26 ms·
German government warns Windows 8 is a security risk
- reirob 13y agoThis leads to a German article. Sorry I did not find any English article on this topic yet. So here the short summary (actually my translations of selected passages): [German] government experts warn, Windows 8 is an unacceptable security risk for governmental offices and companies. The so-called Trusted Computing might be a backdoor for NSA. [..] According to their [expert's] opinion the operating system contains a backdoor which cannot be closed. This backdoor is called Trusted Computing and might have the consequence that Microsoft could control every computer remotely. And therefore NSA could do it as well. [..] Three points are decisive: First the [new] TPM, in contrary to the existing standard, is active from the time when you switch on the computer. As soon as you start the computer you cannot decide anymore if you want Trusted-Computing (Opt-in). Secondly it is not possible to deactivate in future the TPM (Opt-out). Third the OS takes over the control over the TPM, in the case of Windows OS it means that the computer is controlled by Microsoft. ---- In the light of the current situation on spying, I have to say that I am happy that it goes in this direction.
- ukdm 13y agoTranslated version: http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zeit.de%2Fdigital%2Fdatenschutz%2F2013-08%2Ftrusted-computing-microsoft-windows-8-nsa http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&pre...
- digitalengineer 13y agoIf what Snowden showed us is true, the same thing for the (recent) versions of MacOsX. I'd say things are looking up for Linux on the desktop.
- pktgen 13y agoCan you elaborate on the OS X issue (I think I've missed that disclosure)? Everything I can find, which admittedly is not anything authoritative (nothing from Apple directly), says that Apple hasn't shipped TPMs for a few years now.
- digitalengineer 13y agoSorry, I should have provided more details. I ment to say Prism program also taps in to user data of Apple. PRISM showed us the NSA has direct access to Apple servers. The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-...
- pktgen 13y agoAh, I see. (I thought you were talking about something found in OS X, not Apple's PRISM involvement.) I'm not sure if I personally consider this a reason not to use OS X, but it is definitely a reason to not use iCloud.
- Osmium 13y agoI have no knowledge about OS X and TPMs specifically, but I do know some people have concerns about what OS X stores in the SMC: http://www.nosuchcon.org/talks/D1_02_Alex_Ninjas_and_Harry_Potter.pdf http://www.nosuchcon.org/talks/D1_02_Alex_Ninjas_and_Harry_P... I'm not remotely qualified to comment on the contents of that talk, but it's a very concerning read–they claim that the SMC stores your FileVault key (though they don't seem to prove this?) and that the SMC has a backdoor. I'm all ears if anyone else has any additional info/knowledge about this...
- dotdot 13y agoBeing unable to read German I can't comment fully on the original article, but based on this summary this warning seems pretty silly. The operating system kernel always has full control over the system, how are they suggesting the TPM adds control here? The TPM is a small chip that handles certain crypto operations more securely (especially key management), how does this provide any additional backdoor scenarios? If Microsoft wanted a backdoor it could easily be added to the OS without a TPM.
- fetbaffe 13y agoIf I remember my German correctly the articles argues around many different points. One is spying (NSA), another is restrictions on what to install (Microsoft) and some parts discuss the threat from China, manufactures of the TPM chips.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- polymatter 13y ago>If Microsoft wanted a backdoor it could easily be added to the OS without a TPM. Without a TPM, it is possible to detect and remove (or more likely mitigate) a backdoor. With the TPM, even if you know about a backdoor and have a patch you can not apply it without Microsofts blessing. At least, thats my understanding.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- anologwintermut 13y agoThis is about the TPM in windows 8. It's the same argument about treacherous computing that goes around, except the article seems to be suggesting people think it's a extent problem now because the TPM is always on, not a hypothetical in the future/ Microsoft's long term plan. Further, there is a nebulous assertion linking this to the NSA. 1) The TPM still can't control your computer(yet). It can only measure it's state, allow you access to keys you created in some state, and attest to things about the state (which would allow other parties to mandate what state your system is in when interacting with it, but presumably those entities would be bond by German law and likely be German themselves) 2) If Microsoft wanted to backdoor your system, they don't need the TPM to do it. In fact, the TPM can be used to protect against a whole bunch of malware that various intelligence agencies might use: it can protect keys with passwords (with rate limiting/self destruct for guessing), make sure the system is in the same state(i.e. malware free) when you created you PGP key as it is when your using it to decrypt an e-mail, and it can isolate an application from the rest of your system.
