- May 16, 2006
- 7,557
- 0
- 30,810
Intel: Malicious Software and Viruses a Thing of the Past?
- Thread starter dasickninja
- Start date
- May 16, 2006
- 7,557
- 0
- 30,810
gentrinity
Distinguished
- Sep 6, 2006
- 334
- 0
- 18,780
turpit
Splendid
- Feb 12, 2006
- 6,373
- 0
- 25,780
Hmmm.
Lets see, Bill Gates once said "Windows 98 is the most secure operating system there is"
When XP came out, MS claimed security violations were due to the fact that people werent upgrading the the most secure OS available ....WindowsXP
Now MS says Vista is going to be secure. Right.
MS security:
What hackers think of MS security:
Lets see, Bill Gates once said "Windows 98 is the most secure operating system there is"
When XP came out, MS claimed security violations were due to the fact that people werent upgrading the the most secure OS available ....WindowsXP
Now MS says Vista is going to be secure. Right.
MS security:
What hackers think of MS security:
gentrinity
Distinguished
- Sep 6, 2006
- 334
- 0
- 18,780
Hmmm.
Lets see, Bill Gates once said "Windows 98 is the most secure operating system there is"
When XP came out, MS claimed security violations were due to the fact that people werent upgrading the the most secure OS available ....WindowsXP
Now MS says Vista is going to be secure. Right.
MS security:
What hackers think of MS security:
Exactly how much of a grain of salt can we take this?
Intel, not Microsoft.
- May 16, 2006
- 7,557
- 0
- 30,810
Robovski
Distinguished
- Aug 28, 2006
- 189
- 0
- 18,680
Bah!
Might as well be saying that it's the end of history or that there is nothing left to discover. Or to use a direct analogy, the end of communicable diseases like smallpox. So the headline is complete BS.
That said, it's an on-going fight of back and forth. A new security device is made, a new countermeasure devised. And there will probably never be a cure for the user clicking on something they just never should have.
Might as well be saying that it's the end of history or that there is nothing left to discover. Or to use a direct analogy, the end of communicable diseases like smallpox. So the headline is complete BS.
That said, it's an on-going fight of back and forth. A new security device is made, a new countermeasure devised. And there will probably never be a cure for the user clicking on something they just never should have.
Microsoft's empty promises for security can't really be compared with Intel's attempts at security.
Yes, Microsoft has to implement the technology, but this would be them implementing encryption created by Intel, as opposed to Microsoft implementing encryption created by Microsoft. There is much less room for error on Microsoft's part if they're simply integrating, and not going through the entire process themselves.
I'm not saying that this will be successful, but I do think it has a better chance than Microsoft's usual security efforts.
Yes, Microsoft has to implement the technology, but this would be them implementing encryption created by Intel, as opposed to Microsoft implementing encryption created by Microsoft. There is much less room for error on Microsoft's part if they're simply integrating, and not going through the entire process themselves.
I'm not saying that this will be successful, but I do think it has a better chance than Microsoft's usual security efforts.
uber_g
Distinguished
- Mar 25, 2006
- 1,671
- 0
- 19,780
Hmmm.
Lets see, Bill Gates once said "Windows 98 is the most secure operating system there is"
When XP came out, MS claimed security violations were due to the fact that people werent upgrading the the most secure OS available ....WindowsXP
Now MS says Vista is going to be secure. Right.
MS security:
What hackers think of MS security:
Post Of the Day :trophy: :trophy: :trophy: :trophy: :trophy:
lizzardking
Distinguished
- Aug 3, 2005
- 60
- 0
- 18,630
ryokinshin
Distinguished
- Mar 19, 2006
- 605
- 0
- 18,980
Drugs come in a variety of classes. Some are mood-altering, some are perception-altering, some do a bit of of both, and some just really mess you up.
I suspect that you have been indulging in a new and powerful varient of the combo mood/perception altering class, with a soupcon of the mess you up class. Care to tell us what it is, where you got it and the price? We could all use some of that.
