to memory outside of it's program stack, because the buffer was unchecked, hence the term unchecked buffer. This allows an attacker to overflow that section of the program stack with garbage, up to the point where it overflows that stack, at which point malicious code is written to memory. It can be a simple C function that spawns a shell on port 1337, and when it is called it is executed.
You really are a dumbfuck. I thought maybe you were just an MCSE monkey at first, but there's no way in hell you could even amount to that.
"really? I found this whole exchange quite amusing. Its fun to troll someone out for so long. In fact, I think you are such a fool that I can continue to troll you out until this article goes dead."
Well you certainly are a troll. That's nothing to be proud of. However I find your stupidity, and your attempts to hide from it behind third grade insults very amusing. I have no problem with proving you wrong technically. I know you won't engage in a technincal discussion because you can't keep pace, because you keep getting your ass handed to you time after time. And go on thinking you're the one dragging this out, I'm just starting a scrapbook on the stupid things you've said to show the mentallity of a windows "power user". Don't worry, it'll be anonymous, but you're giving me such great content, it'd be a shame to stop now. As soon as this article goes dead, I'll start right where I left off on the next post you make. I don't know why you thought you were getting out of this. I guess stupidity makes you think things like that.
You're completely transparent. You know NOTHING about computers, you spout off about being a Microsoft expert, which you are not. You hide like a cowardly little girl behind lame, broke excuses. And it's funny as hell to me. Keep up the good work, Jackass! Good luck on your MOUS certification, eigth time is a charm.
Re:Good stuff (Score:2)
Actaually I was giving you an example of what you might come across if you ever had a chance of being in the IT sector.
"If it, and you, are so scary good, why run it in a VM?"
Why run it on an 8088? Your teachers were all wrong.. there are stupid questions, and that was a prime example.
" For goodness sakes, man, learn to recompile source code! "
Ok, find me a cross-compiler that can port ADA, COBOL, and pages upon pages of 8088 architecture dependent assembly to x86, UltraSparc64, ARM, PPC, and Alpha. Yeah, that's a much better solution that serving the applications to thin clients through a tool as ubiquitous as a web browser.
"Plug and Play- hey stupid, did you get the plug and play to work on your NT servers? Let me know how much luck you have. How about DOS? How about Win3.1?"
Yes, yes, and yes. Plug and play has been around since MCA architecture. While not supported explicitly by the operating system, plug and play was acheived through specialized programs (eg. drivers) could detect the hardware and configure it. In fact, with MCA, this was the only way to configure the hardware, which is why it failed so miserably. And it's MS-DOS, not DOS. It's also laughable that you include win 3.1 AND MS-DOS in there. Win 3.1 is just a window manger on top of DOS. So is Windows 9x, so yes, MS-DOS does support plug and play. Again you are wrong, and dumb.
"Also, *I* wouldnt run into conflicts. Why? Because I know what the hell Im doing. So dont tell me conflicts are inevitable, just because they are with your shoddy work."
Again showing you have no real world experience, and that you rely SOLELY on windows to do your job for you. Even the compUSA techs would laugh at you for this, and point out fact that you don't know shit. I'm glad Windows 98 held your hand through your 4 node peer-to-peer LAN, but that won't cut it on an enterprise network. Why don't you tell me how you would handle the HDLC and two NICs fighting for the same IRQ, when all appropriate IRQ's a filled by other hardware? Here's a hinti: The HDLC doesn't support IRQ sharing, and will either not work, or take over the PCI bus, depending on placement. There is AUTOMATICALLY a conflict due to Win2k plug and play not being able to handle running out of IRQ's, AND having a non IRQ sharing device on the bus. There are millions of other configurations that will autmotically give you conflicts. You wouldn't know that, though.
"POSIX. Are you claiming that POSIX was NEVER hacked? Really now. Thats quite amazing. Maybe the people behind POSIX should build our next space shuttle, since they are obviously God, and thus perfect. Worship them!!!"
The concept of what POSIX is is apparently too much for your simple mind to grasp. I fear that any further explanation would cause you to pass out in confusion. Maybe someday when you're feeling brave, you'll crawl out from underneath your rock and learn something. But I doubt it.
"LOL, once again you prove that you cant read. I know what BIND is, moron. Why do you think 'languages' was in quotes? You were the one who said you code in BIND."
This one is funny. Here is what I said, exactly.
" I can write code to an unchecked buffer in BIND 4"
Read it over and over until you understand it. It may be quite awhile. I can write code TO an unchecked buffer in bind. Who has reading comprehension problems? You're either fucking illiterate, or you're trying to backtrack out of your own bullshit.
So, we've established that you are technically braindead. Also, I'd like to point out that on your last post you started your retarded digression by listing it with a 1, as though there was some form or sense in your rants. Nothing else though. You are either too stupid to keep a simple thought for any amount, or too stupid to count past one. Maybe both. I'll let you decide.
Re:Good stuff (Score:2)
Since you've not made a single correct technical argument at all, and all mine have been 100% correct and factual, nothing you can say about my skills has any validity. You can criticize your fellow burger flippers on what a poor job of flipping burgers they are doing. You go show those newbs how it's McDone!
"Win9x, however, does not just run on top of DOS; you really dont know what you are talking about (I could point out why, but I refuse to feed you any more info- go look it up, stupid). Try telling me that NT runs on top of DOS too."
Yes, Win9x DOES run on top of MS-DOS. Look it up and learn somthing. You obviously don't have ANY Windows certifications or experience. You're shit out of luck until they develop Minesweeper OS. NT runs on top of OS/2, which I've said before. So yet again, you are stupid and wrong.
"POSIX: nice attempt at a dodge. You just noticed how stupid your comment was, so try and turn it around. Go answer that help desk phone, little man."
Talking to yourself? I didn't turn anything
around. You however went from:
POSIX: H4x0r'd. to
No, I said POSIX subsytems. to
Some psychotic ramble about POSIX and building a space shuttle. to
Nice attempt at a dodge.
This is the kind of behaviour typical of someone up to their ears in their own bullshit.
You're only defense is ad hominem. It's easy to attack you as well as debunk any of your poorly formed arguments, you however, do not possess that ability. You know absolutely zilch about anything at all. It's going to be a long, hard operation, removing your head from your ass, so I suggest you get started ASAP.
Re:Good stuff (Score:2)
Again, showing you are completely illiterate, and oblivious to it. I know it's a long and hard process for you to read and interpret a single sentence, but if you try hard enough,.. nah, you're too stupid.
" it does NOT. Thinking that is does is a popular misconception, and one that allows people who know to spot those who bullshit. I could elaborate about why you are wrong, but Im not feeding you."
I smile every time you say something so stupid and wrong it can not be denied. I was smiling alot while reading this. No, it's not a populat misconception, it's a fact. You won't elaborate because you're already choking on your own bullshit.
"Again, this is one of those popular misconceptions that requires knowledge of the OS architectures, which you dont have."
See above response. Dumbass.
"Also, try not to jargon monkey your posts up even more by using latin."
I'll let you respond to this.
"Im sure I can continue ad naseum"
"repeating the same bullshit as everyone else, ad naseum."
"The only thing your addled little brain can do is pick on minutia."
So take you're own advice and quit "jargon monkeying" up everything you say. You make desperate attempts to try to sound like you know what you are talking about but you don't. You just try and skirt around every issue with some lame excuse like, "I don't need to elaborate on my ridiculously stupid claim", because you CAN'T elaborate. That might work on your assistant manager in the fry line, but it doesn't cut it in the real world.
And here are some really great quotes you've given me elsewhere. My scrapbook is quickly becoming a lexicon of your stupidity! Keep up the good work!
" Ok. I guess I was guilty of not reading the article that time!" As if you ever did, or could if you wanted to.
"It never ceases to amaze me how many companies get their good network designs hosed by some jackass consultant who comes in with the all-to-common "I dont know how you do it, but its all wrong" mentality."
Yeah like some jackass consultant who wants to throw Windows at a problem because he doesn't know how to use the software that has worked flawlessy for the last 20 years. I agree completely. I see these jackasses all the time, and I'm replying to one's post right now.
" Also, this hardly comes as a surprise from a technical standpoint. How will MS be able to diagnose and correct a software conflict unless they can analyse all the data regarding your computer?"
Well they used to leave it up to the people who knew wtf they were doing. Unfortunately there's too many fakes claiming to be admins, such as yourself, that they have to dumb it down for you.
"I need to upgrade my brain!" My thoughts exactly.
"I think the real thing the researchers should be looking at is if there is any kind of uniqueness identifyer that will allow them to tie the data back to a specific PC"
"The unique code Windows Media Player 8 sends to Microsoft identifies the software, not the person using it. However, the anonymity could be lifted if the user signs up for the Windows Media e-mail newsletter."
This is a freebie just for your education. God knows you need to learn something.
Re:Good stuff (Score:2)
So let me summarize all of your past, present, and future posts, so that you may copy and paste it instead of wasting your time typing it out, just replace the first sentence with whatever incorrect crap you were going to spout.
" I can only find evidence to prove that I was stupid and wrong, so I won't post any otherwise. I'm incredibly stupid and wrong, and I like it that way! I don't actually *know* anything about computers, so anything you say to me is a buzzword! ad naseum."
And here's the good one.
You" "That anon poster was right. I can point out your stupidity to you, but you are quite oblivious to how dumb you are."
Ok this is some of the best proof I've gotten so far that you are beyond retarded. This is the quote you are using as your support that I'm the oblivious one
"(t0ny) There is little left for me to say, becuase you arent even putting complete together sentences anymore.
[My emphasis]"
HAHAHA! YOU STUPID FUCK!! He was making fun of you for not being able to put together a sentence accusing me of not being able to put together a sentence. He was proving MY point. that I can easily point out how dumb you are, but you are quite oblivious to your stupidity. And you were reinforcing that fact by using his insult against you as your basis for argument against me. You can't even tell when someone is insulting you! I bet you think all those guys that get to work drive thru and register and laighing "with" you, right?
That was seriously the most obliviously stupid thing you could have done. That one is worth pages of some of the other things you've said!
Keep it up! I haven't laughed this hard in a long time!
Re:Good stuff (Score:2)
You're not fooling anyone but yourself with this whole "I don't need to provide examples." bullshit. Everyones know you CAN'T find examples.
Windows 9x bootstraps itself by first bootstrapping MS-DOS, on top of which is loaded a DPMI DOS extender and then the Windows kernel. This is basically the same thing as 386 Enhanced Mode in Windows 3.x & WFWG. So yes, Win 9x DOES run on top of MS-DOS, and you denying that especially without even explaining yourself or giving examples just show that you don't even understand Windows 98.
Re:Good stuff (Score:2)
Yet again you emphasize my point that you understand neither basic computing concepts OR anything about Windows.
You throw those buzzwords around pretty well. I guess it comes from so much practice. So far, you've said "paradigm shift" about 15 times, but you still haven't been right or made sense once. I guess that's what you have to do when you don't know any of the terms or techonologies used in IT, you use buzzwords from the low-level management sector to try and distract from you're obvious lack of any marketable skill.
Re:Good stuff (Score:2)
I can understand why you avoid technical or factual arguments. If you're wrong all the time, why even bother? It's best a blue collar guy like yourself avoid technical discussion and stick to regurgitating the unimaginative attempts at insults. It's where you belong, and it's where you'll stay.