- reirob 13y agoYour second point is exactly what the German government is afraid of according to the article. According to the article there seem to be security vulnerabilities on 3 levels in TPM 2.0, which might be used by intelligence agencies - the article states NSA and China who is actually producing most of the TPM chips.
- TazeTSchnitzel 13y agoBundestrojaner.
- abcd_f 13y ago> If Microsoft wanted to backdoor your system ... ... they already have Windows Update. It cannot be null-routed (respective entries in /etc/hosts are simply ignored), it is virtually always on and it can be trivially used to deliver custom patches to specific boxes. What more can you ask for?
- 13y ago
- polskibus 13y agocan anyone elaborate on TPMs, what are they, why are they the risk in MS case etc.?
- jlgaddis 13y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Platform_Module http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Platform_Module
- josteink 13y agoKey point: "Trusted" in this sense refers to trust to an external entity and not the owner or user of the actual computer, which ironically is not trusted to have full access to all things on the computer. The biggest problem is that the "trusted" party which has full access is almost certainly under NSA/PRISM jurisdiction and can be forced to do things which most people would find objectionable.
- mseebach 13y agoWhere do you see that a trusted party has full access? Yes, the NSA could probably create a Windows build with a backdoor, and forge a signature that the TPM would accept, but they could (and probably did) just ask Microsoft to do that and save the bother. What attack vector, exactly, does the TPM enable that isn't present pre-TPM?
- bad_user 13y agoBecause you can only install software approved by Microsoft, you cannot install software on it for detecting a backdoor installed by Microsoft. These computers are only more secure if you trust Microsoft. If Microsoft can't be trusted (and they can't be, as they are under NSA's jurisdiction), then the Windows 8 computers are less secure. But wait, it gets worse. At least in the case of MacBooks you only have to trust Apple, but in the case of Microsoft you also have to trust the computer manufacturer. And that's a really tough pill to swallow. I actually hope that Windows 8 will be banned by governments in the public sector, as Trusted Computing is a scourge upon this industry.
- grobmeier 13y ago2013, it's the post-snowden era. We don't have a cold war any more, but the level of spying is unbelievable. I am currently moving out my emails from GMail and installed PGP. At the moment I am using OSX since I do for years. But in the end the only "safe" way to protect your business and privacy is to use Linux/Unix. The FSF said it for years; the german CCC told us for years. I admit, I didn't believe it's so bad. I always thought: good there are a few of us paranoid, they take care there is a balance. Now we see, there is no balance. Good we have had these paranoid people because they are now providing us a chance to opt-out. Good there were these programmers who worked for years and often in their prime time in free and open solutions like GNU/Linux. Snort, the intrusion detection system. GPG. And so on. For me it is a hard job to opt-out of being spied. But I will move on, step for step. Email privacy is the first; no GMail, no Apple Mail. Old friend Thunderbird/Enigmail it is. I also installed TrueCrypt. The biggest move will be to change the OS (again). Guess it takes me months or longer as I have a lot of great OSX software. But on the other hand, I can simply set up a new machine for private tasks - or dual boot my macbook with Linux. I hope my government will take this warning serious and support more "Linux @ City" projects (Munich runs on Linux and Open- or LibreOffice). Wow, long comment. I just needed to say. I am worried.
- greyman 13y agoWhat portion of people you communicate with email were you able to convince to use PGP with you? My understanding is, that there isn't an email privacy, since at least they will have your metadata. In my limited understanding, secure communication is to be done using some secure chat service.
- petera 13y agoFor most contacts you just move away from people who don't use secure communication and may compromise you in the future, no need to convince someone. Works for me.
- sounds 13y agoThose of you who downvoted this comment, please explain your reasons. E.g. here are mine: not enough people communicate securely right now. I can't just abandon everyone; that's way too isolationist for my personal taste. Still, if you want to that _is_ an option.
- pilif 13y agoSo because Windows 8 has support for trusted boot and friends that might (it's pure speculation) contain a backdoor, it's less secure than previous versions that did not support trusted boot at all? I agree that the NSA spying is a real threat, but so is traditional malware. The article is basically saying that, because the malware protection is not good enough (i.e. not securing against NSA malware), it's worse than no protection at all. FUD. I do agree that locking down the OS so that it runs only MS-signed applications is a dick move in general and we'll probably see really bad changes in the market overall, but I see no relation to the NSA spying issue. The NSA can install malware as well on XP machines as it can on Windows 8 machines, so in that regard, Win8 is no better nor worse than previous versions. (also: I really don't intend to be trolling and my argument seems reasonable. As such I wonder what the reason for the downvotes is. Is it possible that you guys are getting an english article with a different content? If I click the link I get to see a german article)
- SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago> that might (it's pure speculation) contain a backdoor Maybe, just maybe we have come to the point in time that unless a system has been shown to be secure, it should be assumed to be wiretaping the user. We can no longer assume secure until proven insecure. > FUD. Absolutely. This is what the reputational damage to american firms like Microsoft looks like. Why the hell should their systems be trusted now?
- pilif 13y ago>Maybe, just maybe we have come to the point in time that unless a system has been shown to be secure, it should be assumed to be wiretaping the user. We can no longer assume secure until proven insecure. I 100% agree. But I really fail to see how this makes Windows 8 a worse operating system in that regards than its predecessors. A system that provides no trusted computing support is equally easily hacked by the NSA as is a system that does support trusted computing. The latter does have the benefit of making hacking significantly more difficult for everybody but the NSA, so I would say it's still a net positive and not a huge negative which the article makes it out to be. Security-wise only of course. I hate the idea of losing control over the hardware I purchased and I will resist as long as humanly possible installing a system that removes this kind of control from me. It just has _nothing_ to do with NSA spying and everything with corporate control of the OS maker.
- lispm 13y agohttp://www.golem.de/news/trusted-computing-bundesregierung-warnt-vor-windows-8-1308-101101.html http://www.golem.de/news/trusted-computing-bundesregierung-w...
- frank_boyd 13y agoTPM combined with the recent revelations may become Windows' final nail in the coffin.
- esw 13y agoI certainly understand the sentiment, but we've been talking about the end of the Windows era for at least fifteen years. At some point it will inevitably end, but I suspect that we will only be able to point to the 'final nail' in hindsight.
- D9u 13y agoIf Microsoft has been complying with government requests to facilitate access to Microsoft online services, then it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to extrapolate from there to question whether or not Microsoft operating systems have also been engineered to facilitate government access.
- petera 13y agoThe core-argument is that the Windows 8 way of using, implementing and enforcing TPM and establishing a so called feudal security approach isn't considered good security practice any longer. It's not so hard to understand.
- cmarschner 13y agoNothing prevents you from buying a non-Windows, non-Mac laptop. It's not the year 2000 anymore when there were hardly any other options.
- walshemj 13y agoOr using a system without tpm I am looking at building a new pc and all the motherboards I have looked at do not have a tpm module they have the header to implement one but its not installed by default.
- ZanyProgrammer 13y agoTell me where these mythical laptops are, other than the Dell XPS 13?
- nileshtrivedi 13y agohttp://www.system76.com/ http://www.system76.com/ among others.
- kintamanimatt 13y agoI hadn't heard of them, although buying such a thing internationally would be an expensive pain in the ass to return if there were an in-warranty defect! Also, as an Ubuntu-user, as I really love the idea of these, but they're ugly and look really cheap: http://i.imgur.com/KGPznQz.jpg http://i.imgur.com/KGPznQz.jpg
- snarfy 13y agoThere are other places, like http://www.powernotebooks.com/ http://www.powernotebooks.com/ and http://www.xoticpc.com/ http://www.xoticpc.com/ that have excellent warranties and deal with all the international stuff so you don't have to. Granted they don't come with linux, but you can order them with no OS.
- 13y ago
- walshemj 13y agoSo just don't install a TPM module if your getting paranoid and does any one know what powers the BND and the plethora of secret police have in Germany? This smells of poujadist knee jerk Anti Americanism
- kintamanimatt 13y agoI'd be under the impression that TPM 2.0 modules come pre-installed and are probably surface mounted chips, the removal of which would void any warranty and possibly cause damage to the motherboard.
