RSSPhoenix Sounds Death Knell for BIOS
By David Worthington | Published November 27, 2003, 3:11 AM
Phoenix Technologies is sounding the death knell for BIOS - the bread and butter of its current operations. While Phoenix is comparatively the "Microsoft" of the BIOS world, it has spent years endeavoring to modernize the aging standard.
If all goes according to plan, a new product the company dubs Core System Software (CSS) will serve as the foundation of PC architecture.
By design, Phoenix's CSS transfers digital security, network management and disaster recovery away from the control of software to hardware, truly differentiating itself from legacy BIOS.
For developers, Phoenix's Device-Networked Architecture (d-NA) serves as a structured framework, and is composed of a set of interoperable software building blocks designed to allow for the construction of highly differentiated solutions.
As part of the "trustworthy computing" model established by Microsoft, Phoenix d-NA will leverage support for Redmond's CryptoAPI (CAPI) to deliver intrinsic security on systems running Windows and .NET applications. In addition, a variation of digitally signed core system software will allow the integration of devices serving as network endpoints - a step the company bills as the "critical first link in a 'chain of trust'."
Due to CSS, Phoenix is predicting a new breed of intelligent devices and servers that provide self management, self-healing and self-authentication. This opens up scenarios for developers to deliver rights management and digital asset solutions whether they are Liberty Alliance, Microsoft, or OASIS.
CSS will also extend into the emerging realm of grid computing, blade-centric computing and machine to machine computing by allowing for standard driven, always-on communications for operating systems and network devices.
"One of the great computing challenges of this decade is to bring all network-connected devices to common management standards and interfaces," said Martin Reynolds, vice president at Gartner. "Without such technology, device and network management becomes impossible."
On the consumer end, CSS extends usability for OEMs to deliver critical protected applications which include system recovery, antivirus protection and device synchronization.
"Through our Core System Software, Phoenix is making a dramatic change that will become the basis of networked computing for the next two decades," said Albert E. Sisto, Chairman, President and CEO of Phoenix. "For the past two decades, BIOS has been all about PC compatibility based on the original IBM standard. As such, it provided only limited security, no network awareness, and no network connectivity at the core of the PC architecture."
"Today, nearly all digital devices are connected to a network, whether to conduct global commerce or just to access email. This requires an advanced foundation for implementing an extensible and flexible architecture designed specifically for the age of networked computing," said Sisto.
Phoenix is not alone in moving toward such changes. Chip giant Intel has pushed for a successor to BIOS it calls the Intel Platform Innovation Framework for EFI (Extensible Firmware Interface).
Windows even having very little control over the "BIOS" worries me quite a bit, because this will be the new toy for virus writers out there.....
Imagine instead of just making bogus RPC requests and restarting your machine, Windows low level formats every partition from BIOS.....
The BIOS was everybody's "my computer is now fubar" safety net, but they sacrifice this for ... network connectivity?
:-(
Score: 0
|The article sounds to me like marketspeak, having nothing to do with what the product actually is.
They are not getting rid of BIOS, they are creating a new BIOS that they are choosing to call Core System Software. It does what BIOS does, boots the machine, provides basic system services, and starts the OS. If it looks like BIOS, Smells like BIOS, and acts like BIOS, GUESS WHAT???
This is the same type of marketing bull that you see with a number of products:
We had 'Virtualization' (like Java) since high level languages were developed, they are called interpreters. Basic comes to mind.
We had 'Task Oriented' (one of Longhorns much touted 'features') since the early days of windows, they are called wizards. M$ Office comes to mind.
Great, they are creating a new BIOS, Big ____ing deal.
It's like anarcho-syndicalists claiming there will be no organized government, but that 'town meetings' will rule. If it looks like government, smells like government, bite the damn bullet.
Could we start cutting through the BS and quit creating new names for old things?
Score: 0
|I want to be in control of my information.
When I go shopping online the current ecommerce model has me putting a credit card and personal information on someone elses machine (i.e., server).
When I walk into Kmart I don't hand them my wallet. Why am I forced to do that in the ecommerce model?
Because some techs out there are so anti-Microsoft, so pro-hacker/cracker, that as long as identity theft doesn't visit them, they they like the status quo.
Well I don't like someone else in charge of my data. I don't like getting spam because my information has been sold (or stolen).
I want my data to reside on my side of the network.
I'm not into centralized governments. Are you sure you want a centralized government? http://www.wavxtek.org
Score: 0
|Can we all say TCPA together?
CSS is a load of crap designed to ease us into giving away our privacy and security.
It's the beginnings of TCPA enabled hardware.
DOWN WITH PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES.
DOWN WITH TCPA!!!!!!!
Score: 0
|Some of the anti-anti-MS zealots here might be less vocal had they actually had some knowledge of the issue.
