4 ms·

As long as I have the choice to disable it, I want trusted computing. For example, I want to be able to run a secure cryptocurrency wallet on a portable device

by jaekwon 12y ago

As long as I have the choice to disable it, I want trusted computing. For example, I want to be able to run a secure cryptocurrency wallet on a portable device. Also would like to be able to introspect the hardware, even if it's costly and potentially destructive.

chii 12y ago
the problem is that any entity with the resources to create such a device is incentivized to produce one in which you cannot disable the built-in DRM/security. I think such a device could only be made possible under some sort of new law/regulation (like how net neutrality needs to be enacted into law), and i don't foresee how it can realistically happen. Consumer are already very comfortable with locked down devices now - iphone, tivo, even DRM coffee machines, and i don't see any consumer outrage when device makers introduce obstructions in the name of user safety and security.
- jaekwon 12y ago
  > is incentivized to produce one in which you cannot disable the built-in DRM/security Why is that? I don't see why this has to be true.
  - chii 12y ago
    producing a freer device means you cannot force a business model that is more profitable. For example, Playstation 3 used to be able to run a version of linux, but as time went by, sony removed that capability - they didn't want non-gamers to buy it and use it in clustered computing. Their business model is to sell the machine at cost (or even, take a loss), and recoup/profit on the game sales. A device maker which makes completely open machines is going to get out-competed with low-margin knock-offs, or generic branded copies from places like china. This is good for the consumer, but not good for a business's bottom-line. This is why there are very few branded computers these days (at least, desktop). You can count them on your fingers.
    - robin_reala 12y ago
      Not exactly true. Why would Sony have added Linux functionality in the first place? * Good will among the community * More familiarity with Cell software development for clusters (although this was behind a VM) * Import tax savings in certain territories due to the box being classed as a ‘computer’ instead of a ‘games system’. Which do you think was most important? (hint: it’s the last one) Conversely, when the ability to run Linux was pulled a hypervisor exploit had been discovered. Now the cost equation tipped back the other way. The import tax hit was still there, but the machine had halved in price since launch so that wasn’t as painful. The community had moved away from PS3 clusters as they weren’t energy effective any more: not as painful. The major pain point from removing it was losing the goodwill of the community, but when balanced against the piracy implications they made their decision. Personally I think they should have patched the hypervisor holes and kept the functionality, but you can see why they decided to remove it.
lloeki 12y ago
Another example: had Apple not removed the TPM from its computers and used it for the firmware crypto checks, the Thunderstrike exploit would have faced quite a hurdle. Such a delicate balance.
- pgeorgi 12y ago
  TPM wouldn't have helped any since it's a passive component. As long as you get to overwrite the code faster (or more persistently) than it can check itself (with or without support from TPM), you win.

by jaekwon 12y ago

chii 12y ago

the problem is that any entity with the resources to create such a device is incentivized to produce one in which you cannot disable the built-in DRM/security. I think such a device could only be made possible under some sort of new law/regulation (like how net neutrality needs to be enacted into law), and i don't foresee how it can realistically happen. Consumer are already very comfortable with locked down devices now - iphone, tivo, even DRM coffee machines, and i don't see any consumer outrage when device makers introduce obstructions in the name of user safety and security.

jaekwon 12y ago
> is incentivized to produce one in which you cannot disable the built-in DRM/security Why is that? I don't see why this has to be true.
- chii 12y ago
  producing a freer device means you cannot force a business model that is more profitable. For example, Playstation 3 used to be able to run a version of linux, but as time went by, sony removed that capability - they didn't want non-gamers to buy it and use it in clustered computing. Their business model is to sell the machine at cost (or even, take a loss), and recoup/profit on the game sales. A device maker which makes completely open machines is going to get out-competed with low-margin knock-offs, or generic branded copies from places like china. This is good for the consumer, but not good for a business's bottom-line. This is why there are very few branded computers these days (at least, desktop). You can count them on your fingers.
  - robin_reala 12y ago
    Not exactly true. Why would Sony have added Linux functionality in the first place? * Good will among the community * More familiarity with Cell software development for clusters (although this was behind a VM) * Import tax savings in certain territories due to the box being classed as a ‘computer’ instead of a ‘games system’. Which do you think was most important? (hint: it’s the last one) Conversely, when the ability to run Linux was pulled a hypervisor exploit had been discovered. Now the cost equation tipped back the other way. The import tax hit was still there, but the machine had halved in price since launch so that wasn’t as painful. The community had moved away from PS3 clusters as they weren’t energy effective any more: not as painful. The major pain point from removing it was losing the goodwill of the community, but when balanced against the piracy implications they made their decision. Personally I think they should have patched the hypervisor holes and kept the functionality, but you can see why they decided to remove it.

lloeki 12y ago

Another example: had Apple not removed the TPM from its computers and used it for the firmware crypto checks, the Thunderstrike exploit would have faced quite a hurdle. Such a delicate balance.

pgeorgi 12y ago
TPM wouldn't have helped any since it's a passive component. As long as you get to overwrite the code faster (or more persistently) than it can check itself (with or without support from TPM), you win.