Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: vyper on April 27, 2006, 07:05:54 am
-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/27/schneier_infosec/
Security features introduced in Windows Vista will make setting up PCs to boot in either Linux or Windows far more difficult, according to security guru Bruce Schneier. Vista is due to feature hardware-based encryption, called BitLocker Drive Encryption, which acts as a repository to protect sensitive data in the event of a PC being either lost or stolen.
I can see the EC going ape **** over this one.
-
They've already had various police authorities whining about it making it harder to prosecute pedophiles.
-
Yet another reason I'm not upgrading.
-
How are you going to keep the police from finding your child porn though?
-
actually isn't the reason they're doing this to make it harder for people to boot into linux to crack passwords, files, etc. in the vista operating system?
-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/27/schneier_infosec/
I can see the EC going ape **** over this one.
They won't care about the principle, although they'll surely take any opportunity to latch on to Microsoft's cash flow like a rabid vampire if they can. For all their talk of being in favour of consumer choice, Microsoft's software does not prevent you installing your own media player or internet browser, but strangely Apple gets away with doing the same with OSX. ^_^
Edit: Bitlocker doesn't force you to encrypt your drive, IIRC, as no computers ATM have the trusted platform module which allows real-time encryption/decryption to work without a performance deficit.
-
you can use bitlocker in a software mode, much like DEP runs in software mode with windows xp now.
As of build 5365 of Vista, bitlocker is not on by default. However, this may change, becasue alot of things have been changing between the builds I noticed.
I for one, am not looking forward to having a TPM module on a motherboard I buy.
-
in the end, who really cares?.. i mean, linux users can go off and do their own thing just like the mac and windows users do, the reason why linux has reasonable security(disregarding any firewalls for the moment), is because there's a ****-ton of different variants of it, that's the security, the fact that not that many people use the one same kernel.
the fact being, just because it's difficult to have it dual boot, doesn't mean that you can't, they said once a mac couldn't get a virus, somebody made one because they could. hell, look at bootcamp for pete's sake, the same goes for most things, somebody will dual boot vista and linux simply to show that it can be done.
on that note (http://www.applegeeks.com/lite/index.php?aglitecomic=2006-04-26)
-
The thing is, a lot of "power users" are also "gamers" which is why it is well within reason for Linux users to have Windows onboard as well.
-
the reason why linux has reasonable security(disregarding any firewalls for the moment), is because there's a ****-ton of different variants of it, that's the security, the fact that not that many people use the one same kernel.
You don't know what you're talking about. Most worms and viruses on Linux don't even use kernel exploits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_computer_viruses
-
You don't know what you're talking about. Most worms and viruses on Linux don't even use kernel exploits.
Surely that supports his argument in a way. Linux viruses aren't coded around kernel exploits simply cause that would cut the number of vulnerable systems down :)
-
A remote exploit in the kernel would increase the number of rootable Linux installs considerably.
-
I think you miss my point. Seeing as what you say is true why wouldn't virus writers code viruses that do exploit the kernel?
Only possibilities are that the Kernel is sufficiently hardened to prevent attacks or that the kernels are sufficiently different in different distros that there is little point in trying as the vast majority of targets simply wouldn't be affected.
My point was that your reply to Turnsky failed to point out which of those two was the correct one and if anything gave credence to his comment. If someone says "People don't do X cause of Y" saying "You don't know anything, people don't do X." isn't much of an argument. If anything it supports the original posters point.
-
I think you miss my point. Seeing as what you say is true why wouldn't virus writers code viruses that do exploit the kernel?
Because there aren't any known exploits.
My point was that your reply to Turnsky failed to point out which of those two was the correct one and if anything gave credence to his comment. If someone says "People don't do X cause of Y" saying "You don't know anything, people don't do X." isn't much of an argument. If anything it supports the original posters point.
No, the point was that the kernel is not exploitable and the holes that *are* exploited are in services such as Apache or BIND. Therefore the variety in kernels (there isn't as much variety as Turnsky alludes to; many distros even use the vanilla kernel) is irrelevant to Linux security.
-
That is what you should have said the first time :p
-
well then, i stand corrected, either way, there's not many general users, or buyers of new PC's that'd know anything about the 20, 30, or so linux distros there are out there, and i'm fairly certain that the normal user would like to have some semblance of security when they crank their vista-laden PC, i'm sure vista will have its failings, then again, so does every other OS, and software that exists, nothing's perfect.
and again, i'm fairly certain that some clever geek with too much time on their hands in their mom's basement will cook up a way to get around this, and have a linux distro dual boot with microsoft's latest Operating system.
such limitations serve only to spur on people in the spirit of challenge, kinda like the great wall of china and genghis khan.
just wait, somebody will get around it, they always do.
-
I agree that it won't be a big deal. There are enough businesses based on Linux that hardware vendors would be at least a bit hesitant to lock Linux out. If not, then there's always the Mac... though I don't like the idea of buying an expensive Mac to run Linux on.
-
Bitlocker is optional. Even if you decide to turn it on, you can always just have a second drive with Linux on it. Sure, Linux won't be able to see the Windows partition, but that's your decision.
-
Microsoft's software does not prevent you installing your own media player or internet browser, but strangely Apple gets away with doing the same with OSX. ^_^
:wtf: Apple doesn't prevent you from installing anything. What are you smoking?
-
Microsoft's software does not prevent you installing your own media player or internet browser, but strangely Apple gets away with doing the same with OSX. ^_^
:wtf: Apple doesn't prevent you from installing anything. What are you smoking?
I meant in the context of the EU case. The ruling is one that Microsoft prevents consumer choice by bundling its own software (media player/internet browser) - despite people being able to install their own alternatives - and yet Apple does not get so much as a warning for bundling Safari/iTunes or whatever it is these days.
-
Apple don't have a monopoly. Simple as that.
-
Having seen the activation procedure for BitLocker, this is a bit of a storm in a teacup; You'd need to at least be Competant to be able to get it running in the first place, and you'd hope that someone installing Linux wouldn't be stupid enough to turn that functionality on too!
And yeah, monopoly's are dependant on scale - If Apple and Microsoft's positions were reversed, Apple would be fighting off anti-trust suits left, right and centre.
Be glad that ain't the case - Compared to Apple, Microsoft's business practices are the epitome of openness!
-
I'm confident that the OSS community will figure out this one and there will be something that lets users Dual Boot to whatever they want. I'm dual booting WinXP and OpenSuSE 10 and its not a huge deal for me right now...I'm sure it'll be doable in the future.
-
Apple don't have a monopoly. Simple as that.
I think also the EU ruling involed exposure of APIs for developers (or was that seperated)?