TPM technology and open source SL

I am an SL newbie but have read some old threads about the idea of someday open-sourcing SL or otherwise seeing a successful SL-like system that runs on a network of open public servers. One of the problems raised is the need to protect content from server operators, who would no longer be fully trusted/trustable. They could hack their own server software and disrupt the world, steal content and otherwise make trouble.

Little known is that there is a technology just around the corner that can solve this problem. Unfortunately, it is probably the most hated and feared technology proposal that has come along in years. There was an article about it Tuesday on MSNBC at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/10441443 .

This technology has gone by many names: TCPA, Palladium, TCG, NGSCB, and TPM. The bottom line with all of these is that a security chip is installed in the computer which has certain monitoring functions. It is able to observe and report information about the software which is loaded and running, in such a way that distant computers can verify what software is running on that system. Millions of computers have already been sold with TPM chips in them.

Now, if you read about it online you will learn that Hitler and the Antichrist were mere pikers compared to the evil of the designers of TPM technology. You will learn that this chip can take over you computer, monitoring and controlling everything you do with it: what software you run, what sites you can visit online, what messages you send and receive. Privacy and freedom online will be a thing of the past once this technology is widespread.

None of this is true. It is a tissue of lies and exaggerations. The truth is that the TPM can really only do one thing: it allows the server operator to BELIEVABLY and RELIABLY report the software configuration of his computer. (It also has some garden-variety crypto functionality but that part is not controversial.)

In fairness to its opponents, this TPM functionality could have some negative consequences, from a certain POV. The iTunes Music Store could ask you to report what iTunes software you are running, and you would send a report from the TPM, so that the iTMS could refuse to download to unauthorized software clients. This could impair unauthorized file sharing, which is threatening to users who are addicted to this dishonest activity.

But of relevance to SL, the TPM could allow an open-SL server operator to report his software configuration and allow SL clients (end users) to verify that he is running the authorized software. Anyone who had hacked his software to misbehave in the various ways which have been discussed would be caught. TPM technology can go a long way towards making an open SL network possible.

Just to clarify one point, the reason why people can't lie about their software configurations is that the TPM is a tamper-proof chip and has an embedded crypto key, which is certified by the manufacturer. This means that nobody can forge a TPM software attestation because they don't have a certified TPM key - such keys are only embedded in TPM chips and will only perform to the TPM spec.

Next time you see a story like the MSNBC one above about how TPM (or TCPA, TCG or whatever it's called) is going to be the end of privacy on the net, think about the fact that it has good uses as well. TPM is a tool which can actually increase the trustability of computers on the net. That this is a threat to some people should make you question why they do not want to behave in a trustworthy fashion.

Oh no. We're gonna have to watch this one. He's only been here a day and he's trying to change our world!.




Great post Mikey!!

Cool, though I do wonder how long it will be before something like that gets hacked.

Urge to spawn long post about failings of this exact tech... rising...... .... .......


If only Cory D. posted to these forums:
http://www.craphound.com/msftdrm.txt

http://www.techimo.com/newsapp/i15314.html

http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=168601296

While not techinically cracks of TPM, they just managed to bypass it altogether. That's like not being able to crack your alarm code, but still being able to turn it off anyway and get in.

By the way, this argument is exactly the same one most flagrant offenders of our civil liberties have used for years.



I just do not buy into DRM/TCPA/etc. The ideas behind it are pretty clear cut: make data a commodity. Could be good, but in the real world, with all the holes that can be poked in it, most likely it will be pretty bad.

Unless I see a good counter-argument to the flaws listed, I just cannot, and will not, agree that this is a "good" thing.



The truth is what you have is still just data. Data is not tamper proof, nor will it be in an open society. That realization is precisely why this will not work.

You knew how I've been saying that Second Life would be a perfect place for Microsoft to see how much annoying "trusted computing" technology people would be willing to put up with in real life? Well, here it is. The Microsofties are coming...

Oh noes!

(But really, didn't we see this coming?)

Agree 150% with Jeffrey here. Give it a year or two, it will be cracked open (most likely by academics, or crackers who have too much time on their hands).

Better yet, someone will find a way to get the key out of the ROM of the chip. Not worried about this, it should die flaming before it gets far.

What I *do* worry about is stuff like the BroadCast Flag. It's been legislated in the US to be recognised by all new hardware, including PC tuners, for next year. Dumb.

Tis a good idea Mikey, but need to look at a fallback without using hardware (other than encrptying engines that don't hold keys).

PS: Welcome to SL.

See, legal strongarming... that scares me even more.


Did I mention this was the express reason I went out and taught myself Linux? Aside from the people that wanted definitive proof SL would not run on an Xbox, that is.

It doesn't, if anyone was still wondering. Not enough RAM.

Thanks for the replies! I know this is a controversial subject.

One thing I will note is the relation of DRM to SL. It's interesting that DRM is another widely hated technology online, yet it is fundamental to the SL experience. In fact, the SL world is built on a foundation of DRM technology.

DRM means Digital Rights Management and basically amounts to attempting to treat digital information in the same way we do physical objects. We define property rights in digital objects and seek to manage them in a way analogously to the physical world. When you buy a song from an online music store, for example, you are supposed to treat it and think of it in pretty much the same way as when you buy a physical CD from a regular store.

Opponents of DRM (who often call it Digital Restrictions Management) argue that information objects are fundamentally different from physical objects in an important way: if someone gives away a copy of an information object, he still has the original. Hence information objects can be multiplied indefinitely at no harm to their holders, unlike physical objects, so they should be treated differently. The other side replies that this ignores the rights of creators and designers, who without reward from their efforts will be less motivated to produce new, high-quality creations. And the debate goes on.

Anyway, SL is a remarkable attempt to follow the principles of DRM to their ultimate conclusion. In the SL world, everything is an information object. And whether for ideological or practical reasons, SL has been designed so that objects in the world are treated in most ways the same as physical objects in the real world. Many or perhaps most SL objects are created with restrictive rights that keep them from being duplicated and shared. Most high-value objects must be purchased and there is no way to share them with others without giving them up.

This has led of course to the enormous SL economy of malls, shops and vendors which dominates the landscape in many parts of the SL world, as well as the casinos and clubs which offer entertainment services in exchange for economic benefit. This SL economy is fundamentally built on the notion of scarcity of objects (and land) which involves treating information as if it is physical. That is the same principle behind DRM.

Those who fear the advent of DRM in the real world should look at SL to see an example of a world in which DRM largely works. It would be nice in a way if everything in SL were free, but would we then see the same level of creativity and design effort applied? SL's choice to keep information from being free has been arguably a key to the success it has experienced. That is a lesson to keep in mind as we debate the same issues in the real world.

Mikey, you seem like a fairly intelligent person with a good argument. It's rare these kinds of discussions happen in General, so let me try to lay this out as best I can.


Simply, I've been around long enough to see the DRM system in Second Life has several fatal flaws that have not only been exploited -- but signal a major gulf in the logic behind the system. Argent and I were having a fairly heated argument about Second Life's DRM in another thread that I will attempt to highlight my points of here. If he wishes to continue discussion of his points, that's his call.


While the overarching system of Second Life does indeed treat data as physical "objects," the underlying scripting engine, LSL, treats these items as data.

In a classic example of where the DRM breaks down, I was at the center of a fairly nasty security flaw several months ago, which isn't something I arguably have control over. llGetPrimitiveParams can be used to copy primitives if the creator's objects are set as "Modifiable."

To quickly summarize, primitive data could be copied, verbatim, to another object. This was in direct violation of "No Copy" and "No Transfer," and continues to exist as a flaw to this day.



Going a step further, an openGL command harvester and deconstructing the cache can also compromise most, if not every, object in the world. A few residents have been known to take these actions, but most are polite enough to keep that away from public viewing, going directly to the Lindens.


Case in point, no system is unbreakable. Second Life's DRM continues to "work" in a half-assed, broken respect because many residents are simply polite enough (or naive enough) to let the sleeping dog lie. As with the recent grid attacks and exploit episodes, these flaws still exist within the system.


