My comparison to Microsoft Palladium was all the underlying interesting technology around process isolation and (what was, at that time) a modern look at hardware-accelerated containerization.
Will you explain how hypervisor would offer increased isolation for user-mode processes whey they are already isolated with protection ring 3?
Hypervisor isolation of Docker containers is only required because Windows images have to include the OS kernel due to a lack of stable kernel API.
A modern OS should be very focused on using all the modern tech we have available to protect itself from more highly funded, highly organized (and as pointed out above, even state sponsored) attacks
I would understand the requirement for hypervisor-enabled processor (if this didn't specifically require a 2017-2018 model), but TPM 2.0? Thank you very much, I'm a home desktop user - not an U.S. Army employee who needs to carry around a 'secure' corporate notebook full of goverment 'secrets'; I don't need Microsoft or anyone else take control of my computer and deny me full access for the sake of my 'security'.
I'm already tired of Google peeking my page history then endlessly bogging me with targeted ads and feedback requests on my visited places, or having to jailbreak my Android phone to restore Chrome tabs lost by some random bug that persists for the last 10 years.
Yeah, cause it's not like ransonware and nation state sponsored attacks are becoming an existential threat to modern infrastructure or anything. I'm sure they're entirely motivated by DRM concerns.
It's not really hard to guess their motivation if you look at what Google and FaceBook have been doing. Trusted Computing / 'Secured-core PC' extends the original
Palladium /
NGSCB specs as
explained above, and goes beyond DRM control of media content by adding TPM 'Remote Attestation' to allow code execution only on certain device configurations.
While this can be used to protect against virus/malware programs, cheating in online games, data theft from stolen devices, etc., the same technology is fully equipped to enforce content restrictions (DRM) and Internet censorship, deny users access to 3-rd party software, track user actions, remove access to already published documents, etc.
Essentially users have to trust some big corporation with full control of their systems - and if you really think Microsoft/Bing, Google/YouTube, Apple, FaceBook, Twitter etc. would do a really terrific job managing your devices and data, you must have been living on an island and missed all the recent data misuse and content censorship scandals.
Also guarantee almost no one actually cares about whatever restrictions you're concerned about.
Well, they should be. From the UEFI Plugfest 2015 presentaion
Overview of Windows 10 Requirements for TPM, HVCI and SecureBoot - UEFI Spring Plugfest 2015 (PDF):
HVCI
• CI rules are still enforced even if a vulnerability allows unauthorized kernel mode memory access
• Memory pages are only marked executable if CI validation succeeds
• Kernel memory cannot be marked both writable and executable
• BUT impacts
– Driver compatibility
– UEFI Runtime services compatibility
Hardware Security
• This means the users physically in possession of a machine cannot easily modify it
• Includes:
– Platform Secure Boot
– Secure Firmware Updates
– Locking the BIOS menus
– Restricting Boot options
Device Guard and HVCI Ready Devices
• Virtualization extensions ON by default
• UEFI Runtime services compatible with HVCI
• BIOS locked down against Physical attacker
– Boot options
– Secure Boot
– Secure Firmware Updates
That's the big problem with TCG / TPM -
every user is treated like an adversary who shouldn't have full ownership of a device in his/her physical possession.
Security experts raised concerns for
the way Trusted Computing removes users from actual control of their systems back when the specs were released, and these concerns are still legitimate almost 20 years later.
https://www.eff.org/wp/trusted-computing-promise-and-risk
https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/trusted-computing/policy.html
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html
https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
Experts thought Intel Management Engine was very suspicious even before its security flaws were discovered, and they were right.
https://www.wired.com/story/intel-management-engine-vulnerabilities-pcs-servers-iot/
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/...security-hazard-and-users-need-way-disable-it
Users aren't going to ignore 11, all new systems will have it on them.
Windows Vista and 8.x were also installed on new systems, and users either clean installed Windows XP and 7, or ordered previous versions / 'no OS' option. The reduced market share was showing in monthly Steam Hardware Surveys.
restrict Win11 to proper (secure) hardware. If they want a new "shiney"...they have to meet the minimum specs.
Yes, just act as if Windows 11 requirements didn't really cause any controversy. That surely worked for Windows Vista and 8.x.
