33 ms·

Pluton is not currently a threat to software freedom

143 points by foodstances 5y ago

encryptluks2 5y ago
Don't forget that even recently Microsoft has pretended to be committed to open source, but consistently continues to make decisions that counter that. What may look friendly today like their switch to Edge, may end up being entirely hostile like Edge has become today.
dane-pgp 5y ago
> Remote attestation has been possible since TPMs started shipping over two decades ago. The difference now is that Microsoft are saying they will only support machines which have these TPMs, and therefore they can credibly argue in a few years that the only secure PCs (and thus the only PCs that ISPs should allow online) are ones which can produce a remote attestation to prove they are running the latest OS updates (from an OS vendor that is approved by the government). > If Microsoft wanted to prevent users from being able to run arbitrary applications, they could just ship an update to Windows that enforced signing requirements. The trap hasn't been sprung yet, but those are the teeth, yes. Then say goodbye to Tor, E2E encrypted messengers, unapproved VPN apps, and bittorrent clients that don't check a Content ID database.
- mjg59 5y ago
  > The difference now is that Microsoft are saying they will only support machines which have these TPMs That's a reason to worry about Windows 11 requiring a TPM, rather than a reason to worry about Pluton specifically. But even so, I don't think it's an especially realistic one - outside extremely constrained setups, it's very hard to make remote attestation work in a way that gives you any meaningful guarantees (eg, simply forward the challenge on to a machine that is running the "approved" OS). > The trap hasn't been sprung yet, but those are the teeth, yes. Again, something they could just do today while zero people have Pluton. If Microsoft want to lock-down the entire x86 market, they can do that now. They don't need to wait years for everyone to shift to new hardware that has Pluton in it.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    > it's very hard to make remote attestation work in a way that gives you any meaningful guarantees (eg, simply forward the challenge on to a machine that is running the "approved" OS). I was imagining something like that would be possible (for people with enough tech knowledge), but it's good to have it confirmed, thank you. There would presumably be a cat-and-mouse game of the "approved" OS trying to detect if it was being co-opted into such a scheme. > They don't need to wait years for everyone to shift to new hardware that has Pluton in it. As you say, I'm more worried about Windows 11 than Pluton, but presumably the "importance" of Pluton is part of Microsoft's excuse for not supporting non-TPM hardware any more. Once Windows 10 is out of security support (for home users at least), it will be easier for Microsoft to claim that non-TPM Windows devices are de facto insecure.
    - judge2020 5y ago
      > it will be easier for Microsoft to claim that non-TPM Windows devices are de facto insecure. Which only means that programs can choose to not service devices without TPM - things like Netflix/Streaming Services and online competitive games, although it might take 10 years with the amount of people that will be unable to upgrade to 11 or upgrade their computer to one with a tpm at all. With computers become more and more about browsing the web, and especially with the chip shortage, people aren't upgrading their hardware as often.
      - dane-pgp 5y ago
        > Which only means that programs can choose to not service devices without TPM But those "programs" could include "an online check made by your ISP, mandated by your government". If your computer doesn't pass the check, it won't be allowed online. What good is a phone call if you're unable to speak? > it might take 10 years I think more like 5, although the government might start slowly, like only preventing non-TPM devices from accessing "sensitive" online services, e.g. banks or anything that requires a payment. The next step would be connecting the "online check" with a biometric ID, enforced by the device. Every time you unlock your device, it would request from the government a random ID that is included in every packet sent, and those IDs would be tied to your legal identity in a government database. Letting someone else use your device would be similar to letting someone else use your car, in that you are responsible for whatever is done while you are logged in, unless you report it stolen.
- mrjin 5y ago
  No problem for me, as I'm on the verge to say goodbye to Windows anyway. But I'm pretty sure it would be a problem for most of the people using Windows.
  - 66fm472tjy7 5y ago
    Once the vast majority of devices are remote attestation capable (Windows 11 requiring TPM will accelerate this trend), content providers may refuse to serve you unless you attest that you are running a walled-garden OS that won't allow you to ad-block, capture content, run any sort of proxy server, etc. At some point, even ISPs might require remote attestation to allow you to connect your device to the internet. The IETF is already working on standards for the attestation of network devices[0][1]. I speculate that there will temporarily (perhaps similarly to iOS jailbreaking, which is not available at this time for the newest devices/iOS version[2]) be exploits allowing you fool the attestation by e.g. redirecting it to another device as the author suggests, but the end effect will be that vast majority of people will be effectively confined to a walled garden and even determined hobbyists will only be able to use their general computation capable devices to access all content (or even connect them to the internet) some of the time. [0] https://archive.fo/uQULm https://archive.fo/uQULm [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-tpm-based-network-device-attest/10/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-tpm-based-n... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IOS_jailbreaking&oldid=1064375039#By_device_and_OS https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IOS_jailbreaking&...
    - floatboth 5y ago
      Where did the ISP idea come from?! How can ISPs do anything close to this when they're not even concerned with how many devices you have? ISPs just do not connect individual end user "devices", they connect subnets. > content providers may refuse to serve you Providers of Hollywood-copyright-mafia content like Netflix have already been demanding hardware DRM (at least for high resolutions) for years. Providers of public ad-supported content like YouTube care about maximizing views above everything. They'll happily serve a 4K stream to a Windows 98 machine if it can connect with modern TLS somehow. YouTube isn't even trying to fight youtube-dl all that much, there was an attempt at throttling recently but it was very quickly defeated. Heck, YouTube Music on the web does not use DRM at all, and that's all music-copyright-mafia content there.
- choeger 5y ago
  That's a bullshit scenario. There are way more android and apple devices online than PCs. No ISP would do anything for PCs alone and if they did, I could easily turn my PC into an "Android Tablet". So Microsoft would have to get Google and Apple behind the same plan and then phase out all existing devices and force all ISPs to implement this. This would yield a huge public outrage because the first states to follow would be China et. al., where remote attestation would enforce you to install the latest government, ahem, upgrade, to your device. Of course the US government and various European nations would very much like to follow suit, but they would be slower than China and then look like they follow the authoritarian path a bit too closely. Remote attestation will be sold to streaming providers so they can extend their DRM to cover unpatched systems. Maybe multiplayer games will follow. This ain't gonna happen at the ISP level.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - kuschku 5y ago
    That scenario is already reality on Android, where many apps and services will not run unless you use a blessed OS and OS version, verified through remote attestation.
    - ahiknsr 5y ago
      can you name some of those apps?
      - Vogtinator 5y ago
        Search for "SafetyNet"
      - floatboth 5y ago
        Basically Google Pay and other NFC payment providers. Haven't encountered SafetyNet requirements anywhere else.
        5y ago
- mkup 5y ago
  I don't think this is plausible (government mandate of remote attestation for any kind of Internet access), but if this happens, then I just add smallest and cheapest PC possible (think Atomic Pi) with this remote attestation hardware capability (Proton/TPM/whatever) to the separate VLAN on my home network (so it can't access any other host on LAN side of the router) and forget about the little thing until it fails, e.g. for next 15 years or so. I wouldn't trust this device with my data, I wouldn't run any meaningful applications on it, heck I won't ever attach any monitor or human input devices to the damn thing.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    As I explain[0] in response to a sibling comment, sadly it won't be enough (eventually) to have just one locked down device on your home network, they will all have to be individually locked down to access the internet. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29866732 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29866732
- philistine 5y ago
  Let's be realistic here. The real competition to Microsoft, Chrome OS, already has a feature to prevent you from delaying updates. It's not a bug or a risk, it's a feature. And it does not require any sort of TPM to be enforced. Microsoft could force all its users to run the latest version, and to run only signed executables today. What Pluton does is it allows those two things to happen more securely.
- riedel 5y ago
  Look at Google safety net and you will get a clear idea what is happening. If you want to use some streaming apps, etc they will make sure you run an unmodified and up to date OS. On a side note: Microsoft already starts patronising users e.g. by blocking access to security tokens from nonelevated processes. I hate it when my os starts messing with my freedom to develop sth on top. It all comes in the name of security but will in the end effect freedom.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
transpute 5y ago
Background material on Pluton: 1. Xbox Security, https://www.platformsecuritysummit.com/2019/speaker/chen/ https://www.platformsecuritysummit.com/2019/speaker/chen/ 2. Azure Sphere (derived from Xbox) with Microsoft Linux kernel, OE/Yocto runtime and QEMU emulation of Pluton for CI/CD, https://www.platformsecuritysummit.com/2019/speaker/seay/ https://www.platformsecuritysummit.com/2019/speaker/seay/ 3. DMTF SPDM (PCI device firmware attestation to SoC/RoT), https://www.platformsecuritysummit.com/2019/speaker/plank/ https://www.platformsecuritysummit.com/2019/speaker/plank/ Nov 2020 Intel announcement about Pluton, https://itpeernetwork.intel.com/intel-and-microsoft-plan-to-deliver-next-generation-advancements-in-security/ https://itpeernetwork.intel.com/intel-and-microsoft-plan-to-... > Secure platforms anchor on a hardware Root of Trust as the foundation. Given Intel’s diverse ecosystem, our vision is to offer multiple Root of Trust options that ensure isolation of resources, keys and security assets. The partnership with Microsoft to offer Pluton will further broaden the choices available to our mutual customers. Hopefully a future Intel SoC will include an optional FPGA-based RoT where customer hardware owners can load the open-source firmware of their choice. Edit: Pluton will be included in upcoming Arm laptops with SoCs from the Qualcomm-Nuvia (former Apple M1) team.
- xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
  > Hopefully Intel will offer an FPGA-based RoT where customer hardware owners can load the open-source firmware of their choice. This is sarcasm, right? It must be sarcasm. Maybe I'm out of the loop but I would guess that hell would freeze over before Intel releases something like this, let alone an FPGA Root of Trust.
  - transpute 5y ago
    Take a look at the past 3 years of presentations at DARPA ERI, where every major US silicon vendor is participating. Much work is underway on heterogeneous systems, including Open FPGAs and OSS toolchains for EDA, to speed up (days, not months) the design-test-deploy cycle for specific applications. AMD provided a custom (expensive) SoC and RoT to MS Xbox, now being generalized with MS Pluton in 2022 Ryzen CPUs (and some future Intel CPUs). Intel already offers custom CPUs to some large customers. If a security-sensitive automotive or robotics customer needed an FPGA RoT, and the market opportunity was sufficiently interesting, Intel has multiple options for meeting that requirement. > This is sarcasm, right? It must be sarcasm. Intel at least left open the possibility in their press announcement. AMD did not, but they have purchased Xilinx and TSMC is building a US-based fab in Arizona, with "secure supply chain" FPGAs high on the list of early product candidates. It's up to customers to bang on Intel/AMD doors and show demand for FPGA RoT chiplets that support OSS gateware.
rackjack 5y ago
- Microsoft isn't going to fuck us over that hard <--- We are here - Microsoft is fucking us over that hard - Libre software FTW - Libre software UX sucks - Repeat When will the cycle end?
- xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
  > Libre software UX sucks This has always been true and while it's better this iteration of the cycle, it's not great. But have you actually used Windows in recent times? The UX has gotten infinitely worse since XP. Mac OS has changed about as much as the popular open source DEs, but Windows is infinitely worse. I can't stand using it. The taskbar is garbage, the menus are garbage, the discoverability of anything is the worst it has ever been. I can't imagine they're ignorant to the fact that Desktop UX is no longer a differentiator for them. The only lock-in they have is in business environments, for which there is zero competition at their price point. It's inevitable that the host OS gets locked down. The runtime has moved to the browser and cloud. It's just a matter of time.
  - im3w1l 5y ago
    Windows UX is ass, but it runs a lot of nice software. Runs it well too. Many things don't work as well in wine. I'm talking both slowdowns and glitches.
    - fsflover 5y ago
      > but it runs a lot of nice software. Runs it well too. Probably because the developers write software for the most popular OS and not because Windows did something well.
marcodiego 5y ago
Will this allow my computer, in the future, to be as locked as current smartphones? Will this allow software to refuse to run or services to refuse to work depending on third party software I have installed?
- mjg59 5y ago
  Everything needed to lock down your computer as much as a phone already exists, there's no need for a TPM or Pluton to do so.
  - userbinator 5y ago
    There's a huge difference between "exists" and "is now commonly available and made easier to use". The frog-boiling is slow, but an increasingly large number of us are becoming aware of this new rise of corporate authoritarianism, and we know how it will end if we do not fight it as hard as we can.
    - mjg59 5y ago
      All Microsoft need to do to block other operating systems from PCs is change their policy around secure boot. All they need to do to prevent unsigned apps from running is change the default behaviour of Windows. The code exists. It's deployed. It's commonly available.
      - userbinator 5y ago
        They need to boil the frog slowly enough that most people won't realise until it's too late.
        Karunamon 5y ago
        I don't think that analogy works here, since the things we're worried about are binary states. Either you can run arbitrary software, or you can not, etc.
Shadonototra 5y ago
windows? it's a dead OS anyways people are either on macOS/android/iOS or chromium OS
- wmf 5y ago
  But if you don't like Pluton, I have bad news for you about Macs, Chromebooks, and most Android phones.
  - Shadonototra 5y ago
    that's the thing, it doesn't really matter it's not YOUR OS, it's their product, you not forced to use any of their products linux and voila, you got your freedom back
    - mrjin 5y ago
