Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday April 26 2015, @02:47AM   Printer-friendly
from the hurdles-all-the-way-down dept.

On Wednesday, at the RSA conference in San Francisco, Microsoft veep Scott Charney outlined a new security mechanism in Windows 10 called Device Guard ( https://blogs.windows.com/business/2015/04/21/windows-10-security-innovations-at-rsa-device-guard-windows-hello-and-microsoft-passport/ ). We've taken a closer look.

The details are a little vague – more information will emerge at the Build event next week – but from what we can tell, Device Guard wraps an extra layer of defense around the operating system to prevent malware from permanently compromising a PC.

Device Guard, when enabled by an administrator, checks to see if each and every application is cryptographically signed by Microsoft as a trusted binary before it is allowed to run. Device Guard itself runs in its own pocket of memory with its own minimal instance of Windows, and is protected from the rest of the system by the IOMMU features in the PC's processor and motherboard chipset.

These IOMMU features (outlined here by the Minix project http://www.minix3.org/docs/szekeres-iommu.pdf ) wall off Device Guard from the computer's hardware, so it cannot be tampered with by other software, no matter how low level that software is.

If the Windows 10 kernel, which has control over the PC, is compromised, Device Guard will remain fire-walled off, and cannot be subverted into allowing unauthorized code to run. A hypervisor running beneath the kernel and Device Guard enforces this.

(In theory, that is – similar "secure execution environments" have been defeated in the past.)
http://atredispartners.blogspot.com/2014/08/here-be-dragons-vulnerabilities-in.html
http://blog.azimuthsecurity.com/2013/04/unlocking-motorola-bootloader.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/23/microsoft_windows_10_device_guard/

Do you think that Microsoft can make this work as described?

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 27 2015, @07:51AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 27 2015, @07:51AM (#175611)

    Linux has no monopoly to protect.

    Note that this was not "allowing only authorized software", but "allowing only software signed by Microsoft". LibreOffice is not allowed, MS Office with their famous macro viruses is, XMPP is not allowed, Skype with the centralized servers with a separate line straight to the NSA is.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 27 2015, @06:59PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 27 2015, @06:59PM (#175815)

    I haven't read TFA, but I'm guessing programs can be added to a whitelist--maybe during installation--with the user's authorization. I don't think it would be in Microsoft's interests to destroy the "open-ness" (i.e. run what programs you want) of Windows.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Reziac on Tuesday April 28 2015, @04:01PM

      by Reziac (2489) on Tuesday April 28 2015, @04:01PM (#176126) Homepage

      I agree, but what if you want to run something that Microsoft would not approve; say, a software crack or ripping program?? And don't think this hasn't crossed their minds.

      --
      And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.