Discussione:Trusted computing: differenze tra le versioni

Versione delle 21:49, 6 lug 2006

Versione delle 22:05, 6 lug 2006

Riga 111:

Ciao, --[[Utente:AltraStoria|AltraStoria]] 18:20, 6 lug 2006 (CEST)

: ho aggiunto il libro nella categoria "oppositori al TC" .. Bottoni e' molto critico verso questa tecnologia [[Utente:Dbiagioli|Dbiagioli]] 21:49, 6 lug 2006 (CEST)Dbiagioli

==virus ==

salve ,un discorso a parte merita la protezione da virus e rootkit : questa tecnologia *potrebbe* impedirla , (per esempio l'enforcer potrebbe essere configurato per impedire la modifica di qualsiasi file ) ma sembra che

[[Next-Generation_Secure_Computing_Base]] cioe l'implemntazione di MS NON lo fara ' ..

Q: Will NGSCB stop spam or prevent viruses?

A: No. Despite some hype in the media, introducing NGSCB enhancements to the PC ecosystem will not, in and of itself, stop spam or prevent viruses. However, by using NGSCB technology as a foundation, a number of trust and infrastructure models can be built to help combat spam and viruses in new and effective ways.

[....]

With respect to viruses, the contribution from the NGSCB architecture is more straightforward. Since the nexus and NCAs do not interfere with the operation of any program running in the regular Windows environment, everything, including the native operating system and viruses, runs there as it does today. Therefore, users are still going to need antivirus monitoring and detection software in Windows as well. However, the NGSCB architecture does provide features that can be used by an antivirus program to help guarantee that it has not been corrupted. The antivirus software can be grounded in such a way that it can bootstrap itself into a protected execution state, something it cannot do today.

preso da http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/security/news/ngscb.mspx?mfr=true

questo secondo voi va negli 'ostacoli tecnici ' o va semplicemente ignorato ?