text:
|Publication number
|Publication type
|Application number
|Publication date
|6 Feb 2007
|Filing date
|10 Mar 1999
|Priority date
|10 Mar 1999
|Fee status
|Also published as
|Publication number
|Paul England, John D. DeTreville, Butler W. Lampson
|Original Assignee
|Microsoft Corporation
|Export Citation
|BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan
|Patent Citations (106), Non-Patent Citations (23), Referenced by (75), Classifications (23), Legal Events (4)
|External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet
This application is a non-provisional application claiming priority to U.S. provisional patent application Ser. No. 60/105,891 filed on Oct. 26, 1998, which is herein incorporated by reference, and is related to co-pending applications titled "Loading And Identifying A Digital Rights Management Operating System," U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/227,611, "Key-based Secure Storage," U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/227,568, "Digital Rights Management," U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/227,559, and "Digital Rights Management Operating System," U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/227,561, all filed on Jan. 8, 1999 and assigned to the same assignee as the present application.
This invention relates to computer-implemented authentication systems and methods for authenticating an operating system (OS) to a processor during its boot sequence in order to establish a chain of trust rooted in the combination of the OS and the processor on which it is running. The invention can be used in conjunction with digital rights management systems to establish trust with a content provider. This invention further relates to techniques for securely maintaining the digital content in persistent local memory (such as on disk) while preventing rogue operating systems and applications from illicitly accessing the content.
A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material which is subject to copyright protection. The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but otherwise reserves all copyright rights whatsoever. The following notice applies to the software and data as described below and in the drawings hereto: Copyright � 1998, Microsoft Corporation, All Rights Reserved.
More and more content is being delivered in digital form, and more and more digital content is being delivered online over private and public networks, such as Intranets and the Internet. For a client, digital form allows more sophisticated content, while online delivery improves timeliness and convenience. For a publisher, digital content also reduces delivery costs. Unfortunately, these worthwhile attributes are often outweighed in the minds of publishers by the corresponding disadvantage that online information delivery makes it relatively easy to obtain pristine digital content and to pirate the content at the expense and harm of the publisher.
Piracy of digital content, especially online digital content, is not yet a great problem. Most premium content that is available on the Web is of low value, and therefore casual and organized pirates do not yet see an attractive business stealing and reselling content. Increasingly, though, higher-value content is becoming available. Books and audio recordings are available now, and as bandwidths increase, video content will start to appear. With the increase in value of online digital content, the attractiveness of organized and casual theft increases.
The unusual property of digital content is that the publisher (or reseller) gives or sells the content to a client, but continues to restrict rights to use the content even after the content is under the sole physical control of the client. For instance, a publisher will typically retain copyright to a work so that the client cannot reproduce or publish the work without permission. A publisher could also adjust pricing according to whether the client is allowed to make a persistent copy, or is just allowed to view the content online as it is delivered. These scenarios reveal a peculiar arrangement. The user that possesses the digital bits often does not have full rights to their use; instead, the provider retains at least some of the rights. In a very real sense, the legitimate user of a computer can be an adversary of the data or content provider.
"Digital rights management" is therefore fast becoming a central requirement if online commerce is to continue its rapid growth. Content providers and the computer industry must quickly address technologies and protocol for ensuring that digital content is properly handled in accordance with the rights granted by the publisher. If measures are not taken, traditional content providers may be put out of business by widespread theft, or, more likely, will refuse altogether to deliver content online.
Traditional security systems ill serve this problem. There are highly secure schemes for encrypting data on networks, authenticating users, revoking certificates, and storing data securely. Unfortunately, none of these systems address the assurance of content security after it has been delivered to a client's machine. Traditional uses of smart cards offer little help. Smart cards merely provide authentication, storage, and encryption capabilities. Ultimately, useful content must be assembled within the host machine for display, and again, at this point the bits are subject to theft. Cryptographic coprocessors provide higher-performance cryptographic operations, and are usually programmable but again, fundamentally, any operating system or sufficiently privileged application, trusted or not, can use the services of the cryptographic processor.
There appear to be three solutions to this problem. One solution is to do away with general-purpose computing devices and use special-purpose tamper-resistant boxes for delivery, storage, and display of secure content. This is the approach adopted by the cable industry and their set-top boxes, and looks set to be the model for DVD-video presentation. The second solution is to use secret, proprietary data formats and applications software, or to use tamper-resistant software containers, in the hope that the resulting complexity will substantially impede piracy. The third solution is to modify the general-purpose computer to support a general model of client-side content security and digital rights management.
A fundamental building block for client-side content security is a secure operating system. If a computer can be booted only into an operating system that itself honors content rights, and allows only compliant applications to access rights-restricted data, then data integrity within the machine can be assured. This stepping-stone to a secure operating system is sometimes called "Secure Boot." If secure boot cannot be assured, then whatever rights management system the secure OS provides, the computer can always be booted into an insecure operating system as a step to compromise it.
Secure boot of an operating system is usually a multi-stage process. A securely booted computer runs a trusted program at startup. The trusted program loads an initial layer of the operating system and checks its integrity (by using a code signature or by other means) before allowing it to run. This layer will in turn load and check the succeeding layers. This proceeds all the way to loading trusted (signed) device drivers, and finally the trusted application(s).
An article by B. Lampson, M. Abadi, and M. Burrows, entitled "Authentication in Distributed Systems: Theory and Practice," ACM Transactions on Computer Systems v10, 265, 1992, describes in general terms the requirements for securely booting an operating system. The only hardware assist is a register that holds a machine secret. When boot begins this register becomes readable, and there's a hardware operation to make this secret unreadable. Once it's unreadable, it stays unreadable until the next boot. The boot code mints a public-key pair and a certificate that the operating system can use to authenticate itself to other parties in order to establish trust.
Clark and Hoffman's BITS system is designed to support secure boot from a smart card. P. C. Clark and L. J. Hoffman, "BITS: A Smartcard Operating System," Comm. ACM. 37, 66, 1994. In their design, the smart card holds the boot sector, and PCs are designed to boot from the smart card. The smart card continues to be involved in the boot process (for example, the smart card holds the signatures or keys of other parts of the OS).
Bennet Yee describes a scheme in which a secure processor first gets control of the booting machine. B. Yee, "Using Secure Coprocessors", Ph.D. Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, 1994. The secure processor can check code integrity before loading other systems. One of the nice features of this scheme is that there is a tamper-resistant device that can later be queried for the details of the running operating system.
Another secure boot model, known as AEGIS�, is disclosed by W. Arbaugh, D. G. Farber, and J. M Smith in a paper entitled "A Secure and Reliable Bootstrap Architecture", Univ. of Penn. Dept. of CIS Technical Report, IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, page 65, 1997. This AEGIS� model requires a tamper-resistant BIOS that has hard-wired into it the signature of the following stage. This scheme has the very considerable advantage that it works well with current microprocessors and the current PC architecture, but has three drawbacks. First, the set of trusted operating systems or trusted publishers must be wired into the BIOS. Second, if the content is valuable enough (for instance, e-cash or Hollywood videos), users will find a way of replacing the BIOS with one that permits an insecure boot. Third, when obtaining data from a network server, the client has no way of proving to the remote server that it is indeed running a trusted system.
On the more general subject of client-side rights management, several systems exist or have been proposed to encapsulate data and rights in a tamper-resistant software package. An early example is IBM�'s Cryptolope�. Another existent commercial implementation of a rights management system has been developed by Intertrust. In the audio domain, AT&T� Research have proposed their "A2b�" audio rights management system based on the PolicyMaker rights management system.
This invention concerns a system and method for distributing digital data to a client and handling the digital data at the client in accordance with the rights granted by the publisher. Generally, the system involves a general-purpose microprocessor that enables a new mechanism that facilitates an authenticated boot sequence in which the operating system can prove its identity to the microprocessor. The boot sequence provides the building blocks for client-side rights management when the system is online, and provides for continued protection of persistent data even when the user goes offline.
In one implementation, the client or subscriber-side computer system has a central processing unit (CPU) and an operating system (OS). The CPU is manufactured with a public-key pair, a manufacturer certificate testifying that the manufacturer built the CPU according to a known specification, and a software identity register. The operating system includes a block of code, referred to as the "boot block". The boot block uniquely describes the operating system in that it will boot that operating system and no other. An OS identity can be established from the boot block by examining a digital signature stored with the boot block or by computing a hash digest of the boot block.
During booting, the CPU executes the boot block as an atomic operation to store the identity of the operating system into the software identity register. Execution of the boot block is such that the software identity register, which can be read but not modified, is set to either the OS identity (i.e., boot block digest or OS public key) if the operation is successful, or zero if some event or circumstance subverts operation.
Rooted in this self-authentication, the OS can then continue to load and validate other blocks of code (including device drivers to be executed). An identity of each block of code that is successfully validated is appended to a boot log.
Following this authenticated boot sequence, the subscriber unit is prepared to establish a chain of trust to prove its hardware and software to a content provider. The CPU in the subscriber unit begins by submitting a request for content maintained at the content provider.
In response to the request, the content provider generates a challenge nonce and returns the challenge nonce to the subscriber unit. The subscriber unit forms an OS certificate that contains the OS identity (held in its software identity register), the boot log, the challenge nonce, and the CPU public key. The CPU signs this newly minted OS certificate using the CPU private key. The subscriber unit returns this OS certificate, along with the CPU manufacturer certificate, to the content provider. The content provider then has sufficient information to identify the OS and other software components identified in the log, and the processor, and to determine whether to trust this combination of software and hardware. If trust is established, the content provider can choose to download the content to the subscriber unit, along with a list of terms under which the content may be used. This list may be in the form of a license or an Access Control List (ACL), specifying by which processor, by which OS, by which application(s), and under which additional terms the content may be used.
The subscriber unit stores the content in encrypted form using a storage key that is generated as a function of CPU-specific and OS-specific data. More particularly, the CPU forms a generator seed from a CPU-specific secret, a user-supplied seed, and OS-specific data from the OS identity register. The generator seed, the CPU-specific key, and the OS digest are input to a hash function to generate a unique storage key. The storage key is then used to encrypt the content. In this manner, only the same CPU and OS that have proven themselves to the content provider are able subsequently to access the data previously encrypted.