"As part of the "trustworthy computing" model established by Microsoft [...]"
Trustworthy, now doesn't that sound good? Well, look at this quote from another article:
"24. So why is this called `Trusted Computing'? I don't see why I should trust it at all!
It's almost an in-joke. In the US Department of Defense, a `trusted system or component' is defined as `one which can break the security policy'. This might seem counter-intuitive at first, but just stop to think about it. The mail guard or firewall that stands between a Secret and a Top Secret system can - if it fails - break the security policy that mail should only ever flow from Secret to Top Secret, but never in the other direction. It is therefore trusted to enforce the information flow policy."
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
http://www.againsttcpa.com/
Doesn't sound as nice anymore does it? In reality "trustworthy computing" means that MS can trust your computer to behave as THEY want, regardless of what YOU want. They make the rules, your computer follows it. Nevermind that you bought it. If you even CAN buy it, as they'd much more prefer the constant stream of revenue from you hiring it. TCPA/Palladium/NGSCB/Fritz all makes it possible. Don't look forward to it.
/Vaste
Score: 0
|Score: 0
|...can be turned off?
Score: 0
|roll on tcp :/
Score: 0
|There are many who believe that Phoenix, with their next gen BIOS, and Microsoft, with Palladium, plan to decrease user control of the PC to an almost meaningless level. It's pretty obvious that there are those who would like to see computing and the internet controlled much like TV was by three networks for decades. If this happens, my current aging hardware will may be the last I buy.
Score: 0
|lies. anyone who reads this site will never be satisfied by computers at any level. there's always something better and faster thats a must have at some point.
Score: 0
|when i was broke, i used to have the same mentality. now i really wouldn't mind if i make $2K less a year assuming I had to buy all music CDs and software I like/need.
if it becomes too suffocating you can always stick with linux or the mac or whatever else will appear to fill the void. if there's a market, there will be a product. but anyways, giving paladium a try is not such a bad idea in my opinion.
Score: 0
|"if it becomes too suffocating you can always stick with linux or the mac or whatever else will appear to fill the void."
An apocryphal story relates that in the late '80s or so, when Microsoft's Excel competed against Lotus' 1-2-3, that Microsoft's OS programmers had a chant, "The job's not done until Lotus won't run." Today, Microsoft is paying millions of dollars to SCO, which is a significant source of revenue for SCO. Coincidentally, SCO is suing or threatening to sue everyone who uses Linux without paying SCO hundreds to thousands of dollars per machine. Let' also remember that the US judicial system actually found Microsoft guilty of anti-competitive practices, while doing nothing effective to stop those practices. In light of all this, what makes you think that Linux--or anything competitive with Microsoft--will be allowed to run on these new computer architectures?
Score: 0
|+1 Funny
Score: 0
|Does anybody not see what this will turn into? The XBox. It's a perfect example. It's using trusted architecture. If you sell mod chips you get sued. If you reverse engineer the security, you get sued. If you don't pay microsoft you can't run your app on the system...
And you know how the linux-xbox thing has been going...
Random Question: how would you debug an application on a secure system?
Score: 0
|Here is a Very Key Question -
Is it possible to run a Debugger on a Secured System ?
Score: 0
|You ain't gonna run linux for long after this comes to pass. At least on new hardware. Linux is being pushed at big business and governments. They are the ones who want this crap. Linux will include it or be relegated to backwater status. If it is not included, guess what? The system won't allow the OS to run. Pretty simple, eh?
Do you think Apple will stand against the flow? Just look at their fine music software for your answer.
Buy a nice motherboard now and keep it on hand. As fast as hardware turns over, I'll bet it won't be a year before a MB with a BIOS will not be available in stores.
Score: 0
|If it is trusted :P Get used to couting to debug your program :)
Score: 0
|Translation ... it's a sad day, Phoenix has sold out to M$oft and the 'big brother knows what is good for you, trust us' mentality.
Trustworthy computing and M$oft should not really be mentioned in the same sentence ...
Score: 0
|You just said that because this artical had the word "Microsoft" didn't you?
Score: 0
|*yawn* He obviously uses a Mac... you know... that OS that actually ALLOWS you to delete every single important file without first warning you, "Hey this is an important file!" While I'm not all up for the warning on every single directory that is a 'core' directory so you can't view it unless clicking next page, I have to say that after playing with both I like Windows 100x more.
Wait... what were we talking about again? Sh*t me and my tangents...
I guess what I'm trying is don't knock it til you try it. MS hasn't let me down yet, and it hopefully will just get better.
Score: 0
|microsoft has never let you down? you use microsoft products and it has never let you down? really? you've never had a BSOD? are you sure you use Microsoft?
Score: 0
|As opposed to Windows, which, despite being logged on as an Administrator, still tells you you shouldn't be looking at the Program Files or Windows directories.
If you have superuser rights, it should go without saying that you know what you are doing. Popups never saved anyone, they just annoy those who know what they're doing.
Score: 0
|BTW.. I am a mac User (and a Linux user and a windows user, and a Novell user, ...any one getting the picture yet)
Ok anyhow, the bit about saying Mac will let you delete with out a warning... Yeah maybe if you're logged in as root. most critical files can hardly be touched even by someone with regular admin rights (does this sound familure to any other linux/unix users ??) anyhow do you really read the warning when you delete a file... if you are an andmin are you really that unsure of your actions??? (I'm not saying this to slander you directly, but in general if an admin is not competent in every move thay make should they really be an admin? ) (yes we all make mistakes, but haveing to hit the enter/space key etc... one time probubly won't save you from that mistake anyway. it just becomes a routine part of hitting the delet key etc... any how there's my thoughts. hope I haven't offended anyone
Score: 0
|I've had both BSOD and Kernel Dumps... how is that any different? Quite honestly though, since I've been running Windows XP, I've had a rock stable platform and have not had any BSODs.
Score: 0
|Yah, I agree, Windows is more convenient, it deletes the files for you...;)
Score: 0
|Does that mean no overclocking? I like to overclock but these processor companies would just love to strike that kind of deal with a BIOS company like Pheonix. I also hate the idea of them catering to the Evil Empire that is Microsoft. Even if you look at it from a neutral point of view (which is hard for me) it is not good.
Score: 0
|Yah, that's cause they eliminated the BSoD. Instead the computer will just restart. At least with a BSoD you could get a modicum of information concerning what happened; now it's just, "Whoops, too bad for you, windows felt like restarting"
Score: 0
|I doubt it. There's always going to be a market for hardware tweakers, and Phoenix's CME within this new CSS will still have functions outside of Microsoft's Palladium project. The way I see it is this; M$oft is looking to answer the DRM issue, and they're looking for a more reliable unique identifier than the system SID. They got close with the release of WinXP in their "registration" process by extracting BIOS UID info and seeding it in a hash with the OS Key to form a registration code. The problem was nobody gave a @#$% about the UID info within the BIOS until now. Can a Phoenix CSS-enabled mobo "authenticate" it's firmware code against a Phoenix or Microsoft Cert Auth Server? Yeah, but I don't see it happening. Furthermore, I totally see this as a switchable feature, but M$oft may require that it be turned on so that some features of Longhorn (say, Win Media Player, anyone?) will not be available unless that is turned on. Bill's too late to try to roll this out as a dependency for Longhorn. If somehow he does it, however, VMWare is a beatiful thing... hello hardware emulation! In short, relax fellow jedi. Mobo OEM's aren't going to sell out just yet. In the meantime, hang on to a box that can still run DRM-free MP3 and MPEG/DIVX ripping software, build a dedicated MP3/MPEG file server off to the side with read-only perms on your shtuff, and make an extra restricted acct for your day-2-day tasks (use your superuser acct's for only when you need them!)
Score: 0
|Just to finish my point above off with a cherry on top, I found an interesting juicy tidbit of information on a IEEE computing paper about Microsoft's NGSCB and this little BIOS tiff... check out http://download.microsof..._open_platform_ieee.pdf -AZTekNikAlKub
Score: 0
|"If you have superuser rights, it should go without saying that you know what you are doing."
Exactly.
On many Windows versions you are superuser on boot. How many people using Windows at home can be considered qualified as superuser/system administrator.
Score: 0
|Oh, puh-lease. "Never let us down." Did you actually say that without employing irony? I've been using MS since '82, and Windows since 1.0, and may I just say that the number of original thoughts they had in that time could be counted on the fingers of one hand. MS is, almost by definition, a re-active, controlling company. Think I'm MS bashing? Well, yes, but besides that, I'm RIGHT. Like some examples? Sure!
1) DOS had a LINE EDITOR and 32 MB PARTITION SIZE LIMIT
until (respectively) DOS 4.0 and DOS 5.0. These were
only added _after_ a competing product, DR DOS, had
delivered them (and many other bells and whistles) to
their happy customers.
2) "Say, that DR DOS was pretty slick. Whatever happened
to it?" MS got pissed is what happened. So they made
Windows 3.1x explicitly unable to run on it -- as was
proven by Dr. Dobbs (no relation [sic]), and later shown
in court during the settlement with (irony time!) Digital
Research... or, rather, Caldera, who'd bought them, who
then morphed into SCO (which got its start reselling
Xenix, an MS Unix clone. Maybe SCO should sue itself?).
3) Ever wonder why there's DOS 6.20, 6.21, and 6.22? Let's
see:
- 6.20 had compression by STAC, Inc.