Ultimately, my mantra is simplicity in design is the best solution. I am fiercely opposed to DRM, instead being an advocate of data "versioning" and watermarking systems. Seeking to commoditize data is fundamentally flawed, simply because the process goes against the natural state of data in the first place. And no system, however elaborate, will fix that for everyone in my opinion.

Wonderful debate! I'm respectfully on the side of Mr. Gomez, and have nothing to add to what he said.

Mikey, welcome.

For those cases where we can choose what software to use with TPM or TCPA hardware, and verify the policies that are being used, I think this is an interesting idea. One interesting paper on using TCPA hardware with open source software for exactly the kind of thing you're talking about is here: Open-Source Applications of TCPA Hardware

Unfortunately in most cases we don't get to make that call. The consumer will get whatever services Microsoft, RIAA, and MPAA decide will protect their constituents at the consumer's expense.

Here's a great example of how the industry already uses TPM-like features:

The other day, I got an HDTV-enabled digital cable box installed at my new home. I didn't have a TV handy, but I had a 2 year old 20" LCD monitor and the cable box has a DVI port on the back. "Fantastic," I thought, "I can get a high-quality signal from this device to my LCD and experience the joys of HD that I'm paying an extra $25/month for!"

Well, when I plugged that monitor into the DVI port of the cable box, the cable box interrogated the monitor, looking for I don't know what. But it didn't find it, and because it didn't find it the firmware assumed that this must be some kind of evil haxxor/p1r8t3 trick to compromise the content, and refused to display anything at all via the DVI port.

This wasn't some subtle incompatibility, the cable box put up a blue screen with a text message explaining that it couldn't verify the existence of copy-protection functions in my monitor! So wait, I can't use this value-added service that I'm paying for, for legitimate and lawful purposes, because Comcast and the MPAA can't prove to themselves that I won't commit a crime??? And I suppose their answer is that I should buy a new monitor, because of course the DMCA prevents me from doing anything to make the cable box display on the monitor I already own...

Unfortunately this is the kind of attitude I expect from corporations and their industry associations. Their lobbyists seem to take two or three steps forward for every step that consumer and civil liberties groups take back. From the endless extension of copyright, to the endangered state of fair use, to the draconian nature of the DMCA this comes out again and again.

There are some very good reasons why people don't like to see these kinds of technologies become mandated, and it isn't just because they want to steal content.

Likely, all it was looking for was the monitor settings, which all monitors have these days, and didn't recognise your particular monitor because it didn't have your monitor's ID number onboard.

All modern monitors have a small serial memory chip in them that provide an ID number, and can report the proper screen resolution choices (among many, many other things).

The serial memory chip does nothing more than wait for a request for data, and then it dumps a table of values. Monitor manufacturers 'register' with Microsoft, which is free, and simply allows Microsoft to assign a hexidecimal number to the monitor type.

Thus allowing the monitor maker to provide free drivers as part of Windows, so it can recognise the monitor instantly without a user having to do anything (plug and play). Many other industries 'piggyback' off this technology and I'll bet that's what the cable box people did.

This technology is very easy to defeat. The serial memory chip is even powered by the signal sourcing device, and isn't connected to anything onboard the monitor.

By rerouting/tapping-onto four wires, you can connect a harmless monitor's serial chip to your cable box, and attach any recording device to the DVI output. Though DVI (digital) has a throughput of easily 2 to 6 GHz depending on settings, so the image will have to be compressed or degraded somewhat.

It is easier to steal the TV image, unless you have something rather fancy to capture/compress digital DVI (though such things do exist). Incidentally, DVI in analog mode is no different than the usual VGA style output, regardless of the fancy connector.

Anyone who knows anything about digital piracy can get around that cable box's security in about twenty minutes from scratch, with an old authorised monitor and a pair of wire snips.

Alright, an interesting idea. But it's a Dell 2001FP flat panel, and I really doubt that Dell didn't register it with Microsoft for driver support, et cetera... And it's been in the market long enough, recently enough, for a major consumer electronics company like Moto to realize there are tens to hundreds of thousands of them out there...