Alternatively, the processor may contain a fixed per-processor symmetric key KS which can be used to encrypt a data structure containing content along with a statement of the conditions under which it may be decrypted; key KS is also used to decrypt the data structure, test the conditions, and either return the content or fail. Key KS is to be used only for this pair of operations, which are referred to as "Seal" and "Unseal".
In both of these scenarios for providing secure storage, a key pair KCPU and KCPU −1 unique to the CPU need be capable only of signing, not for encryption. Alternatively, if the key pair KCPU and KCPU −1 is capable of encryption and decryption as well, ordinary user-level software can implement the "Seal" operation, even on another processor, and KCPU −1 can be used to implement the "Unseal" operation.
The same numbers are used throughout the drawings to reference like components or features.
The following discussion assumes that the reader is familiar with cryptography. For a basic introduction of cryptography, the reader is directed to a text written by Bruce Schneier and entitled "Applied Cryptography: Protocols, Algorithms, and Source Code in C," published by John Wiley & Sons with copyright 1994 (or second edition with copyright 1996), which is hereby incorporated by reference.
This invention concerns a system and method for distributing digital data to a client and handling the digital data at the client in accordance with the rights granted by the publisher. In the most basic scenario, a content provider agrees to deliver digital content to a subscriber unit, provided that the subscriber unit promises not to violate the associated terms for using the digital data and that the content provider can trust the subscriber unit's promise. For instance, the content provider delivers content to the subscriber unit with the understanding that the subscriber unit will not redistribute the content, reproduce the content, or utilize the content in violation of a predefined use agreement between the content provider and the subscriber unit.
The content may be essentially any type of content that can be expressed as digital data, including video, still pictures, audio, graphical images, and textual data or executable content (computer programs). Examples of possible content include feature-length movies, TV shows, games, software programs, news, stock information, weather reports, art, photographs, and so on.
To place this in a particular context for discussion purposes, suppose the content provider 22 is a producer of feature films. Assume that the content provider f22 offers its animated movies at two different prices. a low price for the right to view the movie one time as it is delivered online (i.e., akin to pay-per-view) and a higher price for the right to view the movie as often as the subscriber likes (i.e., akin to video purchase). In each case, the agreement specifically prohibits reproduction of the movie or redistribution of the movie to another subscriber unit. In the first case, it also prohibits the client device from making a persistent copy to disk. For the content provider 22 to download a requested movie, it must trust that the subscriber unit will abide by the agreement and not permit illicit use of the digital movie data. This trust involves trust of the hardware components, trust of the operating system, and trust of the applications, as well as trust of the manufacturer of the hardware and software.
The subscriber unit 24 is coupled to receive the digital content from the network 26. The subscriber unit 24 is illustrated as a general-purpose computer that is linked to the network 26 via a network connection, a digital cable interface, a modem, or other interface. The subscriber computer has memory to buffer or to store the digital content received from the content provider, a monitor to display any visual content (video, pictures, images, text, etc.), and a sound system (not shown) to play audio content. The subscriber unit may be implemented, however, as other devices that are capable of receiving and presenting digital content. For instance, the subscriber unit 24 might be a television, or a television/set-top box system, or a portable-computing device (e.g., laptop, palmtop, portable information device, Web-enabled phone, etc.).
The network 26 is representative of many diverse types of networks, including wire-based networks, such as an enterprise network (e.g., a local area network, wide area network) or a public network (e.g., the Internet), and wireless networks (e.g., satellite network, RF network, microwave). The network 26 can also be implemented as a telephone network, or an interactive television network, or any other form for linking the subscriber unit 24 to the content provider 22.
Exemplary Subscriber Unit
The CPU 40 has a processor 60 and may have a cryptographic accelerator 62. The CPU 40 is capable of performing cryptographic functions, such as signing, encrypting, decrypting, and authenticating, with or without the accelerator 62 assisting in intensive mathematical computations commonly involved in cryptographic functions.
The CPU manufacturer equips the CPU 40 with a pair of public and private keys 64 that is unique to the CPU. For discussion purpose, the CPU's public key is referred to as "KCPU" and the corresponding private key is referred to as "KCPU −1". Other physical implementations may include storing the key on an external device to which the main CPU has privileged access (where the stored secrets are inaccessible to arbitrary application or operating systems code). The private key is never revealed and is used only for the specific purpose of signing stylized statements, such as when responding to challenges from the content provider, as is discussed below in more detail. The CPU manufacturer may further embed a second secret key K2 in the CPU 40 or other secure hardware. The second key is distinct from the first key pair, and is used to, generate a secure storage key, as is described blow under the heading "Secure Storage". Alternatively, as described below, a symmetric key KS may be used with "Seal" and "Unseal" operations to encrypt a data structure along with a statement of the conditions under which the data structure may be decrypted.
The manufacturer also issues a signed certificate 66 testifying that it produced the CPU according to a known specification. Generally, the certificate testifies that the manufacturer created the key pair 64, placed the key pair onto the CPU 40, and then destroyed its own knowledge of the private key "KCPU −1". In this way, nobody but the CPU knows the CPU private key KCPU −1; the same key is not issued to other CPUs. The certificate can in principle be stored on a separate physical device but still logically belongs to the processor with the corresponding key.
The manufacturer has a pair of public and private signing keys, KMFR and KMFR −1. The private key KMFR −1 is known only to the manufacturer, while the public key KMFR is made available to the public. The manufacturer certificate 66 contains the manufacturer's public key KMFR, the CPU's public key KCPU, and the above testimony. The manufacture signs the certificate using its private signing key, KMFR −1, as follows:
The predicate "certifies-for-boot" is a pledge by the manufacturer that it created the CPU and the CPU key pair according to a known specification. The pledge further states that the CPU can correctly perform authenticated boot procedures, as are described below in more detail. The manufacturer certificate 66 is publicly accessible, yet it cannot be forged without knowledge of the manufacturer's private key KMFR −1.
Another implementation in which a 'chain of certificates' leading back to a root certificate held by the processor manufacturer is also acceptable.
The CPU 40 has an internal software identity register (SIR) 68, which is cleared at the beginning of every boot. The CPU executes an opcode "BeginAuthenticatedBoot" or "BAB" to set an identity of a corresponding piece of software, such as operating system 80, and stores this identity in the SIR; the boot block of the operating system (described below) is atomically executed as part of the BAB instruction. If execution of the BAB opcode and the boot block fails (e.g., if the execution was not atomic), the SIR 68 is set to a predetermined false value (e.g., zero). This process is described below in more detail under the heading "Authenticated Boot".
The CPU 40 also utilizes a second internal register (LOGR) 69, which holds contents produced as a result of running a LOG operation. This operation, as well as the register, is described below in more detail.
The CPU 40 also maintains a "boot log" 70 to track software modules and programs that are loaded. In one implementation, the boot log 70 is a log in an append-only memory of the CPU that is cleared at the beginning of every boot. Since it consumes only about a few hundred bytes, the boot log 70 can be comfortably included in the main CPU. Alternatively, the CPU 40 can store the boot log 70 in volatile memory 44 in a cryptographic tamper-resistant container.
A further implementation is by means of a software module that allows each section of the booting operating system to write entries into the boot log that cannot be removed by later components without leaving evidence of tampering. Yet alternatively, the SIR can hold a cryptographic digest of a data structure comprising the initial boot block and the subsequent contents of the boot log. The operation of appending to the boot log (call this operation "Extend") replaces the SIR with the hash of the concatenation of the SIR and the entry being appended to the boot log. A straightforward implementation of this operation may be seen to modify the SIR, potentially disallowing future "Unseal" operations that depend on the value of the SIR. Note, however, that the operating system, when booting, can choose to add elements to the boot log without loading the corresponding components, and so a more privileged combination of software components can impersonate a less privileged one. This allows the controlled transfer of secrets across privilege levels. In this approach, software will keep its own plaintext copy of the boot log entries, along with the initial value of the SIR following boot, and this plaintext copy is validated by knowledge of the current composite SIR.
As an optimization, regardless of the implementation of the boot log, the OS may choose not to extend the boot log with the identities of certain software components, if these components are judged to be as trustworthy as the OS itself, or if they will execute only in a protected environment from which they will be unable to subvert operation.
The operating system (OS) 80 is stored in the memory 42 and executed on the CPU 40. The operating system 80 has a block of code 82 used to authenticate the operating system on the CPU during the boot operation. The boot block 82 uniquely determines the operating system, or class of operating systems (e.g. those signed by the same manufacturer). The boot block 82 can also be signed by the OS manufacturer.
In an alternative implementation, the SIR is set to the cryptographic hash or digest of the code and constants that make up the boot block. The signature 96 and public key 98 are then not needed.
A key observation of both of these implementations is that no one can boot an untrusted operating system in which the SIR is set to the value of a trusted operating system.
Once booted the operating system 80 and the applications named in the license or ACL by the content provider can set aside space 84 in memory or disk 42 to hold the digital content from the content provider in a secure manner, without fear of other operating systems or rogue applications reading the data in the space. The persistent content is protected by encryption using a key that is generated based in part upon a seed supplied by an authenticated and trusted OS, in part by a secret key stored in the CPU, and in part by the software identity register (SIR). (Alternatively, the persistent content is stored using the "Seal" and "Unseal" operations, described below in more detail, or using the processor's public key pair for encryption.) The persistent content is stored with a license or ACL naming the applications that can use the content and the terms under which they can use it.
Software programs 86 (the applications) are also shown stored in memory 42. These programs may be used to render or otherwise play the content. Each program 86 has an associated key or digest 88 for unique identification.
Authenticated Boot
Traditional approaches to secure boot attempt to secure the BIOS or other loader, and have the BIOS check later components before allowing them to execute. In contrast to this traditional approach, the authenticated boot process allows any software at any point in the boot sequence to initiate an authenticated boot.