I can't see any other reason for this thread.
A review seems to be in order here.
A computer is a fairly complex tool. A fully operational and productive computer has three independent but related and dependent components.
The first component is the physical hardware - CPU, MB, RAM, HD, Optical drives, video, sound, networking, etc., and the hardwired elements of the Basic Input/Output System (BIOS). In short all the physical parts that make up the "system". It is useful to remember that some manufacturer's hardware is more proprietary and therefore less interchangeable than other's. On the "micro/PC" side compare Apple to (originally) IBM, now PC. The fiasco of the IBM PS/2 micro-channel (proprietry) architecture is an object lesson.
Tragically, even the latest and greatest hardware is nothing more than an expensive paper-weight without the following two components.
The second component of a computer is the Operating System. Which OS one uses is determined by the hardware, specifically the CPU/MB/RAM one has as the basis of the hardware. Some systems will only work with a proprietary OS - mainfraims, minicomputers, assorted high-end workstations like Suns, and until recently, MACs.
Other hardware will run a variety of OSs but with variable levels of hardware support/compatibility. And the extent to which a particular OS will support any given hardware is seriously constrained by the willingness of assorted hardware manufacturers to make the effort to produce drivers compatible with a given OS. Compare and contrast the support of Linux vs Windows between nVidea and ATI, or USB device support between the two OSs. The link and dependency between physical hardware and the OS is clear.
And this is before we get into the question of the purpose of an OS.
At its most basic level, the function of an OS is threefold. First, control comunications and data transfer between the hardware components that comprise the "system". Second, control resource allocation and ensure efficient utilization of the hardware and resources like physical RAM, etc.
We note that the OS is able to "talk to" not only the hardware, but the BIOS. Which can lead to some interesting connundrums. As one example, older BIOSes were unable to recognize hard drives beyond the size which was hard-coded into them, while Windows was. End result was that Windows installation would fail under these conditions, while Linux would work.
Third, enable assorted applications to operate and access the physical hardware as required.
And all this is before we get into a debate about what should be considered a part of the OS as opposed to an "application"
So, we now have a collection of hardware components that work and an OS that works, enabling appropriate (hopefully) control of and communication between both the hardware and applications that use the hardware. This is all beautifil and wonderful, but still essentially useless. What are you planning to do with this computer? OOOPS - I need some applications - of whatever sort.
The applications I run on my system are constrained by the hardware and OS I have. The hardware limits the specific applications I can run in terms of physical performance and ability to run. The OS limits the applications I can run, the avaialble features of these applications that will work, and to a certain extent the hardware I can run, depending on manufacturer of the OS (this applies to both hardware and software).
I have yet to see, other than in very early days a security exploit that was exclusively dependant on a hardware-level issue. At least 99% of past and present security failures/problems/concerns are a result of software problems. Whether the issue is a flaw in the OS (mostly Windows, but no OS is immune) or an application problem (see Outlook, Active-X oe MS IE for example) I don't see any value or relevance to CPU-level "security" features.
One, the crackers and script kiddies move way too fast.
Two the hardwired "protection" is niether current past the programming date ( which can be much earlier than the release date), nor is it upgradeable through flash preocess.
The vast majority of security problms are a direct consequnce of programming failures of all sorts of severity and really stupid implementaion of end-user "convenience" features, and hardware-level exploits are effectively non-existant. I am very unsure how any hardware-level "security feature" is either workable or of any use under these conditions.
Buying into the hype of any suppliers, especially when the product is still in development is poor. More important, who are you trying to fool?
I suspect that you have been indulging in a new and powerful varient of the combo mood/perception altering class, with a soupcon of the mess you up class. Care to tell us what it is, where you got it and the price? We could all use some of that.
I can't see any other reason for this thread.
A review seems to be in order here.
A computer is a fairly complex tool. A fully operational and productive computer has three independent but related and dependent components.
The first component is the physical hardware - CPU, MB, RAM, HD, Optical drives, video, sound, networking, etc., and the hardwired elements of the Basic Input/Output System (BIOS). In short all the physical parts that make up the "system". It is useful to remember that some manufacturer's hardware is more proprietary and therefore less interchangeable than other's. On the "micro/PC" side compare Apple to (originally) IBM, now PC. The fiasco of the IBM PS/2 micro-channel (proprietry) architecture is an object lesson.
Tragically, even the latest and greatest hardware is nothing more than an expensive paper-weight without the following two components.
The second component of a computer is the Operating System. Which OS one uses is determined by the hardware, specifically the CPU/MB/RAM one has as the basis of the hardware. Some systems will only work with a proprietary OS - mainfraims, minicomputers, assorted high-end workstations like Suns, and until recently, MACs.
Other hardware will run a variety of OSs but with variable levels of hardware support/compatibility. And the extent to which a particular OS will support any given hardware is seriously constrained by the willingness of assorted hardware manufacturers to make the effort to produce drivers compatible with a given OS. Compare and contrast the support of Linux vs Windows between nVidea and ATI, or USB device support between the two OSs. The link and dependency between physical hardware and the OS is clear.
And this is before we get into the question of the purpose of an OS.
At its most basic level, the function of an OS is threefold. First, control comunications and data transfer between the hardware components that comprise the "system". Second, control resource allocation and ensure efficient utilization of the hardware and resources like physical RAM, etc.
We note that the OS is able to "talk to" not only the hardware, but the BIOS. Which can lead to some interesting connundrums. As one example, older BIOSes were unable to recognize hard drives beyond the size which was hard-coded into them, while Windows was. End result was that Windows installation would fail under these conditions, while Linux would work.
Third, enable assorted applications to operate and access the physical hardware as required.
And all this is before we get into a debate about what should be considered a part of the OS as opposed to an "application"
So, we now have a collection of hardware components that work and an OS that works, enabling appropriate (hopefully) control of and communication between both the hardware and applications that use the hardware. This is all beautifil and wonderful, but still essentially useless. What are you planning to do with this computer? OOOPS - I need some applications - of whatever sort.
The applications I run on my system are constrained by the hardware and OS I have. The hardware limits the specific applications I can run in terms of physical performance and ability to run. The OS limits the applications I can run, the avaialble features of these applications that will work, and to a certain extent the hardware I can run, depending on manufacturer of the OS (this applies to both hardware and software).
I have yet to see, other than in very early days a security exploit that was exclusively dependant on a hardware-level issue. At least 99% of past and present security failures/problems/concerns are a result of software problems. Whether the issue is a flaw in the OS (mostly Windows, but no OS is immune) or an application problem (see Outlook, Active-X oe MS IE for example) I don't see any value or relevance to CPU-level "security" features.
One, the crackers and script kiddies move way too fast.
Two the hardwired "protection" is niether current past the programming date ( which can be much earlier than the release date), nor is it upgradeable through flash preocess.
The vast majority of security problms are a direct consequnce of programming failures of all sorts of severity and really stupid implementaion of end-user "convenience" features, and hardware-level exploits are effectively non-existant. I am very unsure how any hardware-level "security feature" is either workable or of any use under these conditions.
Buying into the hype of any suppliers, especially when the product is still in development is poor. More important, who are you trying to fool?
godman
Distinguished
- Jun 2, 2006
- 665
- 0
- 18,980
Exactly how much of a grain of salt can we take this?
Thy're all designed to fight viruses at the hardware level, bits and bytes and the processor...
so first we had nxtechnology (to stop the cpu malicous buffer overflows)
we had virtulisation (vanderpool) technology to run 'mini-operating systems' - is this to do what we're talking about?
now we have LaGrande which is in (or so i believe) core 2 duo cpus and woodcrest xeons.
Then we'll have TXT, an extention of LaGrande....