And if it couldn't read parameters or a device ID, why on earth would the cable box firmware put up a message stating that it couldn't verify the existence of copy-protection measures in the display device? Doesn't make sense... But to the extent that it might be something that goofy, thanks for the reality check.


I know better than to suggest that copy protection schemes can't be circumvented. The point is that when we start talking about DRM enforcement, the corps want it all their way and the legislators are happy to accomodate them. If their shiny new DRM regimes interfere with our legitimate rights and concerns, too bad -- you should go buy newer devices, more software, etc. And should you be so arrogant as to try and make your outmoded device work anyway, or God forbid help other people to do the same, we have the DMCA to visit financial ruin and jail time upon you.

Now how to get this thread back to DRM and SL? Maybe it's the personal touch. You don't have a faceless corporation telling you you can't examine that script, it's Alice Avatar who set it to No Modify. Perhaps it's this ostensibly personal dimension that makes us more accepting of the restrictions. That, and there isn't enough money involved yet to generate lawsuits over reverse-engineering of products.

And again, it seems like there might be merit to the idea of using TPM/TCPA hardware along with an open and verifiable software platform to assure clients that the services being offered are legitimate, their code unmodified.

Mikey likes it!



interesting POV's

1st, as to TPM, I think it takes far too much trust on the consumer side for what we get out of it. It makes me think of how the US government promises, even with the right to do wire taps on anyone for any reason that they won't actually use them unless it is *really* necessary. Between that statement and your post on TPM you will have to excuse me as the bullshit alarm is ringing too loud for me to actu..actually be able to con..cen..trate enough .. enough to read any more of your post or comp..ose any more o...f .. ... any more of my own.


seriously though, I think TPM is some scary big brother stuff. .. which brings us to DRM.

DRM, well, I think the reason behind it is just a bit sad. I feel it is a bunch of companies, after the price to distribute, manufacture and even copy something has magically disappeared, are desperately trying to create value from something that has no real assets, mainly the companies themselves.

I think the first law of thermodynamics, operating in a free market, applies to economics. If it takes less energy to do something it can be made cheaper and will be sold cheaper. Unfortunately, almost every aspect of their role in the chain has become very easy and cheap. This is unfortunate since they have this huge market cap staring them in the face with nothing to balance it against while hoards of nervous investors, retailers and contract holders (not to mention the hungry and needy families those people have at home) are looking to them, needing them to figure out something. Cue lawyers.

as an aside.. can I ask, because I am fascinated, what experiences have helped you form these points of view? surely, you must work in the media biz?

I don't trust that sort of technology.

I like the ubiquitousness of PC computing.

As far as servers go... anything that gives away information about my server is a security liability. Humans hand out enough info, and poorly written software or managed servers are bad enough. TPM would just let any curious person know what software, version, etc I'm running... from there it's just a walk in the park to figure out the vulnerabilities.

There's probably a more efficient method like SL-based DNS servers that use an encrypted stream verification system. The servers could then blacklist any servers running malicious software.

Anyhow... I'm sure that when SL is finally mature enough, the technology will be in place that none of the ideas we can think of now will be useful in application.

There's some misunderstanding about the TPM here. It encrypts the information leaving it for remote attestation, it won't let arbitrary people find out what's going on.

And as for DRM - well, DRM doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. It has to be "good enough". Specifically, if the effort involved in overcoming it (repeatedly) is high enough to offset the potential rewards, you are winning. This equilibrium has been reached by the digital satellite companies for instance. Also, Windows Media DRM has remained uncracked for nearly a year (and the last crack was patched within a matter of weeks).

Encryption goes far enough that the information that is intercepted may not be worth trying to crack... which often it isn't. However, there lies the possibility that a remote machine can either be spoofed to receive the configuration of my machine... either by technological means or otherwise (ie: social engineering).

Not to say that the only way is to spoof the connection, but if the receiving machine was comprimised -- voila, another window of vulnerability.