The BeginAuthenticatedBoot opcode 92 and the boot block 90 execute as one atomic operation, with the implication that if they execute completely and correctly, the resulting operating system can be trusted. Measures are taken to ensure that the CPU is not interrupted and that the boot code that has just been validated cannot be modified. This can involve locking the memory bus and switching off interrupts. It could also involve having the CPU watch for interrupts or for writes by other bus agents and invalidate the authenticated boot sequence if they occur. The BAB opcode 92 can be executed at any time, with one exemplary time being at the start of the OS loader, right after the OS-selector executes. An alternative implementation is to provide both a BeginAuthenticatedBoot (BAB) and an EndAuthenticatedBoot (EAB) instruction. The BAB instruction computes the secure hash of the boot block and the EAB instruction sets the SIR if the execution of the boot block was not interrupted or potentially modified by memory writes from another processor or another bus master.
Execution of the BeginAuthenticatedBoot opcode 92 sets the internal software identity register 70 to either (1) the OS's identity (i.e., boot block digest or OS public key 98) if the operation is successful, or (2) zero if some event or circumstance has potentially subverted operation. Assuming the operation is successful (i.e., the "yes" branch from block 102), the SIR 70 is now a unique number or other value that represents the identity of the operating system 80 (block 104). Any two processors running the same operating system will produce the same SIR. If the BAB opcode operation is unsuccessful (i.e., the "no" branch from block 102), the SIR is set to zero (block 106).
It is noted that different operating systems may be serially booted on the subscriber unit 24. Executing the BAB opcode 92 for different signed OS boot blocks results in different SIR values. However, it is possible for multiple boot blocks to result in the same SIR, when desired.
At block 110, the CPU 40 fills the first entry on the boot log 70 with the public key (or digest) of the boot block 82. From now on, any running code can append data to the boot log 70, and it is generally used by code in the boot chain to identify code versions as they are loaded and executed. As noted earlier, appending data to the boot log can be simulated by modifying the SIR via the "Extend" operation.
The boot block 82 is free to load the next set of blocks in the boot-chain (block 112). At block 114, the boot block 82 checks the validity of the modules (by signature or other means) and loads them so that they can be executed. An identity for each module is appended to the boot log 70. The OS will also retain additional information on components that it loads (e.g., version numbers, device driver IDs, etc.). Loading and executing the code may result in loading more code, validating it, and executing it, etc. This process continues through to the loading of device drivers. When the boot sequence is complete, the OS is operational and the software identity register and the boot log store non-modifiable data captured during the boot sequence. We can recommence loading new device drivers at any point, possibly causing the operating system to become less privileged, with the possible termination of access to protected content.
The CPU can generate a signed certificate containing the boot log data to attest to the particular operating system (including drivers) that is running. It could also generate a signed statement containing just the SIR.
The SIR or the seed field 130 holds an authenticated boot key generator seed. The CPU uses the seed in field 130 to generate keys unique to the OS and processor. Since the first entry of the boot log 70 can only be generated by the execution of a particular boot block or the holder of the boot block private key, the keys can only be re-generated by the same OS, or another OS from the same publisher under control of the publisher. OS-specific key generation provides a building block for secure persistent storage of data and the continued enforcement of digital usage rights even if the computer is physically compromised, or the computer is booted into another operating system. Use of OS-specific storage keys for secure storage is described below in more detail under the heading "Secure Storage".
Alternatively, the processor may use the "Seal" and "Unseal" instructions to store persistent protected content, or when possible may encrypt it with the processor's public key and decrypt it with the "Unseal" instruction, which is called "Reveal" when used with public keys. These operations are described below in more detail under the heading "Secure Storage".
Chain of Trust to Content Provider
Once the CPU has derived an appropriate SIR for the operating system, the combination of the CPU and the OS has a unique identification that may be presented to third parties. The subscriber unit is thus prepared to order content from the content provider, to specify the CPU and the OS, and prove the identity of the CPU and operating system to the content provider.
At block 150, the operating system 80 establishes an SSL (secure socket layer) connection, or a similar secure connection, with the content provider 22. This connection is conventional and establishes a cryptographically secured communication path over an otherwise insecure network 26. The path prevents others from intercepting, modifying, replaying or deciphering messages being exchanged between the subscriber unit 24 and the content provider 22.
At block 152, the subscriber unit 24 submits a request for particular content provided by the content provider 22. The request contains an identification of the content, the CPU, the OS, the application, the desired rights to play the content (e.g., rent, purchase, multi-site use, etc.), and payment instructions (or authorization to pay) for the specified rights. Suppose that the user wants to rent a particular movie. In the Internet context, the user may invoke a browser to browse a catalog of movies offered at a Web site owned by the film company that produced the movie. Through the browser interface, the user selects the movie, selects a rental option, and authorizes payment of the rental fee. The browser software causes the request to be sent to the film company.
At block 154, the content provider 22 receives the request and analyzes it. The content provider generates a challenge nonce "Challenge-N" to question the subscriber unit for proof of its processor and of the operating system it is running (block 156). A different challenge nonce is generated for each request so that the server can identify the challenge nonce when it is returned by the subscriber unit. The content provider 22 sends the challenge nonce to the subscriber unit 24 (block 158).
At block 160, upon receipt of the challenge nonce, the CPU 40 mints an OS certificate that contains the challenge nonce from the content provider and an identity of the OS. The OS certificate takes the following form:
In addition to the challenge nonce, the OS certificate contains the SIR value, a reply, and the CPU's public key KCPU. The "reply" can optionally contain all of the data written to the boot log 70 so that the content provider can evaluate what software components are currently loaded and executing. In other cases, the content providers could just trust the OS publisher (and hence simply the value of the SIR). The OS certificate is signed using the CPU's private key KCPU −1. Effectively, the OS certificate says "The processor named KCPU was running the Operating System SIR with the specified boot log when it received the challenge Challenge-N". (In the case where the boot log is included, the CPU is including more information, effectively saying "Further, it was running this OS revision, with these version components, and these device drivers.")
The CPU 40 uses the key pair KCPU, KCPU −1 only for this operation, or for other similarly restricted classes of operations; the CPU is unable to sign an arbitrary block of data. As a result, there is no way that the CPU or another party could falsify an OS certificate. One might imagine certain attacks, such as saving a certificate from a previous reboot, or impersonating a real content provider to get one of the certificates. However, as noted above, the content provider generates and sends a different challenge nonce each time, thereby preventing such "replay attacks". Another possible attack is for the subscriber unit to return a proper certificate challenge but then be quickly rebooted into a different OS so that it may illicitly use the digital content. This attack is also futile because the OS maintains the SSL connection session key in secrecy and the new OS would not know the current session key being used by the SSL connection.
At block 162, the subscriber unit 24 returns the newly-minted OS certificate to the content provider 22. The subscriber unit 24 also returns the CPU manufacturer's certificate 66. At block 164, the content provider 22 receives and validates the OS certificate and manufacturer's certificate using a series of tests, enumerated as blocks 166 and 170–180. Failure of any one of the tests results in the request for content being rejected by the content provider.
The first test is whether the content provider recognizes the SIR value contained in the OS certificate and trusts the associated operating system (block 166). The content provider can also evaluate the boot log in the reply portion of the OS certificate to decide whether to trust other software components running on the subscriber unit. If the content provider chooses not to trust the OS or other components, the request is rejected (block 168).
Otherwise, assuming the OS and other modules are trusted (i.e., the "yes" branch from block 166), the content provider 22 next determines whether the challenge nonce is the same as it generated and supplied to the subscriber unit (block 170). If the nonce returned in the reply fails to match the nonce generated by the content provider, the request is rejected (block 168). However, if the two match, the content provider evaluates whether the OS certificate is properly signed with the CPU's private key KCPU −1 (block 172). The content provider makes this evaluation using the enclosed public key KCPU.
With respect to the CPU manufacturer's certificate, the content provider determines whether the certificate names the same public key KCPU used in the OS certificate (block 174). If so, the content provider continues to the next test; otherwise, the request is rejected (block 168).
The content provider next examines at block 176 whether the manufacturer certificate is signed by the manufacturer's private key KMFR −1 by using the manufacturer's public key KMFR. If the signature is proper, the content provider decides whether it trusts this manufacturer (block 178).
If all tests prove true and the content provider trusts the processor, operating system, and the manufacturers of both the processor and the operating system, the content provider can choose to download the content to the subscriber unit, along with a list of terms under which the content may be used (block 180). This list may be in the form of a license or an Access Control List (ACL), specifying by which processor, by which OS, by which application(s), and under which additional terms the content may be used. The subscriber unit 24 stores the content in the secure space 84 of memory 42 (block 182).
Secure Storage
The CPU provides for secure (Authenticated OS-specific) storage with the addition of one further opcode. The opcode is "GenerateKey(Seed)". The opcode takes a seed and generates a unique storage key SK. The seed comprises a second CPU secret key K2 (distinct from the CPU public key KCPU), the SIR or the first two entries in the boot log 70 of
One possible implementation of the opcode instruction is as follows:
(1) SK=SHA(K2, SIR, seed)
where SHA is a specific secure digest function called the "secure hash algorithm". The resulting storage key SK can be used to encrypt the content received from the content provider. The encrypted content is then stored in the store 84.
A second implementation is to include all or part of the boot log, as follows:
(2) SK=SHA(K2, SIR, seed, Boot Log Entries)
In this implementation, access to storage can be made dependent on all or part of the details of the remainder of the operating system running (service packs, device drivers, etc.).
Note that the same storage key can be generated from the same user seed whenever the same authenticated OS is running on the same CPU. If a different authenticated OS is booted, a different storage key is returned and the original storage key cannot be obtained. Similarly, since key generation is based on a unique key in each processor, the encrypted data cannot be moved to another machine and decrypted. Since the CPU-internal key K2 is kept secret, there is no way that a non-Authenticated OS or a different authenticated OS can ever recover this number if the original authenticated OS does not reveal it.
