Boycott Microsoft Windows Vista

i thought you were talking to me for a second lol.

i haven't read this thread, but if it's about not being allowed to touch the MS kernel, maybe you can protect the computer with somekind of virtualisation by using the new processors which support it. at the recent hacking cons there were talks about totally undetectable malware which work with the new processors - it virtualizes the whole computer i think.

 

Microsoft has a good excuse against Kernel Patching by third-party software vendors, see the answer to the problems associated with kernel patching: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/driver/kernel/64bitpatch_FAQ.mspx

 

Actually, Microsoft has good *reason* against Kernel patching. However, I'm sure MS could do this in a vendor-friendly way, and one does wonder about the timing of this..... *cough* onecare *cough*.... MS buying AV companies *cough*... seems a bit strange to me.

My 2c....


Mike

 

iceni60,
Thanks for those links and the detailed instructions. I had tried to install a modem driver before but wasn't successful. Linux is brand new to me so I can't say if it was the driver or my installation that didn't work.
One other quick question for you. Right now, I'm running my regular 98 unit on the "C" drive. Ubuntu is on the "E" drive. "D" is going to have another 98 OS on it for testing and research purposes. These are all separate hard drives, varying from 3.8 to 5.1 GB. If I understand correctly, I should be able to see and access both the C and D windows drives from Linux. Should I be able to access the Linux hard drive from Windows 98? The "E" drive containing Ubuntu is displayed in win98 "my computer" as an apparently empty CDROM drive. The only drive I can access from all the OSs is the first partition on my 80GB USB drive, which is 34.1 GB, drive "G". I can't access the 2nd 34.1 GB partition, drive "H" from linux, only from windows.
Is this normal or do I have something mis-configured?
Rick

 

You can mount a windows-partition into linux, but from windows you can't see anything from a linux install, so that is normal.
If you want both systems to work with a certain partition for storage or backups, it must be converted to FAT or vFAT as they call it in linux.

ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Dapper

Lamehand

 

Have your sources explained how they intend to hack the Intel or AMD chip? That is the real concern here as far DRM goes ...not software DRM. I am not worried about software DRM...in that regard I do have faith in "thy hackers". But hardware DRM on all currently sold computers combined with Microsoft's software DRM contained in vista...well, I see a bleak future for those who value privacy much less have concerns regarding DRM.

I suggest that anyone concerned about their privacy and DRM grab some Pentium 4 chips before they are all gone so that when you need another computer you can build one free of hardware DRM. Those of us with Vista capable rigs who have Pentium 4's don't have the real worry (that most users buying computers in 2005-2006 have) regarding privacy and DRM if we run Vista. There is no hardware DRM on our Pentium4 chips (or AMD chips until recently) to be activated by Vista. The real worry as I see it is the craze that is already in effect that brings most users to want dual core computers and they are like lambs to the slaughter ...no idea or understanding that they have just bought hardware DRM that will be fully activated in Vista.

 

Yup, at BlackHat. BluePill that woks under AMD and two guys report about same technique under Inter. Hardware level virtualization has it's own pros and cons for malware writers too!

Yes, I understand it. But I can't just sit and watch how M$ deprive me any choice with 3rd party security solutions! Boycott is the only legitimate way for all the 3rd party security vendors and users who want have choise. There is other way- ask M$ to allow 3rd party vendors survive, but Symantec aldeary made it and failed...

 

Software firewalls give a false sense of secuity?? Must be referring to windows own built in firewall as offering a false sense of security is about all that it does. I can understand why M$ doesn't like 3rd party firewalls that control outbound traffic. They tell the user when the OS or one of its components want to call home, the better firewalls naming the executable doing the calling. If it weren't for software firewalls, I wonder if WGAs calling home would have been noticed. In this respect, a 3rd party firewall represents a threat to M$ by informing the user of operating system behavior M$ would have preferred wasn't noticed. Does anyone think for one minute that WGA would still be checking and calling home daily, had not so many complained about it? I can only imagine what M$ thinks of HIPS software like SSM, which can be used to permanently block processes like that one. With Vista locking apps like SSM out of the kernel, that will probably be the end of the user having that level of control. IMO, that's the real reason M$ and other parties (like the entertainment industry and gov't security agencies) want the kernel locked. Locking the kernel will nearly complete one big fundamental change that's been gradually taking place in windows. Instead of the user controlling and monitoring the OS, the OS will monitor and limit the users ability to control it.

Lamehand,
Thanks for the info. Now I have to figure out the "mounting" a drive or partition part of this.
Rick

 

I agree abut boycotting. Joilet Jake, early in this thread, makes the excellent point that those lucky enough to reside in Europe will be unaffected. Boycott though is not enough. The public in the USA has to (1) understand the issues here and then (2) become outraged enough to cause our politicans to make this such a hot potato that Microsoft is forced to back off on this issue of shutting out third party vendors who need access to the kernal. The only thing that will stop Microsoft's relentless grab for world power is the citizens of the USA demanding that our government put a stop to Microsoft's monoply.

 

What about the other Intel processors?
Which AMD processors have hardware DRM?
To be clear, could someone mark which of these have hardware DRM? (with an asterisk)
Thank you.

Intel
Desktop ›
Intel® Core™2 Extreme processor
Intel® Core™2 Duo processor
Intel® Core™ Duo processor
Intel® Pentium® processor Extreme Edition
Intel® Pentium® D processor
Intel® Pentium® 4 processor Extreme Edition supporting Hyper-Threading Technology
Intel® Pentium® 4 processor supporting Hyper-threading Technology
Intel® Pentium® 4 processor
Intel® Celeron® D processor
Intel® Celeron® processor

Laptop ›
Intel® Core™ Duo processor
Intel® Core™ Solo processor
Intel® Pentium® M processor
Mobile Intel® Pentium® 4 processor
Intel® Celeron® M processor

Server ›
Intel® Itanium® 2 processor
Intel® Xeon® processor
Intel® Xeon® processor MP
Intel® Pentium® D processor
Intel® Pentium® 4 processor supporting Hyper-Threading Technology
Intel® Pentium® 4 processor

Workstation ›
Intel® Xeon® processor
Intel® Pentium® D processor
Intel® Pentium® 4 processor supporting Hyper-Threading Technology
Intel® Pentium® 4 processor


AMD
Turion™ 64 Mobile Technology Family For Thin and Light Notebooks
Turion™ 64 X2 Mobile Technology
Turion™ 64 Mobile Technology

Opteron™ Processor - Multiprocessors
1000 Models
2000 Models
8000 Models
100 Models
200 Models
800 Models

Athlon™ 64 Processor Family
Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core Processor
Athlon™ 64 FX Processor
Athlon™ 64 Processor

Mobile AMD Athlon™ 64 Processor for Full-Size Notebooks
4000+
3700+
3400+
3200+
3000+

Sempron™ Processor Family
AMD Sempron™ Processor
Mobile AMD Sempron™ Processor for Full-Size Notebooks
Mobile AMD Sempron™ Processor for Thin and Light Notebooks (Socket S1)
For Thin & Light Notebooks (Socket 754)

 

I predict Vista will be fine and wont force you into a life of DRM slavery. There is no big bad wolf. The reality is never as scary as the Anti-Microsoft hype. I'm an x-IBMer, former HP-UX programmer for HP, grew up on Apollo Domain, SunOS, Solaris, and AIX. I've been using Linux since the early days of Slackware when Slackware was considered as having the most user friendly installer However I have to say that even though I skipped Windows 95 (and stuck with OS/2, I was an OS/2 Engineer for IBM) I must admit that as from NT 3.51 Microsoft have been making increasing good NT based Operating Systems.

XP and Windows Server 2003 are very reliable and stable operating systems. They may not beat an AS/400 box for uptime but their still pretty good.

The Vista launch will be like the XP one... scares over phoning home, DRM on by default in media player, etc... and the reality will be that it's fine. I don't find XP any harder to use than Ubuntu and in many ways I have less to do to get all my hardware working properly. (99% of my gear works out of the box with Ubuntu it's the 1% that doesn't that causes me the extra inconvenience that causes me to stick with Windoze on the desktop).

Typical inaccurate anti-Vista nonsense: "Put the testing aside, I can't find a valid antivirus software that works with it," said Michael Cherry, an analyst with research firm Directions on Microsoft. "That is a key application and runs at a core level. If the antivirus vendors, who work closely with Microsoft, can't get Vista working, then the core is not stable." http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1985 I had no problems running Avast! on Vista.


Back soon, just putting my flame retardant coat on,
Fairy

 

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2006/05/SecurityMyths/default.aspx

I think you might be misinterpreting some things. There are lots of people out there that think that security just means having a good firewall, and that's about it. That blog states that a firewall is absolutely critical to have, however, and states that it should be mandantory for each and every host - speaking especially to those that believe they don't need sofware firewalls because they have a hardware one, but also stating that they don't necessarily need outbound filtering to be safe.

The main thing that comes to my mind is that security is a vast field, with only a small part represented in this forum. Security goes beyond malware, and true security is a part of each and every aspect of life, both cyber and real life. So when considering things like the Microsoft blog Deconstructing 10 Security Myths, you have to realize that there are more concerns than just malware to think of, especially in the corporate world, and that security is more than just software. While exploits are often used in worms, they are also used in direct attacks deployed by a live person (attacker). I would say that if you've seen conspiracy in this article, it would be worth reading again more closely. It's very much corporate oriented (which is an entirely different world than anything discussed around here), and it still does encourage you to buy third party solutions - just with a more critical eye. Also keep in mind the human factor - every Microsoft blogger is going to have different opinions. Some will be more slanted towards Microsoft and others will be more relaxed. Different experts will come up with different solutions for different reasons, and not going solely with 3rd party solutions is important to many people and companies.

A large part of the vast security field is security research. There are lots of very talented hackers (in the positive sense, not speaking of malware writers or other malicious attackers) that are, and will always be, breaking into every nook and cranny of Windows. As we've already seen, some, like Symantec, are already there! The issue isn't whether third parties *can* get into the kernel, it's whether they will be given a free pass to do so. When it comes to the idea of hiding spyware in the kernel, under the premise that everyone will be locked out, this is just not realistic. Whatever they "planted" would be revealed, probably before it even hit your desktop. Microsoft may not share their source code, but there aren't going to be any secrets when it comes to functionality. To see just how active this community is feel free to visit secunia.com, securitytracker.com, the Full Disclosure mailing list, the Daily Dave mailing list, and any of the other of the multitude of communities out there.. and just think at how much money it would make other companies, such as Symantec, to find such things! Not only would it be counter-productive, it would be just plain stupid. At the very least, there would be thousands of people sniffing their networks (legitimately) wondering why all this data is being sent to MS all the time.

I also think the idea of Microsoft putting in a "rootkit" is kind of misnomer.. why would they make a kit to get into the kernel when they MADE the kernel? All they'd have to do is add/enhance some logging (hiding it would be anohter matter entirely).


_____________


Ok, so to address the original point, I certainly do disagree with their policy of completely locking the kernel. It's obvious that they won't be able to keep the malware writers out, but locking out 3rd party software is certainly anti-competitive and demands to be addressed. The problem is that user-mode applications are completely restricted from anything that works on a system-wide scale without asking Windows to do it. For any securiy software to be worth anything it will need kernel level access, otherwise the security software is going to depend entirely on the integrity of the system - which completely defeats the purpose.

Personally, not being a direct participant in the debate, I think there will have to be a lot of changes to Vista before it can go public, if they want to do so without incident. I just don't see a lot of the features panning out well, for many reasons. Microsoft may have been well intentioned (or not) in devising some of these features, but I just don't think a lot of them are realistic. I don't want user-mode graphics drivers (I already hate ATI's .NET components), and I don't want to answer 5 prompts just to delete something, and I don't think many other people will want to either. I also don't agree with DRM and don't want it built into my OS, and I think this will probably raise a lot more trouble than it's really worth. When it comes down to it, my MP3 player has a nice line-in port with a nice patch cord that fits right into my sound card, no DRM is going to be able to restrict that.

Boycotting is one idea, but I really wonder if enough people would join to really make it worthwhile. Ultimately some lines of communication do need to be opened. As long as Vista is still beta I think there is hope, but if they don't take reasonable steps I would certainly expect there to be some lawsuits. I'm certainly not eager to adopt Vista, but I think the ultimate solution is going to have to come from multiple directions - there just aren't simple answers, I'm afraid. I do commend Ilya for the posting, though, and wish him all the support possible. This tangled mess of an issue is something that affects everyone. Every stand, whether a small symbolic act or a large scale movement, contributes to making a difference.

I think Fairly Liquidizer also makes an excellent point that these things end up being exaggerated in the end. I tend to think, though, that at least part of it is people doing just this: talking about it, raising concerns, and pressuring MS to come to a compromise that everyone can live with.

Note: this post is entirely personal, and does not reflect the views of my employer, parents, pets, or the evil overlords whose reign of oppression I will embrace during the coming revolution of intelligent robots

 

Do not buy ANY multicore product from AMD or Intel. ALL are DRMed on the chips. Buy a fast single core AMD or a Pentium 4. I would include the Intel Core Solo in that admonition to not buy. The Intel Core Solo is simply a Core Duo with one core disabled so it would also have DRM on the chip. The Pentium M, Celeron, Celeron M, Celeron D are ok. Stay away from the Pentium D and any newer Intel chips. Stay away from Presidio and Pacifica processors from AMD (dual core). AMD announced back in 2004 that they intended to incorporate hardware DRM into their processors and announced again in 2005 that all 2006 processors would have this.

This is why I have said buy Pentium 4s before they are gone or single core AMD. In other words, don't buy a new AMD from Dell or a Pentium D or any Intel dual or single core unless you intend to not run Vista. It took me THREE MONTHS earlier this year to get Dell to send me a Pentium 4 3.8GhZ instead of Pentium D. They kept changing the specs in production. I kept sending the machines back. I sent four machines back before they finally sent me what I had asked for.


Some believe that the answer will be a mobo manufacturer who makes a board that disables DRM and that will become very popular among those in the know and then other mobo manufacturers would follow suit. I don't see this as likely. Microsoft won't allow it. If Microsoft can lock the kernal to third party vendors they can stop mobo manufacturers from disabling DRM. Oh, and don't buy an Apple with with one of the new Intel processors either.

 

Thanks Notok: That is possible and point taken. I am actually aware that the blog about Deconstructing Security Myths slanted towards Corporate world for most part (and where did I get the number 10 again?). My point was merely that it contained a plain poor jibe against Outbound Filtering that needs no interpretation.

Here seems to be the issue, new security software is being released in droves and all these vendors seek to delve deeper into the Windows OS kernel and also perform who-knows-what changes to the Registry. Microsoft in response is raising a concern that it cannot guarantee how good or secure the code from some of the Third-party vendors is.

As for Vista boycott i not so sure, in my part of the world IT strategy for most Corporations is based around Microsoft products and that very strategy is shaped mainly by 'Consultants and Experts' who are Microsoft CERTIFIED in about every way. Now most of us will not want to talk about biting the hand that feeds us.

 

Thank you Mele20

 

Mele20 - do u have a link/article that states AMD/Intel multi-core processors as having DRM?

 

Hehe, I've actually found a lot of these guys to be just really close minded about security. Had one guy (consultant) that was very quick to dismiss and even belittle me because he knew "all about" security, because he had a favorite firewall... so now I know where to go the next time I need a true expert

 

That's not really the case when you consider all the law suits filed both in the states, EU and further afield. I know for a fact that the EU will not tolerate any Microsoft OS that locks out third party vendors. Microsoft will be legally obliged to hand over the full coding to these vendors under pain of severe financial punishment.

 

I want it! Cheers.

 

EU competition laws mate.

 

I think that when EU citizens get their hands on a version of Vista that has the code released for third party vendors, the buying pubic in America will be up in arms demanding to know why they are getting a raw deal.

 

You don't seriously believe the EUs actions are anything but political, do you?

 

I've been searching for what EU law says about antitrust.

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/overview/

This part of it would apply in this case:

So, Joliet you're right, this could lead to financial punishment again.

Lamehand

 

Hell spm,

I'm curious as to why that's damming, and two, what else is a policy of any Government but "political"?

If I lookup the definition of politics, it basically is the interaction among individuals and groups.

So the isssue is whether its good "policy" (word related to "political") or not.

I understand that you disapprove of this policy and it would be helpfull to a non EU citizen if you were to explain why you dislike it.

For the record, I'm a citizen of the US.

Regards - Charles

 

<rant>Well, your calling these people a 'government' is to completely misunderstand the situation here in Europe. Speaking loosely, there is a European government of sorts, but it exists primarily to rubber stamp the proposals of the EU Commission (which is nothing more than a civil service of unelected officials). The European Court, on the other hand, which is the body who have prosecuted MS is ostensibly a judicial body. Now, there is every reason to believe that the EU Court's prosecution of MS is motivated purely by political and monetary (read 'anti-American' here, rather than any altruistic dictionary definition) reasons, and little else.

Now, I'm not saying I'm against the actions they have taken against MS (nor the laws the EU work to pass to enable them to attack US interests), but it is their root motivations I object to. If the EU (in its various forms) instead directed its energies and money intelligently to underpin European businesses through positive means there would be no need for them to attack US interests so transparently.

What I do find amusing, though, is the belief of some people in this thread that the EU's actions against MS are in some way in support of the individual's right to choice.</rant>