Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Dangers of Microsoft Pluton

gabrielsieben.tech

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 554 posts

Re: The Dangers of Microsoft Pluton

#491

Post by bilkow »

tester756 wrote: post #479
alex7734 wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal is not to prevent you from running Linux, is to make it so that Linux cannot access the content you are interested in. Remote Attestation establishes a root of trust that can be used to verify that all of the software down the line is "approved": - You won't be able to browse sites or use apps with ads unless you run a 'trusted' device, OS and browser that does not block ads. - You won't be able to browse si…

>- You won't be able to browse sites How would that work? HTTP is just HTTP

Sites could require remote attestation via a new API just like some sites (Netflix, etc) require DRM to play content.

Re: The Dangers of Microsoft Pluton

#492

Post by toastal »

xfer wrote: post #160

This is the problem, when normal people stop buying PCs, only gamers and enterprise customers remain. So they will sell what their customers want.

And now the gamers want mostly online competitive games and their makers want the strongest DRM and kernel-level inspection all in the name of anti-cheat. We shouldn't be surprised if online games are one of the first spaces to require Pluton-enabled systems or no boot game.

Re: The Dangers of Microsoft Pluton

#493

Post by vel0city »

bilkow wrote: post #488
vel0city wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If all clients interfacing with the bank's API are required to prove they're locked down devices running proven official clients it reduces the potential attack surface. Lowering the attack surface increases the security. If the market really cared about being able to run whatever software you wanted, nobody would be buying iPhones. Fire TV sticks and Rokus wouldn't move any products. Playstations, Xboxes, and Ninten…

> I think you're massively overestimating the market size of people who actually care. Note that I'm not making any moral argument here, I'm not saying whether these things are good or bad. I think we're just discussing different things here then. I'm specifically talking about whether this is good or bad for the future of society. Most people buy whatever is most convenient at the time, which is fair and everyone ha…

I've had several people I've known affected by malware on Android. Its not entirely uncommon.

Re: The Dangers of Microsoft Pluton

#494

Post by simonh »

ramblenode wrote: post #468
dx034 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From the USA, we get news of banned book in some states. When I read that, my head goes back to my european history, and I reach the Godwin point very quickly. Books are not banned, just not used in the classroom anymore. While the reasons for it may be wrong, it's something that happens constantly all over the world. No one prevents children or adults to read those books at home. Banning books could mean that owni…

> Banning books could mean that owning them is illegal and that just hasn't happened. Just within the last century it was illegal to send a copy of Ulyesses or The Canturbury Tales through US mail.

In context I think it’s clear the comment was talking specifically about the books banned from classroom teaching in certain US states.

Re: The Dangers of Microsoft Pluton

#495

Post by mjg59 »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #480
mjg59 wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the apparent requirements around the Third Party UEFI CA, it's impossible for any device with a plug-in GPU to meet the Secured Core PC requirements. Unless Pluton is never going to be present in workstations, Pluton does not imply Secured Core. PSP and ME firmware isn't part of the CPU microcode. There's no fundamental reason why the updates couldn't be provided via Windows Update, but that would require Intel…

I'm not entirely sold for a few reasons. 1. This would require that Intel and AMD find it less intrusive to build an entire additional SoC into their processors, on whatever node necessary, than to package their software for Windows Update. Also, it leaves out the question, why couldn't Microsoft have required that AMD and Intel just implement a TPM outside of the PSP/ME with similar hardware protections? Intel would…

Like I said, firmware updates for the ME and PSP are generally tied to system firmware updates, so it's not just a matter of Intel and AMD packaging stuff - they'd need to change a lot of development methodology to ensure that these updates could be decoupled from the board vendor. And as far as Microsoft requiring that they implement a TPM - that's basically what they did? Microsoft just provided an implementation for them to use as well.

Pluton can be used in different contexts, and it can certainly be used in more IoT focused scenarios. UEFI doesn't really integrate with the DICE case terribly well (I'm dealing with DICE at the moment professionally, because I've made some poor choices in life), so I don't imagine it'll be relevant in the general purpose computing segment.