MS Dogfood (Score:5, Funny)
Do I read ... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Do I read ... (Score:2)
Your logic fails.
KFG
Sheesh (Score:3, Funny)
*consoles self in reality distortion field*
*honk*
Heh... (Score:4, Funny)
On a sidenote, I hadn't heard about MS changing their product line to 'Widows'..... Another interesting name change...
Microsoft Widows indeed (Score:5, Funny)
missing? (Score:2, Troll)
Since the article only went over why the group was formed and touched *very* breifly on specifically what they would be doing, it seems like only your expectation to see it there made the absence notable. Remember, these people probably dont read Slashdot- they have to do things that matter.
The problem with "Trustworthy Computing" (Score:5, Insightful)
And now, they are engineering their software to require you to seek authorization from them (via Passport) to access your own documents. Why should I, or anyone else, want to log my computer activity with Microsoft HQ?
Re:The problem with "Trustworthy Computing" (Score:5, Informative)
Just think: No more wondering what server your document is on! No more having to back up the server at 3am! No more wondering where the office grunts saved their files to THIS time! No more worrying about "leaking memos" since only M$ will have access to them! No more worrying about whether your Office software has been updated in a timely manner, and properly licensed! M$ will take care of all of this FOR you, right here on M$'s own centralised server farm! Isn't that nice of them??
Well, the guy presenting this back in 1999 sure thought so. The audience was markedly less enthusiastic.
Re:The problem with "Trustworthy Computing" (Score:2)
The internet was designed to be disaster proof. Anytime you have a point of 'convergence', you have a weakness. One determined script kiddie with a 0-day exploit could take down that farm and leave thousands of businesses hosed for the day, week or month it would take (MS) to fix.
Distributed computing is far more robust with its multiple points of failure. I'd rather have a encrypted piece of my file on many computers, than a huge chunk of my precious data on a MS server, especially when the MS server is a easy, well-known and attractive target.
I'll stick to my ultra-secure Apple II and prodos volumes.
Re:The problem with "Trustworthy Computing" (Score:2)
Never mind that M$ wants it to be a subscription model (and yes, they've said this too), so if you don't pay, you lose access to your documents and applications entirely.
This was the same seminar where M$ unveiled the first of their new licensing schemes... so it's no wonder that the audience (mostly IT types) wore a uniform set of scowls.
Re:The problem with "Trustworthy Computing" (Score:2)
I prefer Novell's notion of how to do it per Netware 6 (another recent seminar
I don't hate M$, but there sure are plenty of times when I'd like to whup 'em up 'longside the head until they see sense.
Re:The problem with "Trustworthy Computing" (Score:2)
Mmm, yes. Nice refutation.
Microsoft has co-opted RMS! (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft has heard from customers that they need new ways to control how their digital information is used and distributed. RMS has been developed in response to that need, and combines Windows Server 2003 features, developer tools, and tested and proven security technologies, including encryption, certificates, and authentication.
Have they no shame? Now they'll claim copyright infringements whenever RMS speaks.
Re:Microsoft has co-opted RMS! (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, and demand that he be called GNU/RMS. (He might even like that...)
Trustworthy ? (Score:3, Funny)
Let's form a Beauracracy! (Score:5, Insightful)
One gets the impression that Microsoft is doing whatever it can to deflect future criticisms regarding security.
Most software companies would go out of business if they waited "many years" to offer any substantial solutions in the area of security. Microsoft is so big it can tell the world that it is creating a panel to discuss the matter and won't be offering any solutions for years and in fact advertises the fact as if it is beneficial and gets away with it.
It's good to be king. The federal government (almost as large as Microsoft) gets away with the same sorts of things. George W. Bush and the CIA didn't know about possible airliner attacks prior to 9/11 and has formed a committee (Homeland Security) which is giving us cute little color codes to tell us security could be breeched at any moment.
Maybe Microsoft's "academic panel" will offer microsoft customers the same sort of threat alert, a color-coded chart which shows up on the start bar and you can watch in horror as it flashes red (or burnt orange) and the hackers walk off with or destory your data...
They could even license the sounds of "Lost in Space" ("Danger! Will Robinson") to lift your spirits and keep you from being upset that in most cases it is Microsoft itself which poses the biggest threat to your security and privacy.
Hart/Rudman commission (Score:2)
Tell that to former senators Rudman and Hart. Their commission might not have predicted the specific form of the attack (but others have been critical of airport security for years), but they were sounding the alarm long before 9/11.
Congress failed to act. The administration failed to act.
After 9/11, Congress paid attention to the Hart/Rudman commission. Yet Bush continued to resist the creation of a cabinet level post for many months.
From here [emergency.com]:
Antitrust exemption for "security" (Score:5, Insightful)
Think tank? (Score:5, Funny)
In other words, Microsoft is paying a bunch of smart people to recommend doing whatever it is they were going to do anyway.
Too bad their recommendations will never be something like "fix huge security holes in IE and Outlook."
Re:Think tank? (Score:2)
sucks for people learning web development (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been using the web since the first version of Mosaic and NCSA httpd years ago. The great thing about it has always been that anyone could examine the source of a web page to see how it was put together and learn from it. That may well be coming to an end.
Apache still has huge market share, but I'm afraid that the ability to "control your content" may push people in Microsoft's direction unless we respond in kind.
Michael
You have been reading website source!!! (Score:2)
Re:sucks for people learning web development (Score:2)
`Respond in kind''? What does that mean exactly? It sounds like we should make Apache mimic MS's ``improvements,'' but I somehow don't think that's what you meant.
Actually, that's exactly what I meant. Apache will need to be able to send out DRM documents, and Mozilla's going to have to read them. Think about it long and hard.
What's going to happen when someone is trying to push Mozilla as an alternate browser and it can't read 10% or 20% of the web sites out there because of DRM? What's going to happen when a PHB says "we need to add that DRM to our website so that people can't steal our content" and the server is Apache?
I don't like the idea of DRM for web content, but given its inevitability, we don't have much of a choice.
Michael
Re:sucks for people learning web development (Score:2)
There are a number of responses. One is to make sure people realize how stupid it is to buy software that restricts your freedom just to entitle you to recieve advertising and marketing hype from some company that is so paranoid that they feel they can't trust you with their ad slicks.
Perhaps a few adds showing CEOs wearing big tinfoil Napolean hats and cowering under the bed.
Personally, when I'm looking for something in a catalog or online, if they won't list the price, I go on to the next site until I find a company that's not ashamed of their price. If I encounter a site that won't at least try to display in my browser, I move on. It's not like there aren't many more companies that want my money. I might as well find one with half a clue. If I encountered a site that desperate to prevent the distribution of their advertising, I'd oblige them by not reading it and doing business with someone else.
OTOH, if mozilla could decode the DRM pages and politely decline to restrict the user, people might well flock to it.
RMS? (Score:2, Funny)
W-RMS (Score:4, Funny)
-c
Re:W-RMS (Score:2)
Re:W-RMS (Score:3, Funny)
-
Windows Rights Management Services (Score:2)
Sword with two edges (Score:5, Informative)
Companies like Monster Software deal in information. Presently, to have information is to control it. With "rights management," to have the key is to control the information. Companies like Monster Software are notorious for taking other peoples information (software, designs, protocols) as part of their "embrace/extend" and "embrace/destroy" strategy for world domination.
While U.S. courts are able to force citizens to divulge secret keys (or face contempt of court), there's always situations where the key just gets lost. Say an OS crashes and trashes a disk. A backup program fails to restore files. Or backups weren't made to begin with. Or the chain of key-for-the-key-for-the-key-for-the-key breaks down, due to a failed business venture.
All variations on a theme. The idea being that, with "rights management," information can be taken away. Bright minds should be thinking up ways to make the Sorcerer's Apprentice wish he hadn't written the spell in the first place.
Re:Sword with two edges (Score:2)
Perhaps there's a monkey wrench that could be thrown here....something like a "deny all" trojan which would cause all documents to be locked from all view....think of one month's work from a company being locked up....what would happen if this occured at MS?.....
Of course, this wouldn't be data destruction or cracking in the old school sense, as it's all still there, just un-readable to all....
I'm missing something. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm missing something. . . (Score:2)
Cut and paste can be disable for "secure" documents/emails. The window showing "secure" documents could just be excluded from screenshots. Considering that Microsoft controls the OS, office software, and has influence on hardware manufacturers, they can implement any level of "features".
Without cracking open a secured computer, probably the only ways to bypass the security would be sniffing network packets (easily defeated) or using a camera to photograph the screen.
Re:I'm missing something. . . (Score:2)
Not if the OS is being run in a VM, on VMware, Plex86, or Bochs.
Security by obscurity will always lose. (It'll put up a lot of battles on the way though!)
Trustworthiness and security (Score:2, Interesting)
So now we're supposed to waste our time fiddling our thumbs about broken trust and rights "management" crap? This is the same stunt MS pulled by claiming Windows met "Orange Book" (from the NSA Rainbow Series of books [dynamoo.com]) "security" standards. Of course, Access Control Lists don't do much if your OS is full of buffer overflows and similar exploits, and this is ignoring the issue that ACLs don't do much at all and don't do it very well anyway. This seems like an overly expensive way of distracting customers from the real security issues (ha! like that one-month code review jerk-off session really accomplished anything).
I can see only two benefits coming from this. Likely the grants those professors are receiving from MS will trickle down to some poor, hungry grad students who actually deserve it. Also, if the quote above has any relevance to MS's own development plans (but I'm not holding my breath), maybe people forced to use MS software will have to suffer through less feature bloat and mandatory-upgrade new versions.
RMS (Score:2)
Reinstall Most Software
Rape My Self
Repeal Most Sense
Rights Missing Soon
Really Most Stupid
Retarded Man Steve
Rights My asS
Repeat My Sales
Relicense More Stuff
Rent My Software
All of these are freely useable, but only on one computer at a time.
Are 'time-bombed documents' illegal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ulterior motive (Score:3, Insightful)
Seeing how DRM has become a negative abbreviation they are trying to move away from it, but realizing that this could happen to whatever acronym they choose the have chosen one that hurts their opponents too
If RMS became the tree letters people associate with taking control away from users and into the hands of the bic corportaions houw would that affect the credibility of free software champion RMS?
Re:Ulterior motive (Score:2)
If Microsoft can sue Lindows for being one letter off, I'm sure RMS can sue Microsoft for being exactly the same.
Of course, MS has $40 billion to keep appealing so RMS won't ever win.
Seems like the same old crap to me. (Score:4, Funny)
From what? Have I been missing the "sensitive corporate document" section in Kazaa? Can I, without the aid of several illegal tools which I would never never never even THINK about using simply go and download sensitive corporate documents without their permission?
Besides the way corporations have been going I'm not sure that anything that increases their document security is automatically a good idea. I know they're going to screw me, but I'd rather see it coming.
Yet another reason (Score:2)
easy to do (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's a good one check out this about CORDS [loc.gov] [loc.gov]
" The U.S. Copyright Office Electronic Registration Recordation and Deposit System is the Copyright Office's system for registering claims over the Internet. Through the Internet, copyrighted works become available throughout the world instantaneously. As copying these digital works becomes easier, copyright protection is imperative."