I'm not saying you're wrong -- I just don't see it being practical. Unless of course when SL does become open-source, the publicly hosted servers won't be truly ubiquitous. Then how open-source will it be when the source cannot be modified?

Woot, thats my friend John's paper! We worked for the same research lab for years.

From a consumer perspective it has all the signs of sucking. If you thought those IE only pages were annoying wait until you get the, "this content requires Windows 2005 SP 5" message, when you have a Mac or *nix box (or older Win OS).

But from a corporate security perspective it's going to be a good way to protect your companies data, while still being able to share it with business partners. The security consultant in me thinks it's a nice extra layer of security for clients.

As far as it all applying to SL. I don't see LL acting as TPM pioneers... perhaps when it becomes standard software practice though.

Yep, and the problems of strong DRM are a daily source of irritation, frustration, argument, and drama in SL. Information is different from physical objects, and DRM doesn't make it like physical objects... you can't Copy a physical object, you can't set a physical object no-mod or no-transfer... you can't prevent necessary reverse engineering of physical objects. All these things are possible in SL.

This is only acceptable in SL because... it's a game. The Linden Economy is continually tweaked to try and produce the results Linden Labs wants, and the strong DRM in LL is just one of those tweaks.
Those who promote the advance of DRM in the real world should look at SL to see an example of a world in which DRM is a daily frustration for honest citizens. And a huge part of the SL economy depends on violating the rights of real life creators of characters and textures, images and sounds. If strong DRM existed in the real world, much of the content of SL simply wouldn't exist.

DRM is unacceptable unless it *can* be cracked, because inevitably you *have* to crack it for perfectly legitimate and legal reasons. After a nasty week trying to fix a problem Microsoft's support people caused by giving me bad advice over licensing*, I have no desire to ever again putmyself in the position of depending on copy protection technologies that I can't bypass WHEN I need to.

I will not use an operating system that supports Microsoft's levels of DRM for anything I depend on. Period. And I'm someone who'll go back to a shareware vendor who gave me a free activation code because I couldn't Paypal him money, and turn around and Paypal him the cash anyway once it became possible.

* They eventually got back to me after I'd already fixed the problem by asking on Usenet and getting a straight answer, and actually apologised. Nice of them, and I'm sure the guys I spoke to were honestly trying to do their best, but the monster of DRM needs to have an "off" switch.

The interesting question that comes out of all this is what would an SL-type world be like if it were based on open source principles rather than SL's DRM-ish foundation? What if there were no permission flags, and everything was automatically distributed in shareable, modifiable, copyable form?

How would the game be different? Creators would not be able to charge for their goods in the way they can now, because the first purchaser could resell them for less or just give them away. Would it mean that people would stop creating, if they couldn't make money at it? Or would there still be plenty of creativity, as people continued to enjoy expressing their artistic impulses?

Maybe there would even be more products, because people would be able to build on the works of others instead of having to start from scratch? Builders and scripters would no longer have motivation to keep secrets, because everything would be out in the open. There would not be so much of a feeling of competition and so people might be more motivated to help newcomers become creators.

It's interesting to speculate what tradeoffs would occur. Some would argue that without the profit motivate, creativity would lag. Others would reply that this would be more than compensated by the benefits of letting people build freely on each others' work, and that true artists would still gain the benefits of reputation and admiration. Instead of the inventor of Tringo making a million L-bucks, we'd all know and respect his name, like that guy who wrote Linux.

I would love to see the experiment done. It would not be very practical to set up a test in the real world, but it is easy to imagine a parallel SL universe which used these other principles. In fact it would probably be technically easy for LL, if they wanted, to run a separate grid with the permission system turned off.

How would our "capitalist" SL, where you pay for most things, fare against a "communist" SL where all designs are free? Would it work to have the two worlds coexist, or would one side automatically leech off the other? One problem I can foresee is that any design from the "free" SL would be copied into the "pay" SL and used freely there, or even might become the foundation for proprietary and protected enhancements. So it might be that the capitalist side would gain all the benefits from the communist side, without any compensatory effects. Still it would be interesting to see what happens.

On the other hand, designs in the "pay" SL would be copied by the "free" SL.