Re: The Dangers of Microsoft Pluton

#496

Post by userbinator »

mjg59 wrote: post #447

This is not a good article. At a technical level it's confused about a whole bunch of things: * SMM has been part of x86 for decades . The Secured Core requirements around SMM actually reduce its power. * The claimed requirement to remove the third party UEFI CA certificate from 2022 Secured Core PCs is entirely unrelated to Pluton (it's required regardless of whether Pluton is enabled or not, and even whether the CP…

No post body was provided.

Re: The Dangers of Microsoft Pluton

#497

Post by SauciestGNU »

merlincorey wrote: post #472
acdha wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The both sides framing is a common tactic used to make this seem even but there’s a pretty notable difference if you look at the details. For example, Newsweek’s right-wing owners love this framing but the left example is a single school district removing a book from the curriculum whereas the right wing examples are far more widespread and include books being removed from libraries. The motives are also different: b…

According to the article that I linked, California has banned "To Kill a Mockingbird" in schools due to racism and you seem to be implying that is because the book "depict[s] racism positively"; however, I read it back in school and I remember discussing extensively how the book showed racism in a most negative light. It doesn't seem to me like you are willing to believe that both sides could be over stepping here, b…

I remember the discourse around changing Jim's name in Huck Finn and banning To Kill a Mockingbird. Those changes and bans were wrong. But still the scope and intensity with which the extreme right are gunning for books is alarming. They're doing it more, it's more widespread, and they're using state power.

When "the left" has opposed books they try to use social pressure to get book settlers to voluntarily not stock those books. The right is currently using state power to prevent the teaching of certain books, their presence in public libraries, and are even suing to make private sales of certain books a crime in Virginia.

Re: The Dangers of Microsoft Pluton

#498

Post by vetinari »

nobody9999 wrote: post #303
vetinari wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd rather have my tonsils extracted through my ears than use a surveillance device^W^W smart phone to do anything financially related. Well, it gets even better, even for folks with principles like you have. If you want to use general computer, you need to log in. For logging in, you need second factor. That second factor is going to be in 99,99% cases exactly the app in the smartphone, that refuses to run on root…

>If you want to use general computer, you need to log in. For logging in, you need second factor. The administrator of my network does not require multi-factor authentication for my logins. That's probably because I am said administrator. As for professional settings, if my employer wants me to use a surveillance device and/or an app on said device, they can provide that device to me. As an alternative, I suppose I c…

I meant access to your bank account -- in the context of the thread above --, not to computer account on your private or corporate computer.

At least in Europe, it is not even bank's initiative, it is from above them. They've got PSD2 directive to implement. And when they all have to implement it, is kind of difficult to vote with your wallet.

Re: The Dangers of Microsoft Pluton

#499

Post by userbinator »

kmeisthax wrote: post #385
SQueeeeeL wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damn, now I'm nostalgic for the older days of hacker news where RMS was quoted every other post. The community is forgetting it's roots.

Top-voted comments are linking directly to Right to Read and The Coming War on General-Purpose Computing , so I don't think the community has forgotten its roots. You really wanna be scared? Go look at the multiple comments on the EU DMA announcement complaining that having a sideloading option is just a ploy for malware vendors to get into their iPhones. Or that someone else being able to sideload or jailbreak someh…

Well, my comment that linked to RtR was highly voted... But now it's near the bottom and what's at the top is, for lack of better phrasing, a corporate mouthpiece.

Was it voted so high it triggered some bot detection? That would only explain the former, not the latter. Either way, there's something funny going on.

Re: The Dangers of Microsoft Pluton

#500

Post by userbinator »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #480
mjg59 wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the apparent requirements around the Third Party UEFI CA, it's impossible for any device with a plug-in GPU to meet the Secured Core PC requirements. Unless Pluton is never going to be present in workstations, Pluton does not imply Secured Core. PSP and ME firmware isn't part of the CPU microcode. There's no fundamental reason why the updates couldn't be provided via Windows Update, but that would require Intel…

I'm not entirely sold for a few reasons. 1. This would require that Intel and AMD find it less intrusive to build an entire additional SoC into their processors, on whatever node necessary, than to package their software for Windows Update. Also, it leaves out the question, why couldn't Microsoft have required that AMD and Intel just implement a TPM outside of the PSP/ME with similar hardware protections? Intel would…

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN