zlacker

>>gjsman+(OP)
Remote attestation or not, "Software freedom" fighters should understand that things happen based on some user base need. Somebody needed this and they added it, whoever needs it doesn't care if they can't run linux on it. If the user cares about running anything else on the hardware, they will add a way to disable the feature. it is all about the user need.

if you are a secondary priority user on some hardware, the way to fix it is to focus on becoming important enough to be prioritized instead of fearing some technology will limit things.

>>robot+ig
This. All these comments (and this article) worried that this is MS coming to take their Linux or whatever are missing that this is something their biggest customers want.

We need this in our corporate client device fleet to counter specific threats. We need this in our servers for the same reason — we do remote attestation today for Linux servers in semi-trusted locations. We’ve conveyed to our vendors that this is a desired capability in next-gen network equipment.

We’re not doing this to control data once it’s on an end-user’s computer. We’re doing it because we have a regulatory (and moral) obligation to protect the data that is entrusted to us.

We’re not Intel/AMD/NVIDIA/etc’s largest customer, but when we defer orders or shift vendor allocation it gets mentioned in their quarterly earnings reports. They tend to listen when we ask for features, and when our peer companies (not to mention governments) ask for the same thing because we have similar data security requirements?

Cloud and Business products is what, ~2/3rds of Microsoft’s revenue at this point? This isn’t being driven by the MPAA or whoever looking for better ways to screw over consumers.

>>jauer+lm
We’re doing it because we have a regulatory (and moral) obligation to protect the data that is entrusted to us.

The same insane regulations that were probably the result of corporate lobbying are now the excuse for these hostile features? WTF?

>>userbi+Mn
The regulations that were the result of lobbying by privacy and digital sovereignty advocates, contrary to the lobbying interests of Big Tech(tm)?

> are now the excuse for these hostile features

These features may be hostile if you don't control your own root of trust or if your vendor burns fuses prior to selling a device to you. If you were expecting otherwise, in that context they sold you a defective product.

Those same features are beneficial if you run your own root of trust. They help maintain control over your devices and increase confidence that they have not been coopted by your adversaries.

>>jauer+2q
So yes. Now the bar for rudimentary, independent computer use requires an understanding of the finer points of cryptography.

Do you not understand how insane that prospect is?