      Kinda, but not completely. The problem is really with the hardware, switching OS can only alleviate but not resolving it. But really, we don't have choices unless we want to stay with fairly old platforms.
      - fsflover 5y ago
        Unless you support Linux-first hardware vendors.
        toastal 5y ago
        I would love to, but unfortunately a lot of the laptop hardware is pretty garbage in comparison. I can deal with a slower CPU maybe, but it's the whole stack. The bodies are all cheap plastic. Battery lasts 3 hours. And you have only like 1080p TN panels; nothing OLED or with color accuracy in mind is on these. Similar feelings extend to phones as well.
        fsflover 5y ago
fartcannon 5y ago
Thank god for Berkeley and RISC-V.
- zucker42 5y ago
  "Trusted" computing is not something that's unique to x86.
  - teitoklien 5y ago
    With RISC-V at-least individual providers can spinoff their own versions of the architecture without having to ask for permission, from an entity like intel,amd or arm. Unlike right now, where all x86 chipsets have backdoors, and all new ones have “Trusted” computing features which you cannot say No to.
grawprog 5y ago
So basically "Why it's ok and you should be happy about Microsoft's hardware controlling the software on your PC". I'm so unbelievably sick of this 'security by corporation, it's what's best for you so accept it bullshit.' I really am. No I don't want proprietary internet enabled hardware on my PC monitoring my software, no it does not make me feel safe and secure, actually, go fuck yourself and whatever marketing bullshit you spew to make this desirable for consumers. I'm honestly so fucking done with this kind of shit.
- hanselot 5y ago
- userbinator 5y ago
  A quick look at the author's credentials should clear any doubt about the motivations behind this article's intentions --- over the past few years, I have come to the conclusion that anyone who works in the "security" industry is almost certainly working against you and your freedom.
- mjg59 5y ago
  > No I don't want proprietary internet enabled hardware on my PC monitoring my software Good news! Pluton is not internet enabled and can't monitor your software.
  - Karunamon 5y ago
    Even if that's true right this minute, an unauditable (:/) bit of hardware controlled by Microsoft (!) that can be force-updated by them (!!!) means this can change at any moment. I liked TPM with my own keys. This just seems a bit 'extra' in all the wrong ways.
    - mjg59 5y ago
      Firmware updates can't add network hardware where none currently exists. The block diagrams for Pluton don't give it any mechanism to communicate with the network directly.
messe 5y ago
The fearmongering about Pluton feels very similar to the criticism that was levied against UEFI Secure Boot when it was being debuted. In the end, x86 systems didn't become any more locked down. I predict that this will blow over, and won't be a big deal in a few years time once FOSS drivers for what is effectively just a new breed of TPM are released. If in five years, it turns out I was wrong, I'll eat my hat. Although defining "my hat" by then might be difficult, as it'll probably be subscription based.
- jevoten 5y ago
  > In the end, x86 systems didn't become any more locked down. And non-x86 systems? Wasn't there a line of MS Surface devices where secure boot could not be disabled, and users were stuck with Windows? It feels careless to only care about x86, especially as other platforms proliferate. In any case, lockdown is not the only threat that Trusted Computing presents. Remote attestation itself is dangerous. If we remove our x86 blinkers and look at the mobile world, we see it's already happening, with countless apps, including ones important to modern day life such as banking, refusing to run on rooted phones. You may say, "Oh, I will use my x86 desktop system at home for Free Computing, and allow phones, consoles, tablets, surface devices, etc etc, to become locked down." Like the old free speech zones, this is a toothless freedom, tamed and neutered. The user-empowering Free Software you will write will have no users - they will be on locked devices.
  - messe 5y ago
    While that's true, with regard to some Surface devices, as I understand it, ARM systems have only become more open and interoperable over the past few years; although this holds true a lot more for the server side than desktop side. The main issue these days is driver support. The PC platform was an anomaly in backwards compatibility, at least historically. I'm not arguing that it's going to be easy for FOSS. It's going to be an uphill battle, regardless of how locked down they are (and I'm just arguing that they won't be that locked down—see the recent M1 Macs for an example; Apple could easily have locked down those systems in exactly the same manner as iOS/iPadOS devices, but chose not to).
shmerl 5y ago
> if you're not running Windows Microsoft can't update the firmware on your TPM. This seems to be the biggest issue - hardware locked into requiring Windows to be up to date. MS can of course ship firmware that's independent of the OS, but knowing MS - they probably won't.
- mjg59 5y ago
  It sounds like they're using UEFI capsule updates for the firmware, so it'll actually be easy to perform the updates under other operating systems - Microsoft just won't have any mechanism to compel you to do so.
  - shmerl 5y ago
    Then it won't be a big problem I guess. Though having a blob firmware from MS embedded into the CPU itself feels kind of weird. A better way to do it was some third party handling it or requiring that firmware to be open source for example.
  - userbinator 5y ago
    The "mechanism to compel you to do so" will be in the form of remote attestation, as some of the other comments here have mentioned.
    - mjg59 5y ago
      I don't think I understand your threat model here. In the dystopian remote attestation future, presumably nobody's going to grant you access unless you're running Windows, at which point Microsoft can impose arbitrary policies without needing to involve Pluton at all (all it would do in this case is verify that you're running Windows, and you can already make that determination using a traditional TPM). So under what circumstances would you find yourself unable to gain access to a remote resource unless you're willing to accept a firmware update that changes Pluton's behaviour in a user-hostile way?
userbinator 5y ago
The "not currently" in the title is very important foreshadowing. This is merely another battle in the war on general-purpose computing. They will build their kingdom piece-by-piece, and under innocuous-sounding adjectives such as "safety" and "security". Each of these pieces may look innocuous and perhaps even helpful, but don't lose sight of their ultimate goal. Once all the pieces are in place to achieve total lockdown, there will be no going back. Articles like this that say "it hasn't happened yet" and try to spin a positive narrative are not showing the big picture. Arguably, Big Tech does not want you to see the big picture.
- meekmind 5y ago
  Honestly I can't imagine any group of companies in the tech space being more resourceful than 10,000 neglected teenagers with nothing but a computer and a bad attitude. Especially after the former tells the latter that they can only do "approved" things with their computer.
  - userbinator 5y ago
    Do you really think they'll be able to break the strong crypto which will ultimately be used to "secure" this? Maybe they could exploit a buffer overflow or other such bug, but if our opponents are so keen on adopting "secure languages", that path to freedom is going to close too. When governments were scared that encryption was going to be used against them and wanted to ban it, we should've realised that the same situation could apply to us. I'm not at all arguing in favour of such bans, but the underlying message was just as applicable.
    - meekmind 5y ago
      I think tech companies as a general rule have proven unreliable at understanding, much less implementing, "security" in software or hardware. It's fair to say the landscape is changing but human frailty has not. If I have been reminded of any idiom most often while scrolling through security bulletins, it's "when there is a will, there is a way." We may not have the same class of problem we had before, but I'll still likely be scrolling through security bulletins a decade from now. Also consider: the fundamental parts of a computer are still analog. Hardware bypasses, 3d-printed micro-circuitry, modified components or distributables, who knows? In my estimation, the cat and mouse game will continue for quite some time.
paavoova 5y ago
Meanwhile, hardware-level OS-ignostic rootkits like Computrace exist, and Intel ME has its own network stack, but Pluton being adopted as some kind of industry standard to lock down a platform in the name of "security" and what have you is a conspiracy.
- userbinator 5y ago
  Does Computrace even work if you're not running Windows? Does it have a Linux/MacOS/etc. payload now? (Reversed much of it a long time ago --- and remembered it was specifically coded with Windows in mind, with certain assumptions about various things.)
saxonww 5y ago
I've always thought this was just Microsoft's copy of Google Titan and Apple's T2. And as others have pointed out, there's a lot of overlap with what a TPM can already do. The main thing that comes to mind for me is that since this is integrated into the CPU itself, now 'things' can be strongly and directly tied to the CPU instead of a separate TPM or some collection of hardware identifiers. Was this already possible on x86? My mind immediately went to "this will be used for tighter DRM"; I feel like content owners would like this a whole lot.
- mjg59 5y ago
  If you have an AMD system then there's a decent chance that it's already running a TPM stack on the on-die Platform Security Processor. Pluton isn't really any more tightly integrated, it just means the TPM stack isn't running on the same core as a bunch of other random platform things.
  - saxonww 5y ago
    OK, thanks for pointing this out.
deknos 5y ago
in german we call stuff like pluton "politik der kleinen schritte" or "salamitaktik". which basically means that little step for little step, things change. it is not CURRENTLY a threat, but it builds up to be a threat in the future if we do not stop and/or constrain it.
- genewitch 5y ago
  Salami tactic is on the nose
0dayz 5y ago
What worried me about pluton is essentially both the fact it might set a trend where drm locks out Linux devices and that remote exploits on pluton is a real nightmare scenario. Despite the fact I in a way do think tpm like components are a good thing.
- josteink 5y ago
  > the fact it might set a trend where drm locks out Linux devices Fact? Based on what evidence?
  - 0dayz 5y ago
    If you re-read my statement you might notice "the fact" is used as a figure of speech.
hansjorg 5y ago
It's funny how Microsoft seems unable to do "security" without veering into megalomanic authoritarian schemes. See also Palladium. What about trying to secure your software without building the infrastructure for an oppressive dystopian future? Too much to ask?
- bayindirh 5y ago
  They're used to have the desktop monopoly, and losing them makes them to literally lose sleep over the matter. It's not a matter of security, it's a matter of monopoly. Since forever.
- pydry 5y ago
  Yes. Look at the zeroday clusterfuck that is Teams. To Microsoft, security is an excuse for a land grab.
- hda2 5y ago
  It's not that they can't do security without going full authoritarian, I think they do it because they want to go authoritarian. The new security benefits are just a vehicle. They're a lot like the common politician who smuggles horrible laws into relief bills or trade treaties. UEFI (especially on the ARM platform) and intel ME are to examples of this.
no_time 5y ago
The fact that there is no "user override"[0] feature in any of these security processors is blatantly obvious evidence that they are designed to control and restrict first and foremost. I have read mjg's other posts on the topic and have no reason to believe he is arguing in bad faith but I'm still not convinced one bit. [0]: https://www.eff.org/wp/trusted-computing-promise-and-risk https://www.eff.org/wp/trusted-computing-promise-and-risk
- userbinator 5y ago
  I wouldn't call it bad faith, but more like furthering the industry narrative. Unfortunately a lot of intelligent individuals are perfectly content to help the corporations and governments tighten the nooses on everyone, including themselves, in return for $$$. They've convinced themselves that they are doing good.
AshamedCaptain 5y ago
So we already have to trust the Intel ME crap, and now the MS crap too. How is this similar to the status quo? _At best_ it increases the number of actors you have to trust, specially if you are not using Windows.
flubflub 5y ago
There are a lot of security benefits to using a TPM. I wouldn't mind if I could use an open source one in Linux. They ameliorate a lot of low entropy problems for passwords and can improve security. I can't imagine a proprietary one being mandatory. My banking app uses the mentioned remote attestation so I can't use it on my less-Googled Calyx ROM. I just think that's stupid instead of very strong warnings.
toastal 5y ago
Man, I was really enticed by the specs on these Z-series laptops by Lenovo and was looking at an upgrade. But I was reading about Pluton this afternoon, and now looking at this thread, I don't know how I feel about it. Why ruin a great new CPU with future spyware? I don't like the edit at the bottom where the author's like: oh yea, of course this could be a massive issue against FOSS but we should just assume that vendors will think it's impractical. I've seen how banks react to rooted phones, even when rooted to heighten device security--and I've switched banks before because of it. They don't care.
- IYasha 5y ago
  I'm totally with you. Not using banking apps - just sites. Also stopped buying CPUs with DRM-on-chip. It's pretty crazy what they're doing now instead of just "computing machines" (
  - toastal 5y ago
    Unfortunately with the DRM situation, the benefits are much outweighing the cost. The speed gains and compatibility I'd get let me do a lot more things. I can use these better CPUs to compile a lot faster :| The banks not much better. All banks in my country have dated late 90s-looking websites with not even UTF-8 encoding (so you can't send an email with a comma). They are barely usable on desktop. I'd have to make my own client or at least whip up a lot of magic CSS to get it to be mobile-friendly and would even still need to include QR code scanning as it is so ubiquitous that no one would let me fiddle with adding their account numbers.
IYasha 5y ago
"Wire fence is not a threat! " ( fine print: we haven't switched the electricity on yet) edit: asterisks are somehow omitted
akagusu 5y ago
We should put an emphasis on currently, but also I think we should discuss how Microsoft is positioning itself as a gatekeeper and forcing all market players to adopt their tech. If Microsoft says Windows will only support has with this tech enabled, and since almost every computer on the planet runs Windows, vendors must adopt this tech or go out of the market. In other words, Microsoft is positioning itself to say to all market players to play by its rules or go out of business. This is a perfect way to establish control over the market without establish itself as a monopoly, thus not attracting attention from regulators.
richardfey 5y ago
One great advantage of these separate silicons is that side channel attacks are greatly mitigated; it's everything else that worries me (closed platform, no transparency, unusable once vendor stops supporting it etc)
ece 5y ago
I think this is about securing data/keys (AES, TLS, TPM..) vs securing code (Secure Boot, TEEs..). Neither is really a threat to software freedom as I see it, as long as it's user controlled or can be rendered effectively inactive. The thorniest question I think is around TEEs. You either trust ME/PSP/mobile TEEs for their explicitly mentioned uses (fTPM, SVM, Remote attestation..) or you think they should be even more sandboxed or perhaps shouldn't exist at all. I'm all for the middle ground/option here where the user is in control, thought others may disagree. Remote attestation could be a case where the user is losing control, so preserving user control there is important.

143 points by foodstances 5y ago

Don't forget that even recently Microsoft has pretended to be committed to open source, but consistently continues to make decisions that counter that. What may look friendly today like their switch to Edge, may end up being entirely hostile like Edge has become today.

dane-pgp 5y ago

> Remote attestation has been possible since TPMs started shipping over two decades ago. The difference now is that Microsoft are saying they will only support machines which have these TPMs, and therefore they can credibly argue in a few years that the only secure PCs (and thus the only PCs that ISPs should allow online) are ones which can produce a remote attestation to prove they are running the latest OS updates (from an OS vendor that is approved by the government). > If Microsoft wanted to prevent users from being able to run arbitrary applications, they could just ship an update to Windows that enforced signing requirements. The trap hasn't been sprung yet, but those are the teeth, yes. Then say goodbye to Tor, E2E encrypted messengers, unapproved VPN apps, and bittorrent clients that don't check a Content ID database.

mjg59 5y ago
> The difference now is that Microsoft are saying they will only support machines which have these TPMs That's a reason to worry about Windows 11 requiring a TPM, rather than a reason to worry about Pluton specifically. But even so, I don't think it's an especially realistic one - outside extremely constrained setups, it's very hard to make remote attestation work in a way that gives you any meaningful guarantees (eg, simply forward the challenge on to a machine that is running the "approved" OS). > The trap hasn't been sprung yet, but those are the teeth, yes. Again, something they could just do today while zero people have Pluton. If Microsoft want to lock-down the entire x86 market, they can do that now. They don't need to wait years for everyone to shift to new hardware that has Pluton in it.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  > it's very hard to make remote attestation work in a way that gives you any meaningful guarantees (eg, simply forward the challenge on to a machine that is running the "approved" OS). I was imagining something like that would be possible (for people with enough tech knowledge), but it's good to have it confirmed, thank you. There would presumably be a cat-and-mouse game of the "approved" OS trying to detect if it was being co-opted into such a scheme. > They don't need to wait years for everyone to shift to new hardware that has Pluton in it. As you say, I'm more worried about Windows 11 than Pluton, but presumably the "importance" of Pluton is part of Microsoft's excuse for not supporting non-TPM hardware any more. Once Windows 10 is out of security support (for home users at least), it will be easier for Microsoft to claim that non-TPM Windows devices are de facto insecure.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    > it will be easier for Microsoft to claim that non-TPM Windows devices are de facto insecure. Which only means that programs can choose to not service devices without TPM - things like Netflix/Streaming Services and online competitive games, although it might take 10 years with the amount of people that will be unable to upgrade to 11 or upgrade their computer to one with a tpm at all. With computers become more and more about browsing the web, and especially with the chip shortage, people aren't upgrading their hardware as often.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      > Which only means that programs can choose to not service devices without TPM But those "programs" could include "an online check made by your ISP, mandated by your government". If your computer doesn't pass the check, it won't be allowed online. What good is a phone call if you're unable to speak? > it might take 10 years I think more like 5, although the government might start slowly, like only preventing non-TPM devices from accessing "sensitive" online services, e.g. banks or anything that requires a payment. The next step would be connecting the "online check" with a biometric ID, enforced by the device. Every time you unlock your device, it would request from the government a random ID that is included in every packet sent, and those IDs would be tied to your legal identity in a government database. Letting someone else use your device would be similar to letting someone else use your car, in that you are responsible for whatever is done while you are logged in, unless you report it stolen.
mrjin 5y ago
No problem for me, as I'm on the verge to say goodbye to Windows anyway. But I'm pretty sure it would be a problem for most of the people using Windows.
- 66fm472tjy7 5y ago
  Once the vast majority of devices are remote attestation capable (Windows 11 requiring TPM will accelerate this trend), content providers may refuse to serve you unless you attest that you are running a walled-garden OS that won't allow you to ad-block, capture content, run any sort of proxy server, etc. At some point, even ISPs might require remote attestation to allow you to connect your device to the internet. The IETF is already working on standards for the attestation of network devices[0][1]. I speculate that there will temporarily (perhaps similarly to iOS jailbreaking, which is not available at this time for the newest devices/iOS version[2]) be exploits allowing you fool the attestation by e.g. redirecting it to another device as the author suggests, but the end effect will be that vast majority of people will be effectively confined to a walled garden and even determined hobbyists will only be able to use their general computation capable devices to access all content (or even connect them to the internet) some of the time. [0] https://archive.fo/uQULm https://archive.fo/uQULm [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-tpm-based-network-device-attest/10/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-tpm-based-n... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IOS_jailbreaking&oldid=1064375039#By_device_and_OS https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IOS_jailbreaking&...
  - floatboth 5y ago
    Where did the ISP idea come from?! How can ISPs do anything close to this when they're not even concerned with how many devices you have? ISPs just do not connect individual end user "devices", they connect subnets. > content providers may refuse to serve you Providers of Hollywood-copyright-mafia content like Netflix have already been demanding hardware DRM (at least for high resolutions) for years. Providers of public ad-supported content like YouTube care about maximizing views above everything. They'll happily serve a 4K stream to a Windows 98 machine if it can connect with modern TLS somehow. YouTube isn't even trying to fight youtube-dl all that much, there was an attempt at throttling recently but it was very quickly defeated. Heck, YouTube Music on the web does not use DRM at all, and that's all music-copyright-mafia content there.
choeger 5y ago
That's a bullshit scenario. There are way more android and apple devices online than PCs. No ISP would do anything for PCs alone and if they did, I could easily turn my PC into an "Android Tablet". So Microsoft would have to get Google and Apple behind the same plan and then phase out all existing devices and force all ISPs to implement this. This would yield a huge public outrage because the first states to follow would be China et. al., where remote attestation would enforce you to install the latest government, ahem, upgrade, to your device. Of course the US government and various European nations would very much like to follow suit, but they would be slower than China and then look like they follow the authoritarian path a bit too closely. Remote attestation will be sold to streaming providers so they can extend their DRM to cover unpatched systems. Maybe multiplayer games will follow. This ain't gonna happen at the ISP level.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kuschku 5y ago
  That scenario is already reality on Android, where many apps and services will not run unless you use a blessed OS and OS version, verified through remote attestation.
  - ahiknsr 5y ago
    can you name some of those apps?
    - Vogtinator 5y ago
      Search for "SafetyNet"
    - floatboth 5y ago
      Basically Google Pay and other NFC payment providers. Haven't encountered SafetyNet requirements anywhere else.
      - 5y ago
mkup 5y ago
I don't think this is plausible (government mandate of remote attestation for any kind of Internet access), but if this happens, then I just add smallest and cheapest PC possible (think Atomic Pi) with this remote attestation hardware capability (Proton/TPM/whatever) to the separate VLAN on my home network (so it can't access any other host on LAN side of the router) and forget about the little thing until it fails, e.g. for next 15 years or so. I wouldn't trust this device with my data, I wouldn't run any meaningful applications on it, heck I won't ever attach any monitor or human input devices to the damn thing.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  As I explain[0] in response to a sibling comment, sadly it won't be enough (eventually) to have just one locked down device on your home network, they will all have to be individually locked down to access the internet. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29866732 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29866732
philistine 5y ago
Let's be realistic here. The real competition to Microsoft, Chrome OS, already has a feature to prevent you from delaying updates. It's not a bug or a risk, it's a feature. And it does not require any sort of TPM to be enforced. Microsoft could force all its users to run the latest version, and to run only signed executables today. What Pluton does is it allows those two things to happen more securely.
riedel 5y ago
Look at Google safety net and you will get a clear idea what is happening. If you want to use some streaming apps, etc they will make sure you run an unmodified and up to date OS. On a side note: Microsoft already starts patronising users e.g. by blocking access to security tokens from nonelevated processes. I hate it when my os starts messing with my freedom to develop sth on top. It all comes in the name of security but will in the end effect freedom.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

transpute 5y ago

Background material on Pluton: 1. Xbox Security, https://www.platformsecuritysummit.com/2019/speaker/chen/ https://www.platformsecuritysummit.com/2019/speaker/chen/ 2. Azure Sphere (derived from Xbox) with Microsoft Linux kernel, OE/Yocto runtime and QEMU emulation of Pluton for CI/CD, https://www.platformsecuritysummit.com/2019/speaker/seay/ https://www.platformsecuritysummit.com/2019/speaker/seay/ 3. DMTF SPDM (PCI device firmware attestation to SoC/RoT), https://www.platformsecuritysummit.com/2019/speaker/plank/ https://www.platformsecuritysummit.com/2019/speaker/plank/ Nov 2020 Intel announcement about Pluton, https://itpeernetwork.intel.com/intel-and-microsoft-plan-to-deliver-next-generation-advancements-in-security/ https://itpeernetwork.intel.com/intel-and-microsoft-plan-to-... > Secure platforms anchor on a hardware Root of Trust as the foundation. Given Intel’s diverse ecosystem, our vision is to offer multiple Root of Trust options that ensure isolation of resources, keys and security assets. The partnership with Microsoft to offer Pluton will further broaden the choices available to our mutual customers. Hopefully a future Intel SoC will include an optional FPGA-based RoT where customer hardware owners can load the open-source firmware of their choice. Edit: Pluton will be included in upcoming Arm laptops with SoCs from the Qualcomm-Nuvia (former Apple M1) team.

xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
> Hopefully Intel will offer an FPGA-based RoT where customer hardware owners can load the open-source firmware of their choice. This is sarcasm, right? It must be sarcasm. Maybe I'm out of the loop but I would guess that hell would freeze over before Intel releases something like this, let alone an FPGA Root of Trust.
- transpute 5y ago
  Take a look at the past 3 years of presentations at DARPA ERI, where every major US silicon vendor is participating. Much work is underway on heterogeneous systems, including Open FPGAs and OSS toolchains for EDA, to speed up (days, not months) the design-test-deploy cycle for specific applications. AMD provided a custom (expensive) SoC and RoT to MS Xbox, now being generalized with MS Pluton in 2022 Ryzen CPUs (and some future Intel CPUs). Intel already offers custom CPUs to some large customers. If a security-sensitive automotive or robotics customer needed an FPGA RoT, and the market opportunity was sufficiently interesting, Intel has multiple options for meeting that requirement. > This is sarcasm, right? It must be sarcasm. Intel at least left open the possibility in their press announcement. AMD did not, but they have purchased Xilinx and TSMC is building a US-based fab in Arizona, with "secure supply chain" FPGAs high on the list of early product candidates. It's up to customers to bang on Intel/AMD doors and show demand for FPGA RoT chiplets that support OSS gateware.

rackjack 5y ago

- Microsoft isn't going to fuck us over that hard <--- We are here - Microsoft is fucking us over that hard - Libre software FTW - Libre software UX sucks - Repeat When will the cycle end?

xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
> Libre software UX sucks This has always been true and while it's better this iteration of the cycle, it's not great. But have you actually used Windows in recent times? The UX has gotten infinitely worse since XP. Mac OS has changed about as much as the popular open source DEs, but Windows is infinitely worse. I can't stand using it. The taskbar is garbage, the menus are garbage, the discoverability of anything is the worst it has ever been. I can't imagine they're ignorant to the fact that Desktop UX is no longer a differentiator for them. The only lock-in they have is in business environments, for which there is zero competition at their price point. It's inevitable that the host OS gets locked down. The runtime has moved to the browser and cloud. It's just a matter of time.
- im3w1l 5y ago
  Windows UX is ass, but it runs a lot of nice software. Runs it well too. Many things don't work as well in wine. I'm talking both slowdowns and glitches.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    > but it runs a lot of nice software. Runs it well too. Probably because the developers write software for the most popular OS and not because Windows did something well.

marcodiego 5y ago

Will this allow my computer, in the future, to be as locked as current smartphones? Will this allow software to refuse to run or services to refuse to work depending on third party software I have installed?

mjg59 5y ago
Everything needed to lock down your computer as much as a phone already exists, there's no need for a TPM or Pluton to do so.
- userbinator 5y ago
  There's a huge difference between "exists" and "is now commonly available and made easier to use". The frog-boiling is slow, but an increasingly large number of us are becoming aware of this new rise of corporate authoritarianism, and we know how it will end if we do not fight it as hard as we can.
  - mjg59 5y ago
    All Microsoft need to do to block other operating systems from PCs is change their policy around secure boot. All they need to do to prevent unsigned apps from running is change the default behaviour of Windows. The code exists. It's deployed. It's commonly available.
    - userbinator 5y ago
      They need to boil the frog slowly enough that most people won't realise until it's too late.
      - Karunamon 5y ago
        I don't think that analogy works here, since the things we're worried about are binary states. Either you can run arbitrary software, or you can not, etc.

Shadonototra 5y ago

windows? it's a dead OS anyways people are either on macOS/android/iOS or chromium OS

wmf 5y ago
But if you don't like Pluton, I have bad news for you about Macs, Chromebooks, and most Android phones.
- Shadonototra 5y ago
  that's the thing, it doesn't really matter it's not YOUR OS, it's their product, you not forced to use any of their products linux and voila, you got your freedom back
  - mrjin 5y ago
    Kinda, but not completely. The problem is really with the hardware, switching OS can only alleviate but not resolving it. But really, we don't have choices unless we want to stay with fairly old platforms.
    - fsflover 5y ago
      Unless you support Linux-first hardware vendors.
      - toastal 5y ago
        I would love to, but unfortunately a lot of the laptop hardware is pretty garbage in comparison. I can deal with a slower CPU maybe, but it's the whole stack. The bodies are all cheap plastic. Battery lasts 3 hours. And you have only like 1080p TN panels; nothing OLED or with color accuracy in mind is on these. Similar feelings extend to phones as well.
        fsflover 5y ago

fartcannon 5y ago

Thank god for Berkeley and RISC-V.

zucker42 5y ago
"Trusted" computing is not something that's unique to x86.
- teitoklien 5y ago
  With RISC-V at-least individual providers can spinoff their own versions of the architecture without having to ask for permission, from an entity like intel,amd or arm. Unlike right now, where all x86 chipsets have backdoors, and all new ones have “Trusted” computing features which you cannot say No to.

grawprog 5y ago

So basically "Why it's ok and you should be happy about Microsoft's hardware controlling the software on your PC". I'm so unbelievably sick of this 'security by corporation, it's what's best for you so accept it bullshit.' I really am. No I don't want proprietary internet enabled hardware on my PC monitoring my software, no it does not make me feel safe and secure, actually, go fuck yourself and whatever marketing bullshit you spew to make this desirable for consumers. I'm honestly so fucking done with this kind of shit.

hanselot 5y ago
userbinator 5y ago
A quick look at the author's credentials should clear any doubt about the motivations behind this article's intentions --- over the past few years, I have come to the conclusion that anyone who works in the "security" industry is almost certainly working against you and your freedom.
mjg59 5y ago
> No I don't want proprietary internet enabled hardware on my PC monitoring my software Good news! Pluton is not internet enabled and can't monitor your software.
- Karunamon 5y ago
  Even if that's true right this minute, an unauditable (:/) bit of hardware controlled by Microsoft (!) that can be force-updated by them (!!!) means this can change at any moment. I liked TPM with my own keys. This just seems a bit 'extra' in all the wrong ways.
  - mjg59 5y ago
    Firmware updates can't add network hardware where none currently exists. The block diagrams for Pluton don't give it any mechanism to communicate with the network directly.

messe 5y ago

The fearmongering about Pluton feels very similar to the criticism that was levied against UEFI Secure Boot when it was being debuted. In the end, x86 systems didn't become any more locked down. I predict that this will blow over, and won't be a big deal in a few years time once FOSS drivers for what is effectively just a new breed of TPM are released. If in five years, it turns out I was wrong, I'll eat my hat. Although defining "my hat" by then might be difficult, as it'll probably be subscription based.

jevoten 5y ago
> In the end, x86 systems didn't become any more locked down. And non-x86 systems? Wasn't there a line of MS Surface devices where secure boot could not be disabled, and users were stuck with Windows? It feels careless to only care about x86, especially as other platforms proliferate. In any case, lockdown is not the only threat that Trusted Computing presents. Remote attestation itself is dangerous. If we remove our x86 blinkers and look at the mobile world, we see it's already happening, with countless apps, including ones important to modern day life such as banking, refusing to run on rooted phones. You may say, "Oh, I will use my x86 desktop system at home for Free Computing, and allow phones, consoles, tablets, surface devices, etc etc, to become locked down." Like the old free speech zones, this is a toothless freedom, tamed and neutered. The user-empowering Free Software you will write will have no users - they will be on locked devices.
- messe 5y ago
  While that's true, with regard to some Surface devices, as I understand it, ARM systems have only become more open and interoperable over the past few years; although this holds true a lot more for the server side than desktop side. The main issue these days is driver support. The PC platform was an anomaly in backwards compatibility, at least historically. I'm not arguing that it's going to be easy for FOSS. It's going to be an uphill battle, regardless of how locked down they are (and I'm just arguing that they won't be that locked down—see the recent M1 Macs for an example; Apple could easily have locked down those systems in exactly the same manner as iOS/iPadOS devices, but chose not to).

shmerl 5y ago

> if you're not running Windows Microsoft can't update the firmware on your TPM. This seems to be the biggest issue - hardware locked into requiring Windows to be up to date. MS can of course ship firmware that's independent of the OS, but knowing MS - they probably won't.

mjg59 5y ago
It sounds like they're using UEFI capsule updates for the firmware, so it'll actually be easy to perform the updates under other operating systems - Microsoft just won't have any mechanism to compel you to do so.
- shmerl 5y ago
  Then it won't be a big problem I guess. Though having a blob firmware from MS embedded into the CPU itself feels kind of weird. A better way to do it was some third party handling it or requiring that firmware to be open source for example.
- userbinator 5y ago
  The "mechanism to compel you to do so" will be in the form of remote attestation, as some of the other comments here have mentioned.
  - mjg59 5y ago
    I don't think I understand your threat model here. In the dystopian remote attestation future, presumably nobody's going to grant you access unless you're running Windows, at which point Microsoft can impose arbitrary policies without needing to involve Pluton at all (all it would do in this case is verify that you're running Windows, and you can already make that determination using a traditional TPM). So under what circumstances would you find yourself unable to gain access to a remote resource unless you're willing to accept a firmware update that changes Pluton's behaviour in a user-hostile way?

userbinator 5y ago

The "not currently" in the title is very important foreshadowing. This is merely another battle in the war on general-purpose computing. They will build their kingdom piece-by-piece, and under innocuous-sounding adjectives such as "safety" and "security". Each of these pieces may look innocuous and perhaps even helpful, but don't lose sight of their ultimate goal. Once all the pieces are in place to achieve total lockdown, there will be no going back. Articles like this that say "it hasn't happened yet" and try to spin a positive narrative are not showing the big picture. Arguably, Big Tech does not want you to see the big picture.

meekmind 5y ago
Honestly I can't imagine any group of companies in the tech space being more resourceful than 10,000 neglected teenagers with nothing but a computer and a bad attitude. Especially after the former tells the latter that they can only do "approved" things with their computer.
- userbinator 5y ago
  Do you really think they'll be able to break the strong crypto which will ultimately be used to "secure" this? Maybe they could exploit a buffer overflow or other such bug, but if our opponents are so keen on adopting "secure languages", that path to freedom is going to close too. When governments were scared that encryption was going to be used against them and wanted to ban it, we should've realised that the same situation could apply to us. I'm not at all arguing in favour of such bans, but the underlying message was just as applicable.
  - meekmind 5y ago
    I think tech companies as a general rule have proven unreliable at understanding, much less implementing, "security" in software or hardware. It's fair to say the landscape is changing but human frailty has not. If I have been reminded of any idiom most often while scrolling through security bulletins, it's "when there is a will, there is a way." We may not have the same class of problem we had before, but I'll still likely be scrolling through security bulletins a decade from now. Also consider: the fundamental parts of a computer are still analog. Hardware bypasses, 3d-printed micro-circuitry, modified components or distributables, who knows? In my estimation, the cat and mouse game will continue for quite some time.