I guess we'll have more in the future as well,and they can pretty much control what you buy, that is if intel+amd release cpus with all these technologies. If you want the processor you have to buy it whether or not it has all these unwanted technologies. :roll:
godman
Distinguished
- Jun 2, 2006
- 665
- 0
- 18,980
Exactly how much of a grain of salt can we take this?
this is real. i have seen the demo.
imagine this
pc viruses that affect only the windows OS only with amd procs
hmm
hahah proaganda! LOL
AMD tut tut, come'on get with it - not anyhing to do with them being DIFFERENT comanies is it? no no no :lol:
godman
Distinguished
- Jun 2, 2006
- 665
- 0
- 18,980
Exactly how much of a grain of salt can we take this?
this is real. i have seen the demo.
imagine this
pc viruses that affect only the windows OS only with amd procs
hmm
hahah proaganda! LOL
AMD tut tut, come'on get with it - not anyhing to do with them being DIFFERENT comanies is it? no no no :lol:
well yes it is everything to do with them being different companies.
you see intel is making lagrande and amd isnt.
i knew that....thats why i said its propaganda lol
Retardicus
Distinguished
- Aug 21, 2006
- 49
- 0
- 18,530
I've worked on this stuff a bit. It is most definately some pretty tough stuff. It's basically a level -1 ring where execution is enforced through encryption and signing of code. LT is implemented in both the CPU and Chipset. This trusted computing stuff provides a exactly what it says, trusted pathways for user input and output to and from the highest ring in the CPU, ring -1.
They were so paranoid about security, that they even made sure that trusted data from a keyboard would come at predefined intervals and be masked so that a very intelligent keylogger wouldn't be able to infer the keys being typed by the very small time delays between keystrokes.
However, there is always a way around security in complex systems like computers. In this case, the mostly likely way to get around security will be social engineering, or crappy software from microsoft If Microsoft builds an operating system that supports this technology, then I would sure hope that any code they run in -1 would be the most vetted and correct code they ever write.
I highly doubt malicious code could break the -1 security level. Hardware is too simple to be easily cracked into. Instead, malicious code would have to look for flaws in OS code running in ring 0 or some other level for exploits. Maybe there would be some bug in the calling interface to the -1 level code that could be exploited, I dunno. I'd sure hope not.
They were so paranoid about security, that they even made sure that trusted data from a keyboard would come at predefined intervals and be masked so that a very intelligent keylogger wouldn't be able to infer the keys being typed by the very small time delays between keystrokes.
However, there is always a way around security in complex systems like computers. In this case, the mostly likely way to get around security will be social engineering, or crappy software from microsoft
If Microsoft builds an operating system that supports this technology, then I would sure hope that any code they run in -1 would be the most vetted and correct code they ever write.I highly doubt malicious code could break the -1 security level. Hardware is too simple to be easily cracked into. Instead, malicious code would have to look for flaws in OS code running in ring 0 or some other level for exploits. Maybe there would be some bug in the calling interface to the -1 level code that could be exploited, I dunno. I'd sure hope not.
happy_fanboy
Distinguished
- Sep 7, 2006
- 202
- 0
- 18,680
The whole XD-BIT "CPU ANTIVIRUS" thing makes absolutley no sense to me. Marketing fluff from both AMD and Intel.
turpit
Splendid
- Feb 12, 2006
- 6,373
- 0
- 25,780
I also read LaGrande was DRM. I believe JJ wrote that in reply to my question whether Conroe would be the first CPU with DRM or the next gen would.
In either case, Lagrande will prevent unauthorized access. In one case form outside sources. In the case of DRM it will deny access to the owner/user.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question New installed W11 on sdd, D drive (HDD) goes to the 100% in seconds
- Started by Emily_Vin
- Replies: 8
-
-
Latest posts
-
-
-
Question Issues with USB3 hub chained from Thunderbolt dock ?
- Latest: jauntysquirrel
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram