...and he provides a critical rejoinder to grandparent who misunderstood what BluePill does (or rather what it claims it does).

Grandparent seems to think that BluePill merely is a mal-VMM that sits between any guest OS and the host OS. So the guest OS won't know that he's being thwarted. What these folks are claiming is two-fold:

• They'll do what SubVirt did -- move the VMM which is usually operating as a process on a host OS below that host OS. So, not only are all the guest OSs not going to know a/b the the mal-VMM, but also the host OS itself effectively becomes another guest OS.
• Unlike SubVirt which required that the mal-VMM exploit a vulnerability in the *host OS* in order to do this swallowing-up of the host OS, these folks' claim is that there are generic mechanisms to inject code into the Vista kernel. And these generic mechanisms are sufficient for this subversion.
• Moreover, they're saying that this is the case, despite security mechanisms in Vista that prevent kernel-mode code from running if that code is not signed (by a trusted party).

Anyway these are some pretty tall claims (particularly, re: the ability to inject arbitrary code into the Vista kernel). I initially thought the same thing as the grandparent: that they were saying that you could create a mal-VMM so that any VM running on that mal-VMM would not be able to detect the badness of the VMM (which is pretty trivial, actually).