- walshemj 13y agoSo and your point is? for example None of the consumer Ausus 8 series MB's (1150 Haswell) come with a pre installed TPM they just have the header.
- kintamanimatt 13y agoMy point is TPM 2.0 appears to be a different beast. While it's optional today, it probably won't be tomorrow. Vendors are very keen to lock shit down and create walled app gardens in the name of increased security.
- walshemj 13y agoSo don't buy an iPhone ;-) But you do have a point - I suggest you lobby your MEP/Senator/MP to ban totally walled gardens or to use anti trust to split the app side of Google and Apple etc from the parent - this is what caused IBM so much trouble in the 60/70's
- kintamanimatt 13y agoTPM isn't limited to iPhones! I don't think TPM or walled gardens are a political problem, but more a technical and marketing problem. Lobbying for legislation that prevents alternative marketplaces from being locked out of a particular ecosystem doesn't actually mean people will use them en masse, or even know they exist. For example, despite Android's open nature, Amazon Appstore is very unlikely to ever beat Google Play because most people don't switch from the default. Similarly, Internet Explorer remained the most popular browser up until lately, despite alternatives and European legislation. Google Chrome is now the most popular browser, but it took an expensive ad campaign to make Google Chrome happen, not legislation. Firefox is trailing in last among popular web browsers! Increased adoption of FOSS is really the only solution. It only becomes political when FOSS is legally restricted.
- muyuu 13y agoI would pay a 50%+ premium for competitive open source hardware. Happily.
- Udo 13y agoTranslation (it's a very long-winded article with many repetitions, I left some passages out): How trustworthy is Microsoft? This is the question that concerns the Federal Administration and other German government agencies, as well as companies and private users who might want to use the Windows operation system now and in the future. Sooner or later they will be forced to use Windows 8 or its successor. According to documents available to the ZEIT ONLINE, government IT experts consider Windows 8 to be dangerous. They contend that the operating system contains a backdoor which cannot be closed. This backdoor is called Trusted Computing and it might empower Microsoft and the NSA to remotely control any device that uses it. [...] The way in which the chip and the operating system cooperate is standardized and the specification for this is defined by the Trusted Computing Group (TCG). The TCG was founded ten years ago by Microsoft, Intel, Cisco, AMD, HP, and Wave Systems - all of which are US companies. The current TPM specification is scheduled to be replaced by a new one dubbed TPM 2.0. Together, TPM 2.0 and Windows 8 achieve what has become the norm on smartphones, tablets, and gaming consoles: hardware and operating system become a tightly coupled unit that allows the OS vendor to tie down precisely what can be installed on a device and what cannot. To put it another way, Trusted Computing is a vehicle for Digital Rights Management (DRM) enforcement. [...] Three issues arise here: First, contrary to the current generation standard TPM will be enabled right from the first boot-up of the device. Whoever uses this computer will no longer be able to decide if they want to use TPM (Opt-in). Secondly, TPM can no longer be deactivated on systems that have it (Opt-out). Thirdly, how TPM functions are used is entirely up to the operating system [vendor], in the case of Windows computers this will be Microsoft. From the year 2015 on every single PC will be shipped with Windows 8.x and TPM 2.0. For the user there is simply no way to tell what exactly Microsoft does to their system through remote updates. To summarize, users of a Trusted Computing System lose control of their computer. This is the design goal of Trusted Computing, as the Federal Ministry for IT Security (BSI) explains in detail here [link]. The BSI suggests that government agencies, companies, and private users actually make use of this technology - but only if certain conditions are met. A way to Opt-in and Opt-out is part of these conditions, and these options are being eliminated now. [...] Accordingly, the Federal Administration and the BSI now express very clear warnings against the use of Trusted Computing 2.0 within German agencies. According to a paper issued by the Ministry for Commerce from early 2012: "Due to the loss of control over [the capabilities of] information technology" "the security-oriented principles of 'confidentiality' and 'integrity' are no longer achievable". Other statements assert for example: "this could have severe consequences for the IT security of the Federal Administration." Thus the conclusion is: "The use of 'Trusted Computing' technology in this form ... is not acceptable within the Federal Administration and other critical infrastructure". [end of page 1] Another document reveals that Windows 8 and its successors combined with TPM 2.0 are already unusable "even today". Windows 7 could "be used securely until 2020". After that, other solutions would have to be found. In an assessment the BSI writes that "unconditional and complete trust" in Trusted Computing is not possible with TPM 2.0. The documents contain evidence that the German government did try to influence the development of the new standard. This type of cooperation has been taking place for years, this time the Germans have been simply ignored though. However, other parties got exactly what they wanted. The NSA, for example. "The NSA approves" was a catch phrase that has been issued during the last meeting between TCG and interested parties, according to some participants. [end of translation] The second page contains a lot of predictable conclusions about suspected NSA/US spying capabilities.
