[KLUG Advocacy] Next Generation Secure Computing Base (NGSCB)

[Robert G. Brown]

On 08 Jul 2005 21:32:37 -0400, magoo wrote:

>Jamie McCarthy's prediction arrives about the time that he said it would.
>Secure Platform Computing... by any other name, hardware based security.
>Microsoft and Intel have repackaged Palladium.  We can hope this tactical
>move is thwarted by people switching to already secure alternative OS's.

Looks to me like this presentation is hardly the same as a product release,
and the edges of all this have softened considerably since the last time
all this was trotted out. It looks like an "opt-in" framework now, with the
ability to "stay out" of this framework a lot longer.

The articles does point out that the framework is OS-independent, and my own 
feeling is that some alternative OS'es (I'm thinking of Windows, a Microsoft 
product, as an example of an "alternative" OS). may use these things as 
resources to implement their own security procedures.

I beleive MS and Intel have been pummeled a little bit in their attempts to
field previous packagings of this idea. They'e also dealing with an audience
that has been schooled in the merits of multiplatform architecture and inter-
operability. THe whole thing is a bit more soft-shouldered and will take more
time to arrive.

>Microsoft's Next Generation Secure Computing Base (NGSCB) formerly 
>known as Palladium (check out www.microsoft.com/ngscb).   A few 
>months ago at the WinHEC trade show, Microsoft released in-depth 
>information regarding NGSCB (pronounced ing-scub)
The more information that is released, the more viable it will be for eventual
adoption, and the better it is for "us".

>The "Trusted Platform Module" or TPM, which is a chip that stores unique 
>platform information and encryption keys, and includes a random number 
>generator for encryption algorithms. LaGrande is hardware-based protection, 
>and it raises the overall level of protection significantly.

>http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1274119,00.asp

It should be pointed out that much of the posting to which I am responding 
consists to a great degree of quotes from the article itself.

To the extent all of this is done openly, and can be addressed by the 
appropriate groups (e.g., kernel and compiler developers) this looks
generally OK. If there is some primacy given to certain OS'es in all of
this, there will be problems with acceptence in the industry in general.

							Regards,
							---> RGB <---