Bruce, > > I'd say protection from binary viruses and stack overflows, plus if [...]
> I'm sorry, maybe I was sleeping in class... can somebody explain to me > how a TCPA machine (as currently hypothesized) would keep stack overflows > from happening? Is this a facet of having a "nub" check each and every > memory access, and having a stack marked "read/write/no execute"? Or is > my vision not far enough? Hrm, maybe I expect too much from the TCPA folks, but actually a buffer overflow (using a "carefully crafted" DVD) that lets me take control of a trustworthy DVD player would be the first thing I'd think of if I designed such a system, and thus the first thing I'd like to prevent. > I see that you qualified "protection from *binary* viruses" - the "nub" > sure wouldn't allow a file that a file virus (Staog or something like > that) had tinkered with to execute. But file viruses were never a serious > threat as far as I can tell (see http://news.com.com/2009-1001-254061.html). As an old time Amiga user I tend to disagree. :-) Seriously though, there isn't much difference between a file virus and a rootkit. If my computer tells me when I try to run a modified binary, I have already gained a lot. [Macro viruses] Well, we can't do much about that, I think. There are always stupid people running stupid programs. Simon -- GPG Fingerprint: 040E B5F7 84F1 4FBC CEAD ADC6 18A0 CC8D 5706 A4B4
msg01670/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