- 6.21 had no compression, as per court order, due to the
fact that MS was flagrantly violating STAC's license.
- 6.22 had MS's own compression.
4) Whatever happened to Fox Software? Acquired, and put
out to pasture. Just like they said they wouldn't.
5) How 'bout the anti-trust suit? That one's easy: they
got luckier than AT&T. AT&T's suit dragged on (IIRC)
for about the same amount of time, but MS saw the
political climate change, and took advantage. Even
though, throughout the trial, they were shown to be
liars (clear falsification of evidence occured; see
http://www.wired.com/new...cs/0,1283,17689,00.html),
exaggerators, etc.
6) MS clearly loves -- and I mean *LOVES* -- to control
your software. And what happens when you get a monopoly
controlling a) the platform you run your software on,
and b) what software you run? Easy: higher prices, less
choice. You think developers are going to be able to
run "any" program on that platform? Hell, no! They'll
have to pony up $$$, just like video game developers.
I'll stop coming up with examples of MS's inherent untrustworthiness/inability to innovate, as this is already far too long, and I've only shown the tip of the iceburg. So, without further ado:
If all this goes through, it really will be the end of computing as we know it. However, I don't think it'll quite work that way; there will always, and I mean always (barring Congress enacting another DMCA-like dain-bramaged law) be a market for non-"trusted" computing. And, once it becomes apparent how abhorrent "trusted" computing is, I think MS'll start losing out to Linux. Linus has come out and said that he's not against DRM, per-se, but I also think there's nowayinhell he's going to cripple Linux to the point where it would only run on DRM -- err, "trusted" -- platforms. If anything, it may actually exacerbate the demise of MS, as the vast majority of people are happy with it as it currently stands. Once the more onerous side of DRM starts to become apparent, however, I think it'll be a very, very different day.
-Slarty
Score: 0
|"Yah, that's cause they eliminated the BSoD. Instead the computer will just restart. At least with a BSoD you could get a modicum of information concerning what happened; now it's just, "Whoops, too bad for you, windows felt like restarting" "
Since the days of NT 4.0 the NT kernel OSes have had the 'Reboot on error' option. This is not new. If you want to stop the reboot its very easy.
Take a look at the following site for more information including instructions on how to disable the reboot: http://reviews.cnet.com/...1022-2.html?legacy=cnet
Score: 0
|I guess you are just lucky. I have to manage about 20 PCs in office besides my regular job. We've got Windows 98, Windows 2000, and Windows XP and they are crashing left and right. They are driving me bananas (random restarts, BSOD, especially one that I met today, BSOD of XP at install!). Granted, Windows 2000 and Windows XP is more stable than Windows 98, but that doesn't say much. The two Mac at home I'm running (one is about 5 year old, and the other about 3) are running great without ever crashing. How is that for statisfication?
Score: 0
|The bios can control what OS you install and ultimately run ... see this article in which Phoenix interrupts the MS Windows install process to inject its own stuff:
http://zdnet.com.com/210...514953.html?legacy=zdnn
So if the bios does not want you to instal some type of OS, then it will get real tough.
Then combine the above with the following from Phoenix:
"application integrity checking, and data access control to selected applications on a specific PC."
from http://www.eltan.com/firstbios.htm
So, unless you unsolder your BIOS chip and reprogram it, illigal overclocking (e.g. "you must buy our partners new CPUs" ) could be something of the past. And unwanted/hacked OSes could also fail to boot.
Currently some Tivo-like device will refuse to boot if their kernel has been modified. They use digital signatures in the firmware that check if the kernel's certificate has been signed by the some root certificate authority for which the public key is stored in the firmware.
--
Score: 0
|Thanks for pointing out that article, it was very interesting .. yet another roadmap/blueprint for the future, dressed up as independent opinion but written by people who happen to be M$oft employees. It is interesting how any article that is genuinely independent and remotely critical of the Beast from Redmond results in the author(s) getting the sack in cases where M$soft has any influence at all (and they are many), but here we have employees spouting pure propaganda to further the Beast's purpose and it is dressed up as independent research.
All I can say is .. you and I had better be very afraid brother, because Billy-Boy Gates will not rest until he and his kin control the lives of everyone on this planet.
And to the person who said above that I must have commented the way I did 'just because Microsoft was mentioned', rest assured that this is not the case. I suspect rather that he/she made the response just because I dared to utter something that could be vaguely construed as 'anti-M$oft' ... could you be American by any chance? And by the way, the word is spelled 'article'.
Score: 0
|Oh, come on. Desktop computers are personal appliances now, not giant mainframes that need dedicated staff to administer. Do you need an electrical engineering degree to administer your toaster? You shouldn't need to be a "qualified system administrator" to add and remove iTunes from your Dell.
Score: 0
|