Actually this could be cool, however following it to a illogical conclusion there are loopholes for massive abuse. A media file would have a locatable Digital signature that a filtering router could read. Check against a database for known bootlegs and you got your filter. (hmmm, run it on a linux box and finally get some RIAA/Evil use out of those longhaired geeks)
If no Digital sig is found then implant one and forward the file and new sig so the RIAA can add it to the registry for later review. Cause it could be a new burn of the latest N'Sync song or that one about Fred Durst telling Britney Spears to drop dead. you could plot the movement of files from user/site to user/site and show who gave what to who and when. You end up with a nifty tracking scheme.
This is a classic 'Man in the Middle' attack, one of those things the RIAA/MPAA wanted to do not so long ago.
Opps, You would have a way to hit them back. Say your ISP, the UofWhereEver goes and alters a music file with a fingerprint then they are subverting your property. If the file is legally obtained say self-produced then the original artist (you) will have a very clear case for copyright infringement. They will have created and distributed a reproduction of your recording for 'Commercial Gain' (acting as an agent for a speculative RIAA lawsuit), which is 99.94%, exactly the same as your copyrighted material.
So they have just violated Federal Copyright law by clandestinely adding a digital fingerprint. You can extract this new tag by doing a diff of the file against the orginal. Even a certain lackwitted judge in say Pennsylvania would be able to understand it then.
yes this is a rerun
yet another gripe about microsoft (Score:2, Interesting)
Nowhere in does this mention anything about deciding what programs/documents the user can and cannot open. An OS is desined to give functionality to a computer, not a tool to implement bureaucratic policies and legal restrictions (e.g. the Palladium and other DRM nightmares).
Now, getting back to WRMS (for Stallman's sake I'll call it WRMS from now on). The difference between this and paper shredding is that you now get to keep the documents you're trying to hide. Think of how many Enrons and Arther Andersens still out there now have digital protection! Once again, Microsoft caters to big corporations that invest lots of money into the computer industry and want to see things their way. This does not help the rest of us, and if the Enron scam happens again because of this (and it will), then it will hurt our economy again.
Enter Palladium, just another part of Microsoft's new restrictive practices. I think we should petition Intel against killing its own platform. We've gone very far from the 80's now, and I think if this does not stop it will only get worse. I'm no legal expert, but I see Palladium as a violation of the 4th amendment in the US constitution. Your PC is as much private to you as your house is. Criminals can break into computer just as well as a burglar can crawl through that open window in your back yard when you're not home. However, the police still can't get in without your permission or a warrant. DRM is, by design, used to find illegal material and warezed software then delete it or report it. How is this any different from search and seizure?
Now for those of you who are worried are going to lose your freedoms, just remember who's really at fault here. It is the people who swap thousands of MP3's every day, download warez and illegal keys.. basically those too cheap to actually pay for your software and music. Granted, I don't think it's right for Microsoft to charge 200 bucks for an OS, but that's one of the reasons I'm using Linux. I still don't believe it's right what they're doing, but the blame should really be placed on most of the
I have to pick a nit here (Score:2)
Regardless of all the digs at Richard M. Stallman, I must ask: since when does another person (or a virtual person in the form of a corporate body) have the right to dictate the framework that my own rights will operate within?
Last time I checked, the only way to abrogate one's rights was to do so voluntarily, and with complete knowledge. Of courrse, this may apply within certain sub-contexts of the overall culture. (ie, work NDA's, etc.)
FWIW, this is not new stuff, it's very reminiscient of the POSIX ACL's and the military's experiments with Multics (also did it in hardware and syscalls) during the '70's. Problem is, at least they started with systems that had some clue to begin with.
Re:Widows (Score:2, Funny)
A what? Oh, that thing next to submi
Re:Widows (Score:2, Insightful)
KFG
Re:Trustworthy Assimilation (Score:2)
Lets see: create a DRM first then get a group that was your name in the title to give you guidance.
Does any one else see a problem with this.
If there is group that is already doing trusted computing as a open standards, and MS steps up to plate and joins them, then that would be news -- until "embrace and extend" kicks in.
Re:I am sick of all this... (Score:2)