paavoova 5y ago

Meanwhile, hardware-level OS-ignostic rootkits like Computrace exist, and Intel ME has its own network stack, but Pluton being adopted as some kind of industry standard to lock down a platform in the name of "security" and what have you is a conspiracy.

userbinator 5y ago
Does Computrace even work if you're not running Windows? Does it have a Linux/MacOS/etc. payload now? (Reversed much of it a long time ago --- and remembered it was specifically coded with Windows in mind, with certain assumptions about various things.)

saxonww 5y ago

I've always thought this was just Microsoft's copy of Google Titan and Apple's T2. And as others have pointed out, there's a lot of overlap with what a TPM can already do. The main thing that comes to mind for me is that since this is integrated into the CPU itself, now 'things' can be strongly and directly tied to the CPU instead of a separate TPM or some collection of hardware identifiers. Was this already possible on x86? My mind immediately went to "this will be used for tighter DRM"; I feel like content owners would like this a whole lot.

mjg59 5y ago
If you have an AMD system then there's a decent chance that it's already running a TPM stack on the on-die Platform Security Processor. Pluton isn't really any more tightly integrated, it just means the TPM stack isn't running on the same core as a bunch of other random platform things.
- saxonww 5y ago
  OK, thanks for pointing this out.

deknos 5y ago

in german we call stuff like pluton "politik der kleinen schritte" or "salamitaktik". which basically means that little step for little step, things change. it is not CURRENTLY a threat, but it builds up to be a threat in the future if we do not stop and/or constrain it.

genewitch 5y ago
Salami tactic is on the nose

0dayz 5y ago

What worried me about pluton is essentially both the fact it might set a trend where drm locks out Linux devices and that remote exploits on pluton is a real nightmare scenario. Despite the fact I in a way do think tpm like components are a good thing.

josteink 5y ago
> the fact it might set a trend where drm locks out Linux devices Fact? Based on what evidence?
- 0dayz 5y ago
  If you re-read my statement you might notice "the fact" is used as a figure of speech.

hansjorg 5y ago

It's funny how Microsoft seems unable to do "security" without veering into megalomanic authoritarian schemes. See also Palladium. What about trying to secure your software without building the infrastructure for an oppressive dystopian future? Too much to ask?

bayindirh 5y ago
They're used to have the desktop monopoly, and losing them makes them to literally lose sleep over the matter. It's not a matter of security, it's a matter of monopoly. Since forever.
pydry 5y ago
Yes. Look at the zeroday clusterfuck that is Teams. To Microsoft, security is an excuse for a land grab.
hda2 5y ago
It's not that they can't do security without going full authoritarian, I think they do it because they want to go authoritarian. The new security benefits are just a vehicle. They're a lot like the common politician who smuggles horrible laws into relief bills or trade treaties. UEFI (especially on the ARM platform) and intel ME are to examples of this.

no_time 5y ago

The fact that there is no "user override"[0] feature in any of these security processors is blatantly obvious evidence that they are designed to control and restrict first and foremost. I have read mjg's other posts on the topic and have no reason to believe he is arguing in bad faith but I'm still not convinced one bit. [0]: https://www.eff.org/wp/trusted-computing-promise-and-risk https://www.eff.org/wp/trusted-computing-promise-and-risk

userbinator 5y ago
I wouldn't call it bad faith, but more like furthering the industry narrative. Unfortunately a lot of intelligent individuals are perfectly content to help the corporations and governments tighten the nooses on everyone, including themselves, in return for $$$. They've convinced themselves that they are doing good.

AshamedCaptain 5y ago

So we already have to trust the Intel ME crap, and now the MS crap too. How is this similar to the status quo? _At best_ it increases the number of actors you have to trust, specially if you are not using Windows.

flubflub 5y ago

There are a lot of security benefits to using a TPM. I wouldn't mind if I could use an open source one in Linux. They ameliorate a lot of low entropy problems for passwords and can improve security. I can't imagine a proprietary one being mandatory. My banking app uses the mentioned remote attestation so I can't use it on my less-Googled Calyx ROM. I just think that's stupid instead of very strong warnings.

toastal 5y ago

Man, I was really enticed by the specs on these Z-series laptops by Lenovo and was looking at an upgrade. But I was reading about Pluton this afternoon, and now looking at this thread, I don't know how I feel about it. Why ruin a great new CPU with future spyware? I don't like the edit at the bottom where the author's like: oh yea, of course this could be a massive issue against FOSS but we should just assume that vendors will think it's impractical. I've seen how banks react to rooted phones, even when rooted to heighten device security--and I've switched banks before because of it. They don't care.

IYasha 5y ago
I'm totally with you. Not using banking apps - just sites. Also stopped buying CPUs with DRM-on-chip. It's pretty crazy what they're doing now instead of just "computing machines" (
- toastal 5y ago
  Unfortunately with the DRM situation, the benefits are much outweighing the cost. The speed gains and compatibility I'd get let me do a lot more things. I can use these better CPUs to compile a lot faster :| The banks not much better. All banks in my country have dated late 90s-looking websites with not even UTF-8 encoding (so you can't send an email with a comma). They are barely usable on desktop. I'd have to make my own client or at least whip up a lot of magic CSS to get it to be mobile-friendly and would even still need to include QR code scanning as it is so ubiquitous that no one would let me fiddle with adding their account numbers.

IYasha 5y ago

"Wire fence is not a threat! " ( fine print: we haven't switched the electricity on yet) edit: asterisks are somehow omitted

akagusu 5y ago

We should put an emphasis on currently, but also I think we should discuss how Microsoft is positioning itself as a gatekeeper and forcing all market players to adopt their tech. If Microsoft says Windows will only support has with this tech enabled, and since almost every computer on the planet runs Windows, vendors must adopt this tech or go out of the market. In other words, Microsoft is positioning itself to say to all market players to play by its rules or go out of business. This is a perfect way to establish control over the market without establish itself as a monopoly, thus not attracting attention from regulators.

richardfey 5y ago

One great advantage of these separate silicons is that side channel attacks are greatly mitigated; it's everything else that worries me (closed platform, no transparency, unusable once vendor stops supporting it etc)

ece 5y ago

I think this is about securing data/keys (AES, TLS, TPM..) vs securing code (Secure Boot, TEEs..). Neither is really a threat to software freedom as I see it, as long as it's user controlled or can be rendered effectively inactive. The thorniest question I think is around TEEs. You either trust ME/PSP/mobile TEEs for their explicitly mentioned uses (fTPM, SVM, Remote attestation..) or you think they should be even more sandboxed or perhaps shouldn't exist at all. I'm all for the middle ground/option here where the user is in control, thought others may disagree. Remote attestation could be a case where the user is losing control, so preserving user control there is important.