- Zigurd 13y agoIt is fairly amazing that any non-"Five Eyes" nation would use non-auditable and non-buildable software on systems they want to secure for quite a while now. I suppose the recent revelations have drained the last drop of credibility from the "we could but we wouldn't" argument.
- mjg59 13y agoTPMs can't be used to control which software you can install. All they can do is prove what software you're running, which means that a remote provider can choose whether or not to provide a service based on what you're running. Trusted Boot is about providing proof, not about enforcing local policies. Secure Boot can be used to restrict which software you can install, as demonstrated in Windows RT. But that has nothing to do with TPMs - iOS behaves in the same way without using any TPMs. So I don't really understand the article. Placing trust in TPMs to maintain your secrets obviously depends on you trusting the TPM manufacturer not to hand over any of the secret keys, but having a TPM doesn't mean that you have to place trust in it.
- mpyne 13y agoFor all of you who (somehow) don't recognize the UID here, this isn't just some "interested observer", this is the person implementing support for booting Linux on systems with these TPMs. In fact if I understand it right Linux can now optionally use a TPM to verify that kernel modules are only loaded if cryptographically signed. A good intro to TPM on Linux: http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/24818.html http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/24818.html
- MichaelGG 13y agoTPMs are also pretty handy for low-level corporate security. Setup disk encryption, store in the TPM then either boot directly (allowing RAM attacks) or require a PIN (requiring someone to break the TPM itself). That's a pretty nifty feature for general security. I think the distrust and confusion around TPMs and so on is due to Microsoft's moronic handling of Vista's protected playback system and people have extrapolated from there.
- eru 13y agoI believe the Chromebook uses TPM quite well.
- kunai 13y agoI never really understood how TC works. Does the TPM actually do anything on-the-fly that is noticeable? Is it used at all on any consumer devices? Fill me in here, because I'm at a loss. EDIT: Never mind. It seems like prior TPMs shipped with hardware, but were opt-in instead of opt-out, and now, with the W8.1 hardware spec, TPM 2.0 (which has a greater range of TC technologies) will need to be enabled as default on hardware shipped with W8.1, and there is no possible way to opt-out. A shame that hardware manufacturers are just Microsoft lackeys.
- reirob 13y agoJust have found another article that might give some more details. It is again a German article, so I hope that German speaking community will step in again (the last Google translation was really bad) and provide its interpretation. The article is an interview of Professor Dr. Rüdiger Weis, who is a cryptology expert: https://netzpolitik.org/2013/interview-trusted-computing-stimmt-geheimdienste-froehlich/ https://netzpolitik.org/2013/interview-trusted-computing-sti...
- orionblastar 13y agoI tried my hand at Translating the article here: http://www.greatdox.com/windows8/ http://www.greatdox.com/windows8/ Sorry for any errors in Grammar or mistranslations. I also don't claim the technical 'facts' in the article are true, but they are what the original article was stating. A link back to Hacker News on this thread and other related links. Plus a link to Lunubtu and Linux.org at the end. Please ignore my affiliate links near the bottom, I am having problems finding a job, and paying for web hosting, etc. Most people don't click on them anyway, and the entire web page is text no javascript, no images, no pop-ups, etc.
- Hen4732 13y agohttps://www.bsi.bund.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/Presse2013/Windows_TPM_Pl_21082013.html https://www.bsi.bund.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/Presse2...