At block 200, the CPU receives an OS-supplied or application-supplied number, character string, or alphanumeric value for use as a seed. The CPU concatenates the user seed, the CPU secret key K2, and the SIR or boot log entries to form a composite identifier (block 202). This identifier is input to a secure hash algorithm, which produces a storage key SK (block 204). As content arrives from the content provider, the application or operating system encrypts the content using the storage key SK (block 206). The encrypted content is then stored in memory 42 to form the secure store 84 (block 208).
The storage key SK can be regenerated as illustrated in blocks 200–204 each time the encrypted content is read. However, this mechanism does not allow the operating system to be upgraded without the SIR changing and hence the storage keys being lost. To accomplish upgrades that change the SIR, a different scheme for storing secrets (escrowed encryption keys, for instance) is used.
As an alternative to the GenerateKey operation, two new operations referred to as "Seal" and "Unseal" may be introduced, which provide the ability to seal secrets only for subsequent use on the same machine.
The "Seal" instruction takes as inputs an arbitrary block of data, the current OS identity (the SIR), and a target OS identity (a specified SIR value that must be current at the point of future decryption). The processor encrypts this data structure using a symmetric key, KS.
The data block can now only be decrypted via an "Unseal" operation on the same processor, using the same symmetric key. This symmetric key is only used by the "Seal" and "Unseal" operations, and will only decrypt the secret if the target OS identity is equal to the current value of the SIR. If this check succeeds, the processor decrypts and returns the secret, otherwise it returns an error.
In this way, a processor can store encrypted information that can be decrypted only by the same processor running a specified operating system.
As a special case, the operating system can choose to seal information for a different operating system whose identity it knows and trusts. An example of this occurs when the operating system is about to be upgraded and has a signed certificate from the operating system vendor confirming the identity of the new operating system. In this case the operating system will seal its secrets for the new operating system that is about to run.
Alternatively, another approach is to employ encryption with the processor's public key and decryption using the "Reveal" operation, as described earlier. Instead of using KS for encryption and decryption, the processor's public key pair is used. This allows the "Seal" operation to be performed in software, even on another processor.
ATTEST Operation
The action of signing a statement of the current value of the SIR can be generalized into a technique for the operating system to make a signed attestation of the current value of any arbitrary region of memory and/or a register. In one implementation, the ATTEST operation is performed as follows:
This operation produces a signed result:
The ATTEST operation can be used to sign the current value of the SIR or any other register (including a log register LOGR, described below). The processor also signs the data contained in an arbitrary region of memory. This can be used to include the challenge value or some other signed statement desired by the operating system or application. The ATTEST operation can be used to provide an implementation of a more general form of OS certificates, as discussed earlier.
Boot Log Implementation
The boot log is an append-only record of all or selected components loaded by the operating system. This can be managed entirely in hardware, but can be simplified by means of a LOG operation.
The LOG operation constructs a secure one way digest of a supplied parameter, an internal LOGR register 69, and stores the result back in the LOGR register. At power up, or at processor reset, the LOGR register is set to zero. The LOGR register can be read, but not written apart from execution of the LOG operation. The processor can also sign a statement attesting to the current value of the LOGR register and a supplied challenge. Symbolically:
where LOGR is the current value of the register, DATA is supplied to the LOGR′ and is the contents of the LOGR register after the LOG operation is performed, and SHA−1 is an exemplary one way hash function (the Secure Hash Algorithm).
The operating system can use the LOG operation to record the digest of each component as it is loaded. When online to a content provider, the ATTEST operation can be used to provide an un-tamperable attestation of all components loaded into the operating system.
In order for the content provider to be able to interpret the LOGR value, the operating system also conveys the digests of all components that made up the boot log. A content provider can then:
If these conditions are met, the content provider can trust the client with the premium content. If they are not met, then the content provider can return a statement of the components that are not trusted so that the user or operating system can upgrade the untrusted component.
Exemplary Chipset Implementation
The fundamental requirements of atomicity and privileged access to keys for the microcode that implements authenticated boot can be met in a variety of alternative implementations. In one implementation, components in the chipset may examine the bus to infer operation and permit or deny access to keys depending on the code executing. Components on the chipset can also examine the bus for unauthorized agents writing to protected code, or reading unauthorized secrets.
An agent on the bus can also check for unauthorized interrupts during the execution of the authenticated operations or execution of the boot block.
Similarly, there is no fundamental requirement for the microcode that implements the authenticated boot operations to by physically resident on the microprocessor chip. It could also be stored in ROM, EPROM, or protected flash memory in a physically separate device on the bus.
BIOS Implementation
The authenticated boot technique can be implemented by existing CPU operating modes using code in the computer's BIOS code. The System Management Mode (SMM), supported by Intel microprocessors, provides for a region of memory that is inaccessible to normal operating system operation, but can provide subroutines that operating systems or applications can use. Such SMM protected memory could be used for the storage of keys and the code that manages those keys.
Improved Security
Hash algorithms and signature schemes can be broken. One example of a security break is that an attacker finds a second boot block that has the same identity (same signature, or same digest). If such a boot block is found, then a different operating system can be booted, and all content security is lost.
Greater security can be obtained by combining security schemes. For instance, the OS-identity can be formed as the concatenation of two or more digests calculated using different hash algorithms, or the same algorithm applied to boot block data in a different order (for instance, backwards).
In the case of signature based identity, the boot block can be signed several times using different signature algorithms and keys. Again the software identity becomes the concatenation of the relevant public keys. This technique also provides protection against private key compromise. If one of the signing keys is compromised, not all security is lost.
Microprocessor key compromise is inevitable and is traditionally handled by revocation lists (list of untrusted hosts). However, if the certificates that vouch for the microprocessor keys never expire, then revocation lists will grow uncomfortably large. This problem can be ameliorated by finite lifetime processor certificates. Content providers will require valid certificates (not expired), and the chip vendor (or other trusted party) will be required to re-issue certificates for chips still considered in good standing (not revoked). Note that the certificates are not used when offline, so machines do not stop working when the certificates expire. However, in online transactions, on occasional (probably automated) extra step would be to get a new certificate.
The authenticated boot technique has many advantages. It enables use of open platforms for building trusted systems, where the open platforms can run arbitrary operating systems and arbitrary software. Moreover, it can authenticate the combination of the hardware and the software in the subscriber unit. One resulting advantage of this invention is that the content provider and not the owner or manufacturer of the PC or of the OS is responsible for determining trust. Another advantage is that when data is stored persistently, the storage key need not be stored with it, and the client need not go back online to obtain a new key. The data can be decrypted at any time by the same OS on the same processor, but cannot be decrypted by an unauthorized OS or on a different processor. Another advantage is that any number of independent Authenticated or non-Authenticated operating systems can be booted serially on the same system. The CPU automatically provides each with independent services for cryptographic key generation and data storage. Moreover, a secure OS can be easily modified for both authentication and security by changing the boot code and checking signatures before loading.
Although the invention has been described in language specific to structural features and/or methodological actions, it is to be understood that the invention defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or actions described. Rather, the specific features and actions are disclosed as preferred forms of implementing the claimed invention.
|Cited Patent
|Filing date
|Publication date
|14 Oct 1986
|2 May 1989
|Personal Library Software, Inc.
|Database usage metering and protection system and method
|19 Jun 1989
|6 Nov 1990
|Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Corporation
|Authentication system and apparatus therefor
|16 Feb 1989
|11 Dec 1990
|Electronic Publishing Resources, Inc.
|Database usage metering and protection system and method
|26 Feb 1990
|9 Apr 1991
|Kelly Services, Inc.
|Computer software encryption apparatus
|30 Sep 1988
|11 Jun 1991
|Apollo Computer, Inc.
|Network license server
|6 Aug 1990
|17 Sep 1991
|Electronic Publishing Resources, Inc.
|Database usage metering and protection system and method
|9 Oct 1991
|18 Aug 1992
|U.S Philips Corporation
|Method and apparatus for authenticating accreditations and for authenticating and signing messages
|1 Jul 1992
|4 Jan 1994
|Hartmut Hennige
|Method and device for simplifying the use of a plurality of credit cards, or the like
|29 Aug 1991
|2 Aug 1994
|Hitachi, Ltd.
|Data processing apparatus having a real memory region with a corresponding fixed memory protection key value and method for allocating memories therefor
|10 May 1993
|20 Sep 1994
|International Business Machines Corporation
|System and method for secure initial program load for diskless workstations
|27 Sep 1994
|25 Apr 1995
|Electronic Publishing Resources, Inc.
|Database usage metering and protection system and method
|16 Jan 1992
|5 Dec 1995
|Gemplus Card International
|Secured method for loading a plurality of applications into a microprocessor memory card
|7 Sep 1994
|5 Dec 1995
|Intel Corporation
|Roving software license for a hardware agent
|14 Jan 1994
|13 Feb 1996
|Bull Hn Information Systems Inc.
|Secure application card for sharing application data and procedures among a plurality of microprocessors
|17 Sep 1993
|6 Aug 1996
|At&T Corp.
|Smartcard adapted for a plurality of service providers and for remote installation of same
|28 Apr 1994
|17 Sep 1996
|Citibank, N.A.
|Trusted agents for open electronic commerce
|21 Feb 1995
|17 Sep 1996
|Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
|System and method for data recovery
|17 May 1996
|22 Apr 1997
|Telequip Corporation
|Encrypted data storage card including smartcard integrated circuit for storing an access password and encryption keys
|1 Dec 1994
|5 Aug 1997
|Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.
|Secure authorization and control method and apparatus for a game delivery service
|17 Oct 1995
|2 Sep 1997
|Northern Telecom Limited
|Method of building fast MACS from hash functions
|30 Aug 1995
|23 Sep 1997
|Citibank, N.A.
|System and method for commercial payments using trusted agents
|13 Sep 1995
|24 Feb 1998
|Microsoft Corporation
|Authentication system and method for smart card transactions
|7 Jun 1995
|28 Apr 1998
|Citibank, N.A.
|Trusted agents for open distribution of electronic money
|12 Dec 1996
|26 May 1998
|Intel Corporation
|Cryptographically protected paging subsystem
|20 Feb 1996
|18 Aug 1998
|Fujitsu Limited
|Storage medium for preventing an irregular use by a third party
|31 May 1996
|1 Sep 1998
|International Business Machines Corporation
|System and method for protecting integrity of alterable ROM using digital signatures
|18 Dec 1995
|22 Sep 1998
|United Microelectronics Corporation
|Method and apparatus to protect computer software
|16 Feb 1995
|22 Sep 1998
|Sega Enterprises, Ltd.
|Program operating apparatus
|23 Aug 1996
|24 Nov 1998
|Cheyenne Property Trust
|Method and apparatus for trusted processing
|12 May 1993
|12 Jan 1999
|Usar Systems, Inc.
|Stored program system with protected memory and secure signature extraction
|30 Jul 1996
|16 Feb 1999
|Itt Industries, Inc.
|Using trusted associations to establish trust in a computer network
|30 Aug 1996
|6 Apr 1999
|Intertrust Technologies Corp.
|Systems and methods for secure transaction management and electronic rights protection
|5 Sep 1996
|6 Apr 1999
|Clark; Paul C.
|Intelligent token protected system with network authentication
|6 Dec 1996
|6 Apr 1999
|Microsoft Corporation
|Code certification for network transmission
|4 Dec 1996
|8 Jun 1999
|Intertrust Technologies Corp.
|Systems and methods for secure transaction management and electronic rights protection
|8 Jan 1997
|22 Jun 1999
|Intertrust Technologies Corp.
|Systems and methods for secure transaction management and electronic rights protection
|8 Jan 1997
|29 Jun 1999
|Intertrust Technologies Corporation
|System and methods for secure transaction management and electronic rights protection
|8 Aug 1997
|6 Jul 1999
|Novell, Inc.
|Networked workstation intrusion detection system
|25 Feb 1997
|6 Jul 1999
|Intertrust Technologies Corp.
|Techniques for defining using and manipulating rights management data structures
|5 Nov 1997
|3 Aug 1999
|Mrj, Inc.
|System for controlling access and distribution of digital property
|29 Jun 1992
|17 Aug 1999
|Infologic Software, Inc.
|Licensing management system and method in which datagrams including an address of a licensee and indicative of use of a licensed product are sent from the licensee's site
|12 Aug 1996
|24 Aug 1999
|Intertrust Technologies Corp.
|Steganographic techniques for securely delivering electronic digital rights management control information over insecure communication channels
|11 Jul 1996
|31 Aug 1999
|Compaq Computer Corporation
|Secure software registration and integrity assessment in a computer system
|8 Jan 1997
|7 Sep 1999
|Intertrust Technologies Corporation
|Systems and methods for secure transaction management and electronic rights protection
|13 Feb 1997
|14 Sep 1999
|Helbig, Sr.; Walter A
|Method and apparatus for enhancing computer system security
|26 Dec 1996
|28 Sep 1999
|Electric Communities
|Trusted delegation system
|6 Dec 1994
|5 Oct 1999
|Gemplus Card International
|Microprocessor-based memory card that limits memory accesses by application programs and method of operation
|8 May 1997
|26 Oct 1999
|Micron Electronics, Inc.
|Apparatus and method to determine cause of failed boot sequence to improve likelihood of successful subsequent boot attempt
|4 Nov 1997
|9 Nov 1999
|Intertrust Technologies Corp.
|Systems and methods for secure transaction management and electronic rights protection
|18 Dec 1997
|23 Nov 1999
|Intel Corporation
|Method for securely distributing a conditional use private key to a trusted entity on a remote system
|1 Apr 1996
|23 Nov 1999
|Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
|Electronic rights management and authorization system
|21 Oct 1997
|21 Dec 1999
|Case Western Reserve University
|Rights management system for digital media
|24 Jun 1997
|28 Dec 1999
|3Com Corporation
|Method and apparatus for automatically updating software components on end systems over a network
|6 Apr 1998
|28 Dec 1999
|Preview Systems, Inc.
|Relicensing of electronically purchased software
|20 Oct 1997
|15 Feb 2000
|Cryptoworx Corporation
|Digitally certifying a user identity and a computer system in combination
|29 Aug 1997
|29 Feb 2000
|Compaq Computer Corporation
|Hardware theft-protection architecture
|11 Mar 1996
|14 Mar 2000
|Microsoft Corporation
|System and method for configuring and managing resources on a multi-purpose integrated circuit card using a personal computer
|15 Jul 1997
|6 Jun 2000
|Shopnow.Com Inc.
|Method and system for securely incorporating electronic information into an online purchasing application
|30 Apr 1998
|18 Jul 2000
|Compaq Computer Corporation
|Channel configuration program server architecture
|2 Jul 1998
|15 Aug 2000
|Intel Corporation
|Method and apparatus for integrity verification, authentication, and secure linkage of software modules
|6 Nov 1997
|29 Aug 2000
|Intertrust Technologies Corporation
|Systems and methods for matching, selecting, narrowcasting, and/or classifying based on rights management and/or other information
|24 Apr 1998
|12 Sep 2000
|International Business Machines Corporation
|System for encrypting broadcast programs in the presence of compromised receiver devices
|27 Apr 1999
|24 Oct 2000
|Intertrust Technologies Corp.
|Techniques for defining, using and manipulating rights management data structures
|23 Aug 1996
|14 Nov 2000
|Hewlett-Packard Company
|Application certification for an international cryptography framework
|18 Jun 1999
|14 Nov 2000
|Phoenix Technologies, Ltd.
|System and method for securely utilizing basic input and output system (BIOS) services
|1 Apr 1998
|14 Nov 2000
|Hewlett-Packard Company
|Apparatus and method for remotely executing commands using distributed computing environment remote procedure calls
|12 Aug 1996
|5 Dec 2000
|Intertrust Technologies Corp.
|Systems and methods using cryptography to protect secure computing environments
|23 Apr 1998
|16 Jan 2001
|Vpnet Technologies, Inc.
|Method and apparatus for swapping a computer operating system
|2 Oct 1998
|6 Feb 2001
|Trustees Of The University Of Pennsylvania
|Secure and reliable bootstrap architecture
|28 Dec 1998
|6 Feb 2001
|Intertrust Technologies Corp.
|Trusted and secure techniques, systems and methods for item delivery and execution
|30 Jun 1998
|13 Feb 2001
|Microsoft Corporation
|Ensuring the integrity of remote boot client data
|24 Dec 1996
|20 Feb 2001
|Pitney Bowes Inc.
|System and method for mutual authentication and secure communications between a postage security device and a meter server
|1 May 1997
|3 Apr 2001
|Itt Manufacturing Enterprises
|Method for establishing trust in a computer network via association
|30 Apr 1998
|24 Apr 2001
|Compaq Computer Corporation
|Method and apparatus for remote ROM flashing and security management for a computer system
|14 Jul 1997
|8 May 2001
|Entrust Technologies, Ltd.
|Method and apparatus for access to user-specific encryption information
|8 Sep 1998
|8 May 2001
|Symantec Corporation
|Boot failure recovery
|17 Jun 1999
|29 May 2001
|Intertrust Technologies Corp.
|Systems and methods for secure transaction management and electronic rights protection
|10 Feb 1999
|29 May 2001
|Intertrust Technologies Corporation
|Steganographic techniques for securely delivering electronic digital rights management control information over insecure communication channels
|9 Dec 1998
|26 Jun 2001
|Intertrust Technologies Corporation
|Systems and methods for the secure transaction management and electronic rights protection
|31 Dec 1998
|17 Jul 2001
|Intle Corporation
|Operating system bootstrap security mechanism
|29 Dec 1998
|7 Aug 2001
|Intel Corporation
|Method and apparatus for establishing network connection for a processor without an operating system boot
|4 Oct 2000
|18 Sep 2001
|Intertrust Technologies Corp.
|Systems and methods using cryptography to protect secure computing environments
|8 Jan 1999
|4 Dec 2001
|Microsoft Corporation
|Loading and identifying a digital rights management operating system
|18 Sep 1998
|4 Dec 2001
|Intel Corporation
|Method for securing communications in a pre-boot environment
|21 Dec 1998
|11 Dec 2001
|Philips Electronics North America Corporation
|Verification of software agents and agent activities
|24 Jul 1998
|8 Jan 2002
|Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba
|Information reproducing apparatus, authenticating apparatus, and information processing system
|1 Dec 2000
|22 Jan 2002
|Liberate Technologies
|Secure data downloading, recovery and upgrading
|5 Jun 1998
|26 Mar 2002
|Intel Corporation
|Method of controlling usage of software components
|7 Jun 1999
|26 Mar 2002
|Intertrust Technologies Corp.
|Systems and methods for secure transaction management and electronic rights protection
|6 Dec 1996
|2 Apr 2002
|Microsoft Corporation
|Embedding certifications in executable files for network transmission
|18 May 1998
|30 Apr 2002
|Liberate Technologies
|Secure data downloading, recovery and upgrading
|9 Jun 1999
|14 May 2002
|Intertrust Technologies Corp.
|Systems and methods for secure transaction management and electronic rights protection
|23 Apr 1999
|14 May 2002
|Intel Corporation
|Platform and method for assuring integrity of trusted agent communications
|3 Sep 1999
|30 Jul 2002
|Intertrust Technologies Corp.
|Systems and methods for secure transaction management and electronic rights protection
|23 Feb 2001
|10 Sep 2002
|Intertrust Technologies Corp.
|Steganographic techniques for securely delivering electronic digital rights management control information over insecure communication channels
|29 Aug 1999
|5 Nov 2002
|Intel Corporation
|Digital video content transmission ciphering and deciphering method and apparatus
|23 Mar 1997
|5 Nov 2002
|Novell, Inc.
|Trusted workstation in a networked client/server computing system
|2 Mar 1999
|12 Nov 2002
|Audible, Inc.
|Secure streaming of digital audio/visual content
|21 Jan 1999
|6 May 2003
|Intel Corporation
|Interface for ensuring system boot image integrity and authenticity
|6 Apr 1999
|19 Aug 2003
|Microsoft Corporation
|Method and apparatus for authenticating an open system application to a portable IC device
|25 Mar 2002
|28 Oct 2003
|Intertrust Technologies Corporation
|Systems and methods for secure transaction management and electronic rights protection
|14 Aug 1998
|11 May 2004
|Intel Corporation
|Digital content protection using a secure booting method and apparatus
|8 Jan 1999
|16 Nov 2004
|Microsoft Corporation
|Controlling access to content based on certificates and access predicates
|18 Mar 1998
|18 Jul 2006
|British Telecommunications Public Limited Company
|Copy protection of data
|11 Aug 1997
|17 Jan 2002
|Chandler Brendan Stanton Traw
|Content protection for digital transmission systems
|10 Sep 1999
|6 Jun 2002
|Christopher J. Howard
|Limited-use browser and security system
|"Facing An Internet Security Minefield Microsoft Hardens NT Server's Defenses" Windows Watcher Sep. 12, 1997 Issue 9 8 pages.
|"Internet Security: SanDisk Products and New Microsoft Technology Provide Copy Protected Music for Internet Music Player Market. (Product Announcement)", Edge: Work Group Computing Report, Apr. 19, 1999, 2 pages.
|"Phoenix Technologies Partners with Secure Computing in Enterprise Security Marketplace", Business Wife, Courtesy of Dialog Text Search, pp. 1-2, Jul. 2001.
|Abadi et al., "Authentication and Delegation with Smart-cards", Jul. 30, 1992, 30 pages.
|Arbaugh et al., "A Secure and Reliable Bootstrap Architecture", Distributed Systems Laboratory, Philadelphia, PA, 1997, pp. 65-71.
|Arbaugh, A Secure and Reliable Bootstrap Architecture, 1996, pp. 1-7.
|Arbaugh, et al., "A Secure and Reliable Bootstrap Architecture", Assumptions, pp. 1-7, Dec. 1996.
|Arbaugh, William A. et al., "A Secure and Reliable Bootstrap Architecture", 1997 IEEE, pp. 65-71.
|Clark et al., "Bits: A Smartcard Protected Operating System", Communications of the ACM, vol. 37, No. 11, Nov. 1994, pp. 66-70, 94.
|Clark, Paul C. et al., "BITS: A Smartcard Protected Operating System", Communications of the ACM, Nov. 1994, vol. 37, No. 11, pp. 66-70, 94.
|Feiertag, et al., "The Foundations of a provably secure operating system( PSOS)", California Proceedings of the National Computer Conference AFIPS Press, 1979, pp. 329-334.
|Lampson et al., "Authentication in Distributed Systems: Theory and Practice", Digital Equipment Corporation, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, vol. 10, No. 4, Nov. 1992, pp. 265-310.
|Lampson, Butler et al., "Authentication in Distributed Systems: Theory and Practice", ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, vol. 10, No. 4, Nov. 1992, pp. 265-310.
|M. Kuhn, "The TrustNo 1 Cryptoprocessor Concept", email@example.com, pp. 1-6, Apr. 1997.
|McKenzie, Seybold Report on Internet Publishing, vol. 1, No. 4, p. 6(9), Dec. 1996.
|Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, Third Edition, published by Microsoft Press, Copyright 1997, pp. 27, 34, and 341.
|Murphy et al., "Preventing Piracy: Authorization Software May Ease Hollywood's Fear of the Net", Internet World Magazine, Apr. 1, 2000, 3 pages.
|Schneier, B., "Applied Cryptography", Applied Cryptography. Protocols, Algoriths, and Source Code in C, 1996, pp. 574-577.
|Stallings, Cryptography and Network Security, 1999, 2nd Edition, pp. 186-187.
|Stallings, Cryptography and Network Security, 1999, Prentice Hall, 2nd Edition, pp. 143-147.
|Yee, "Using Secure Coprocessors", School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, 1994, 104 pages.
|Yee, Bennet, "Using Secure Coprocessors", School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1994, 104 pages.
|Young, Robbin, "Facing an Internet Security Minefield, Microsoft Hardens NT Server Defenses", Windows Watcher, Sep. 12, 1997, vol. 7 Issue 9, p. 1, 6p, 1 chart.
|Citing Patent
|Filing date
|Publication date
|14 Jul 2003
|20 Nov 2007
|Texas Instruments Incorporated
|Indirect data protection using random key encryption
|27 Feb 2004
|31 Mar 2009
|Panasonic Corporation
|Application authentication system, secure device, and terminal device
|3 Feb 2006
|22 Nov 2011
|Sony Computer Entertainment Inc.
|Methods and apparatus for content control using processor resource management
|20 Jun 2007
|17 Jan 2012
|Microsoft Corporation
|Securely providing advertising subsidized computer usage
|14 Jul 2003
|21 Feb 2012
|Texas Instruments Incorporated
|Secure management of configuration parameters in a computing platform
|14 Jun 2005
|8 May 2012
|Microsoft Corporation
|Special PC mode entered upon detection of undesired state
|1 Jul 2004
|29 May 2012
|Jp Morgan Chase Bank
|Portable security transaction protocol
|12 Sep 2005
|18 Dec 2012
|Microsoft Corporation
|Tuning product policy using observed evidence of customer behavior
|20 Dec 2004
|1 Jan 2013
|Microsoft Corporation
|Device certificate individualization
|8 Jun 2005
|8 Jan 2013
|Microsoft Corporation
|System and method for delivery of a modular operating system
|24 Aug 2010
|26 Mar 2013
|Scott C. Harris
|Protection against unintentional file changing
|27 Apr 2005
|7 May 2013
|Microsoft Corporation
|Secure clock with grace periods
|19 Jan 2009
|11 Jun 2013
|Globalfoundries Inc.
|Computer system comprising a secure boot mechanism on the basis of symmetric key encryption
|22 Dec 2004
|11 Jun 2013
|Microsoft Corporation
|Isolated computing environment anchored into CPU and motherboard
|6 Dec 2010
|12 Nov 2013
|Lg Electronics Inc.
|Digital broadcast receiver and booting method of digital broadcast receiver
|16 Apr 2012
|12 Nov 2013
|Jp Morgan Chase Bank
|Portable security transaction protocol
|26 Dec 2007
|31 Dec 2013
|Nokia Corporation
|Methods, apparatuses, and computer program products for providing a secure predefined boot sequence
|28 Jun 2007
|4 Feb 2014
|Microsoft Corporation
|Secure time source operations for digital rights management
|31 Jan 2008
|25 Feb 2014
|Microsoft Corporation
|Individualized per device initialization of computing devices in avoidance of mass exploitation of vulnerabilities
|28 Jun 2007
|25 Feb 2014
|Microsoft Corporation
|Provisioning a computing system for digital rights management
|28 Jun 2007
|1 Apr 2014
|Microsoft Corporation
|Secure storage for digital rights management
|21 Mar 2008
|15 Apr 2014
|Microsoft Corporation
|Issuing a publisher use license off-line in a digital rights management (DRM) system
|21 Mar 2008
|29 Apr 2014
|Sony Corporation
|Apparatus and method for an iterative cryptographic block
|8 Jul 2010
|6 May 2014
|Microsoft Corporation
|Issuing a publisher use license off-line in a digital rights management (DRM) system
|15 Apr 2005
|13 May 2014
|Microsoft Corporation
|Output protection levels
|13 Jul 2010
|15 Jul 2014
|Microsoft Corporation
|Extensible media rights
|30 Jun 2011
|12 May 2015
|Dell Products L.P.
|System and method for providing an image to an information handling system
|3 Dec 2012
|11 Aug 2015
|Imation Corp.
|Recovering from unexpected flash drive removal
|3 Dec 2012
|8 Sep 2015
|Imation Corp.
|Preboot environment with system security check
|20 Feb 2014
|29 Sep 2015
|Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc
|Provisioning a computing system for digital rights management
|23 Feb 2009
|17 Nov 2015
|Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc
|Protected computing environment
|11 Dec 2012
|29 Dec 2015
|Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc
|Tuning product policy using observed evidence of customer behavior
|13 Apr 2015
|5 Jan 2016
|Dell Products L.P.
|System and method for providing an image to an information handling system
|6 Feb 2012
|10 May 2016
|Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc
|Device certificate individualization
|27 Apr 2005
|7 Jun 2016
|Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc
|Protected media pipeline
|3 Dec 2012
|30 Aug 2016
|Kingston Digital, Inc.
|Bootability with multiple logical unit numbers
|28 Jul 2015
|30 Aug 2016
|Kingston Digital, Inc.
|Preboot environment with system security check
|15 Sep 2005
|6 Sep 2016
|Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc
|Establishing a unique session key using a hardware functionality scan
|24 Aug 2015
|1 Aug 2017
|Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba
|Mobile electronic device
|14 Jul 2003
|5 Feb 2004
|Jerome Azema
|Secure management of configuration parameters in a computing platform
|14 Jul 2003
|18 Mar 2004
|Alain Chateau
|Indirect data protection using random key encryption
|27 Feb 2004
|2 Sep 2004
|Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
|Application authentication system, secure device, and terminal device
|23 Jun 2003
|13 Jan 2005
|Nokia, Inc.
|Method and system for operating system anti-tampering
|1 Jul 2004
|28 Apr 2005
|Benson Glenn S.
|Portable security transaction protocol
|20 Dec 2004
|20 Apr 2006
|Microsoft Corporation
|Device certificate individualization
|22 Oct 2004
|27 Apr 2006
|Microsoft Corporation
|License synchronization
|15 Nov 2004
|18 May 2006
|Microsoft Corporation
|Method and apparatus for dynamically activating/deactivating an operating system
|12 Sep 2005
|18 May 2006
|Microsoft Corporation
|Tuning product policy using observed evidence of customer behavior
|22 Dec 2004
|18 May 2006
|Microsoft Corporation
|Isolated computing environment anchored into CPU and motherboard
|14 Jun 2005
|18 May 2006
|Microsoft Corporation
|Special PC mode entered upon detection of undesired state
|30 Dec 2004
|13 Jul 2006
|Parmar Pankaj N
|System and method for implementing network security using a sequestered partition
|13 Feb 2006
|21 Sep 2006
|Microsoft Corporation
|Rendering digital content in an encrypted rights-protected form
|27 Apr 2005
|26 Oct 2006
|Microsoft Corporation
|Protected computing environment
|8 Jun 2005
|14 Dec 2006
|Microsoft Corporation
|System and method for delivery of a modular operating system
|22 Jul 2005
|25 Jan 2007
|John Rudelic
|Method and apparatus capable of disabling authenticated operations and guaranteed secure boot in a wireless platform
|8 Sep 2006
|15 Mar 2007
|Black Jeffery D
|Methods and devices for copy protection of software
|19 Oct 2005
|19 Apr 2007
|Mod Systems
|Distribution of selected digitally-encoded content to a storage device, user device, or other distribution target with concurrent rendering of selected content
|3 Feb 2006
|2 Aug 2007
|Sony Computer Entertainment Inc.
|Methods and apparatus for content control using processor resource management
|5 Mar 2007
|20 Sep 2007
|Sandisk Il Ltd.
|Controlled-Access Recording Generator
|20 Jun 2007
|18 Oct 2007
|Microsoft Corporation
|Securely Providing Advertising Subsidized Computer Usage
|21 Mar 2008
|17 Jul 2008
|Brant Candelore
|Apparatus and method for an iterative cryptographic block
|6 Feb 2008
|4 Sep 2008
|Cybernet Systems Corporation
|Hardware-assisted rootkit blocker for networked computers
|28 Jun 2007
|1 Jan 2009
|Microsoft Corporation
|Secure time source operations for digital rights management
|28 Jun 2007
|1 Jan 2009
|Microsoft Corporation
|Provisioning a computing system for digital rights management
|28 Jun 2007
|1 Jan 2009
|Microsoft Corporation
|Secure storage for digital rights management
|25 Dec 2007
|25 Jun 2009
|Sandisk Il Ltd.
|Secured storage device
|26 Dec 2007
|2 Jul 2009
|Nokia Corporation
|Methods, apparatuses, and computer program products for providing a secure predefined boot sequence
|31 Jan 2008
|6 Aug 2009
|Microsoft Corporation
|One time settable tamper resistant software repository
|19 Jan 2009
|5 Nov 2009
|Michael Grell
|Computer system comprising a secure boot mechanism on the basis of symmetric key encryption
|12 May 2009
|18 Nov 2010
|Microsoft Corporation
|Runtime analysis of software privacy issues
|24 Aug 2010
|16 Dec 2010
|Harris Scott C
|Protection against unintentional file changing
|6 Dec 2010
|9 Jun 2011
|Lg Electronics Inc.
|Digital broadcast receiver and booting method of digital broadcast receiver
|30 Jun 2011
|3 Jan 2013
|Dell Products L.P.
|System and method for providing an image to an information handling system
|24 Aug 2015
|10 Mar 2016
|Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba
|Mobile electronic device
|3 Dec 2013
|12 Jun 2014
|Imation Corp.
|Preboot environment with system security check
|U.S. Classification
|713/168, 713/176, 713/181
|International Classification
|Cooperative Classification
|European Classification
|6 Jul 1999
Owner name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION, WASHINGTON
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:ENGLAND, PAUL;DETREVILLE, JOHN D.;LAMPSON, BUTLER W.;REEL/FRAME:010068/0183;SIGNING DATES FROM 19990507 TO 19990615
|8 Jul 2010
|Fee payment
Year of fee payment: 4
|25 Jul 2014
|Fee payment
Year of fee payment: 8
|9 Dec 2014
Owner name: MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, LLC, WASHINGTON
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:MICROSOFT CORPORATION;REEL/FRAME:034541/0001
Effective date: 20141014


text:
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital isn't just the brand with the most loyal following on Facebook, according to social research firm Louddoor. It is
by a mile.
Louddoor based its list on what it calls a "Net Promoter Score," which it calculates from surveys of Facebook fans. St. Jude's score was 77.8. The
next-highest brand was Facebook with 66.6.
How exactly did St. Jude pull that off? John Avola, senior liaison for interactive marketing, social, and mobile, says it's all about giving as much as you
"I honestly believe, being in the social realm every day, loyalty really is a two-way street," he says. "We at St. Jude are just as loyal back to our fans
as they are to us."
What's particularly interesting about St. Jude's rise to the top of the Facebook loyalty rankings is that it got there without gimmicks or jokes. The brand
sticks to a "straightforward, but uplifting" tenor, Avola says, and it works.
St. Jude joined Facebook back in 2007, but a recent idea, launched in July 2012, has really boosted
engagement, Avola says. It isn't a game or a "like"-gated sweepstakes. It's a weekly feature that spotlights a patient; it's called "St. Jude Moments."
Each focuses on a kid and an activity that kids at St. Jude can do.
"At first, we weren't sure how long this was going to last. What we found was the engagement has increased substantially from the first post to today," he
The earliest St. Jude moments were quite popular—one from July 9 earned more
than 15,000 "likes" and 300 comments. They've definitely grown in terms of engagement, though. One from Feb. 18 has netted nearly
27,000 "likes" and 580 comments.
Nicola Ziady, St. Jude's director of marketing and communications, says those posts are an example of how St. Jude aims to "un-market" its Facebook fans.
Before selling them something or pushing for donations, it appeals to them as human beings.
"We're reminded on a daily basis what we're here for and who we're doing this for," she says.
Avola adds that the lack of gimmicks on the page is intentional. Not every Facebook post gets through to fans, so the ones that do need to be shareable and
"We know that every post is so important," he says. "The goal behind every post is not necessarily looking at our initial audience, our current fans, but
our ultimate audience, friends of our fans."
An honest tone
When St. Jude asked fans to vote for PGA golfer Brian Gay in a player-of-the-month poll,
it didn't do so with jokes or sarcasm. It just asked outright, noting that the hospital would receive $25,000 if Gay won. He did.
"Our brand is a true brand," Ziady says. "It's an honest brand. We're a true reflection of our patients and our donors."
That extends not just to what's written on the Facebook page, but to its visual identity, as well. A quick scroll through St. Jude's Facebook page reveals
again and again that, even though the kids are enduring hardships, they're smiling. Ziady says that's meant to evoke the feeling of actually being at St.
"It's so inspiring and invigorating to look at [our patients]," she says.
Ziady says the tone is something of a response to the question, "Would you 'like' yourself?"
"If there was a 'love' button, I'd click that as well," she says.
Avola adds that the approach to messaging isn't limited to Facebook, either. St. Jude aims for a similar tone in its advertising, emails, and even direct
mail. Everything works together as one unit.
Avola says St. Jude tries to spread as much love as it can to its 1.1 million fans, constantly thanking them for their help in situations such as the PGA
poll. The social media team tries to answer every comment and question, too, he says.
For example, when St. Jude quickly sold out of
a Valentine's Day T-shirt it was highlighting on the Facebook page, people left comments voicing their frustration. The team quickly let those commenters know the issue was being addressed.
"We wanted to acknowledge as quickly as we could, you know, we're aware," Avola says. "We were on the phone with our merchandise team. It was exciting and
scary at the same time."
Home | Social Media | Media Relations | Crisis | Marketing | Writing & Editing | Events | Training | Awards | Videos
Ragan.com | HealthCareCommunication.com | Ragan Consulting | RaganTraining.com | PR-University.com
About Us | Contributors | Contact Us | Host a PR Daily Event | Sponsorship | Custom Workshop | Custom Content
FAQ | RSS | Store | Privacy Policy | Site Map

subset: commoncrawl


text:
All quotes tagged Crowd
(1032 quotes found)
"I tried to sneak around the crowd, but a kid recognized me. I ended up going behind a ticket counter and signed autographs until there was no one left. That was at 6 a.m."
"For me, winning isn't something that happens suddenly on the field when the whistle blows and the crowds roar. Winning is something that builds physically and mentally every day that you train and every night that you dream."
"The attraction of the virtuoso for the public is very like that of the circus for the crowd. There is always the hope that something dangerous will happen."
"If there's some stupid guy in the crowd, like there usually is, I'll just break the ice by kicking him ... That usually gets everyone really happy because chances are he's been annoying everyone the whole day."
"They really put on a show [and] make sure the crowd is thoroughly impressed. Their shows are a lot of fun and its proven in the fact that they had so many fans and sold out shows for so many years."


text:
Join MLSsoccer.com's Jackie Pickering and Nick Firchau as they travel from LA to Vancouver, checking in on all the West Coast teams, meeting with fans, and stopping into adidas HQ in Portland to pick up the game ball for First Kick on March 15 at Qwest Field.
Follow the Road Trip here
There are six days left until the ball starts rolling at First Kick, and the countdown continues with some MLS sixes ...
Southern Hemisphere 6: The number of South Americans who have won the MLS MVP award, including the current MVP, Colombian attacker David Ferreira of FC Dallas.
Original 6, Part 1: The number of original teams to have won the MLS Cup (expansion teams Chicago, Houston and Real Salt Lake have each won at least one Cup, while originals New York, New England and Dallas have no Cup wins).
Original 6, Part 2: The number of original teams to have won the Supporters' Shield (expansion teams Chicago and Miami have each won the Shield, while originals Colorado, Dallas, New York and New England have never brought it home).
Hollywood 6: Appearances by LA Galaxy in the MLS Cup, the most in the league.
Shot-stopping 6: Number of times the MLS Goalkeeper of the Year has brought home either the MLS Cup or Shield.
Six-ez: Current MLS plays with last names beginning with "Z." They are Steve Zakuani (Seattle), Cesar Zamora and Ben Zemanski (Chivas USA), Jed Zayner (D.C. United), Sal Zizzo (Portland) and Graham Zusi (Kansas City).
Canadian 6: Total goals Jeff Cunningham scored in 16 games with Toronto FC.
A Bunch of 6: Osvaldo Alonso, Nat Borchers, Ousmane Dabo, Julian de Guzman, Jackson Goncalves, Ike Opara, Andy Iro, Shavar Thomas and Ante Jazic will all wear No. 6 this year.
Past 6: Ian Bishop, Jose Burciaga, Danny Pena, Joe Vide and A.J. Wood are on the list of sixes from MLS' past.
Home 6: The number of soccer-specific stadiums in the Eastern Conference once LIVESTRONG Sporting Park opens in June.
New 6: The number of expansion teams MLS has added since the 2007 season. Along with this year's additions of Portland and Vancouver, there are Toronto FC (2007), San Jose (2008), Seattle (2009) and Philadelphia (2010).


text:
In Not Fade Away, we take a look at the legacy of some of the greatest albums of the past few decades – some iconic, some lesser known – as they celebrate significant anniversaries. Here, we focus on Billy Joel's breakthrough album, 1973's 'Piano Man,' as it turns 40. Radio.com spoke with singer/songwriter Gavin DeGraw album the album, and Billy Joel's impact on him.
It was nearly a year ago that Billy Joel blew pretty much everyone off the stage — the Rolling Stones, Kanye West, the Who, Chris Martin of Coldplay and Alicia Keys included — at the 12-12-12 concert at Madison Square Garden. The show raised funds for the Robin Hood Foundation to help people in the tri-state area affected by Superstorm Sandy. Besides raising much needed money for a great cause, the show also seemed to serve to remind many what a great performer the guy is, and how great his songs are. He's in the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame, the Songwriters Hall Of Fame, and next month, he'll be one of the honorees at the Kennedy Center Honors. And yet, he always seems to be underrated: he's never been a critical darling. More than that, he's rarely cited as an influence by other artists.
Gavin DeGraw is an exception to that rule. I interviewed him in 2003 when I worked for VH1 News, as he was promoting Chariot, his debut album for J Records. DeGraw spoke about Billy's impact – a lot. I hadn't seen Gavin since then, but when he came to Radio.com's offices to talk about his new album, Make A Move, I asked if he could spare a few minutes to talk about Billy Joel in general, and Piano Man specifically. It turned out that he was, indeed, able to spare a few minutes. More than a few. In fact, after I said, "So I'm writing a piece on Billy Joel's Piano Man," I barely said anything else for 15 minutes, and I didn't need to.
"It's funny: maybe a lot of people don't cite Billy Joel as an influence," he said. "For me, I was 15 when I went to see him in concert and saw him play. Prior to that, I wanted to be an opthamologist. I wanted to make the blind see, like Jesus. I'm at this concert, and I see the joy in these people's faces as he's playing these songs, I saw them just overwhelmed with joy. And it was the first time I regarded music as medicine. Prior to that, I thought that music would be a selfish occupation. A selfish decision for a career, completely self-serving. When I saw how it affected people, that's the first time I thought that music was medicine, or at least a form of medicine. After the concert, I told my family, 'I know what I want to do now. I want to do that.' My father said, 'It looks like fun, doesn't it?' and I said 'Yeah, it looks like fun.' And he said, 'Then that's what you'll do.' Just like that."
(Gavin DeGraw/photo credit: Ben Horton, Getty Images)
A lot of artists may use the phrase "it changed my life" when describing another artist's impact on them. But Billy Joel really did change DeGraw's life. And like Joel, DeGraw would go on to write in a down-to-earth, sincere way, a way that rarely curries the favor of critics, doesn't appeal to hipsters, but does resonate with lots of people who don't fit into either category.
"When I think back on the Piano Man record, not just the song, but so many of the songs, you're looking at a young artist's early attempt at reaching the world, right? At getting out of the barroom and reaching the public. The beauty is that the barroom is the public." Of course, when talking about Piano Man, it's hard not to talk about "Piano Man," and DeGraw sees his own life in that song.
"I can feel where he's coming from. He brought you into the fishbowl of 'piano bar society' and what's it's like to be a piano player in a piano bar. I used to go to a piano bar here in New York City, called Don't Tell Mama, in the theater district. I'd go in there after I finished writing a song. I got friendly with the staff there. I'd go in and say, 'Hey I finished a song, can I play it tonight?' Tourists would always go to that bar, and I wanted to see how that song would translate (with them). It would give me a baromter if the material was any good. After I spent time there, I got to know the staff, I got to know the regulars. There really is a society there. Maybe someone (there) used to do musial theater. But they make better money working at the bar, singing two songs a night, than they were making working on Broadway. Maybe someone else there, like the piano player, also makes a living doing voice over work. Another buddy of mine, he got out of the bar, he became the piano player for Ringing Brothers and Barnum Bailey Circus." But back to Joel's piano bar: "There's so many stories, story upon story upon story in one setting. As many people that are in there, there's an autobiography for each, and there's a pile of dreams. That's the beauty of that song."
"(Billy) was really cutting his teeth in public. He was really portraying his perspective and telling his story about what it was like, with that song or 'The Ballad Of Billy The Kid.' To turn that story into a western – from Long Island. What a cool concept, he's a great writer. I feel like I'm seeing things through his eyes when he sings his songs."
His powers of observation are in full display on the title track, but also on the much lesser-known "Stop In Nevada," about a woman leaving a failed marriage to go to California. "She tried for years to be a good wife/It never quite got off the ground/And all those stories of the good life/Convinced her not to hang around." DeGraw comments, "He's a writer who can put himself in the shoes of the subject matter. It's as if he can tell the story from the perspective of anyone's life, like an actor. The stories are told in such a way that you feel like you're there. It's a very difficult thing (for a songwriter) to do. But seemingly very easy for him."
Another outstanding track is "You're My Home," which Joel famously wrote for his first wife when he couldn't afford to buy her a gift. DeGraw relates to that as well: "It's what a poor musician would do, feeling broken about their ability to provide for somebody. So much of it, when I hear it, it feels like a man's persepctive, who feels like he's unable to provide 100%, which is perhaps a different burden for men. The classic expectation of what it is to be a man – that was written in 1973, an era where that really existed. It's a plea. 'Even if we're gonna lose our home, you're my home.' It's a beautiful sentiment."
Of course, it is also sung beautifully. "I think Billy Joel is one of the most underrated singers in pop music, period. It's funny to me that it's never mentioned: what an excellent singer he is. And he's able to deliver great singing while telling a story. Not getting caught up in the emotion of riffing, because riffing really isn't that hard. It's hard not to riff. He put taste before everything else, and that's my favorite thing about him."
Joel has scaled back his touring over the past few years, and there are often rumors of him retiring from the road. But he's just announced a few new shows, including one on New Year's Eve at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn. Former critical favorites the piano driven trio Ben Folds Five is opening, so who knows – maybe Billy Joel will end up as a hip influence to future waves of sincere piano-based rock acts. Whether or not that happens, the sixty-something year old will likely fill arenas with audience of all ages for as long as he wants to do it.
"The draw of him is that he makes everything so relatable," DeGraw says. "He's one of the greatest of the 20th century. Really. And if he puts another album out, he'll be one of the greatest of the 21st century."
— Brian Ives, Radio.com


text:
July 10, 2009
Insanely Envious!! Alphie from TwiLex Wears Edward's Jacket
13 comments:
- AnonymousJuly 10, 2009 at 7:33 PM
That doesn't look like the real one--too big and the flap on the side is missing plus it has metal buckles. You can retract the gah!ReplyDelete
LOL. thanks! :-) heheReplyDelete
I doubt it's the real one but a cool picture just the same :)ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJuly 10, 2009 at 8:33 PM
Oh good, if it's there maybe that means it won't appear in New Moon. I hated that coat! (Although I admit, if it still had 'Edward's' scent I'd snag it:-)ReplyDelete
Are you trying to make me fall for it?I actually did.I was so JEALOUS , AND REALLY MAD looking @ that pic.But i went to the google images and typed Edward Cullen and i looked a both of the pics ; something was missing in the pic from above that you posted..... I can't believe i fell for it!Agh!Now i feel like retard!ReplyDelete
And when did Edward gained weight , that jacket is BIG! I think i should see a therpist for my BIG,Twilight promblem since i had , since November 21,2008.
That looks awfully baggy. Unles she's a Hobbit or somthing, that coat looks like it came from the Big and Tall stores.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJuly 10, 2009 at 10:07 PM
it was probably ONE of the real ones.ReplyDelete
there are always multiple copies of all costumes for a movie. several different ones for the main actor, as well as another set for any stand ins/stunt doubles.
- AnonymousJuly 10, 2009 at 10:33 PM
Yeah that coat is too baggy. If it's big on her, it definately would be big on Rpattz. Anyway, I loved Edward in the peacoat, oh so hott!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJuly 11, 2009 at 12:50 AM
the one in the movie is blue and that one is tan.ReplyDelete
i dun think it is as same as the one in the muvie..ReplyDelete
of course it has to be BLUE! not TAN..or others!
- AnonymousJuly 11, 2009 at 10:50 PM
She looks a little old to be pulling that kind a thing - have a little respect for yourself!ReplyDelete
I couldn't even look when they posted this pic on Twitter bc I was so jealous. I feel your pain TwiCrack. It wasn't until now that I could look.ReplyDelete
The guy who brought the costume displays to the con had a peacoat like Edward's but in his size, and he was a BIG guy. This is probably HIS coat.ReplyDelete


text:
This route has my name on it! I plan on coming to the US in '12 with my own bike (from Holland) and tour the country for some time. I'm looking for great routes to get the 'poor lonesome cowboy and a long way from home' feeling. This seems very appropiate. I did enough gravel/dirt roads om my RT (I dubbed it a RT-Adventure) so it shouldn't be a problem. I only need to avoid the deep sand.
Is there any way to get a more detailed description of the route? I'm trying to piece it together from the report, but if you have some stuff like a GPS track or whatever, it would make my life a lot easier. Although finding great routes is half the fun of traveling.
What are recommended maps to take with me for travelling in the US by the way? I have Garmin Z??mo but I can see in MapSource that a lot of backroads are missing. And a paper map is always good to keep handy, and much easier to ask for directions than a tiny screen.
This RR is great stuff! I hope I can do equally good on my RR of my coming road trip through the US next year.