Just because some cars have anti-theft devices that can be defeated in
seconds doesn't make all auto anti-theft devices useless.
so you have currently have an environment that has no protection and
everything is totally wide open.
lets say a hardware chip that currently has no tamper
- Original Message -
From: Ben Laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The important part for this, is that TCPA has no key until it has an
owner,
and the owner can wipe the TCPA at any time. From what I can tell this
was
designed for resale of components, but is perfectly suitable as a point
of
Joseph Ashwood wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Ben Laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joseph Ashwood wrote:
There is nothing stopping a virtualized version being created.
What prevents this from being useful is the lack of an appropriate
certificate for the private key in the TPM.
This is going to be a very long, and very boring message. But it should
highlight why we have differing opinions about so very many capabilities of
the TCPA system. For the sake of attempting to avoid supplying too little
information, I have simply searched for the term and will make comments on
Joe Ashwood writes:
Actually that does nothing to stop it. Because of the construction of TCPA,
the private keys are registered _after_ the owner receives the computer,
this is the window of opportunity against that as well.
Actually, this is not true for the endoresement key, PUBEK/PRIVEK,
Phew... the document is certainly tortuous, and has a large number of
similarly and confusingly named credentials, certificates and keys,
however from what I can tell this is what is going on:
Summary: I think the endorsement key and it's hardware manufacturers
certificate is generated at
I think a number of the apparent conflicts go away if you carefully
track endorsement key pair vs endorsement certificate (signature on
endorsement key by hw manufacturer). For example where it is said
that the endorsement _certificate_ could be inserted after ownership
has been established (not
Joseph Ashwood wrote:
Lately on both of these lists there has been quite some discussion about
TCPA and Palladium, the good, the bad, the ugly, and the anonymous. :)
However there is something that is very much worth noting, at least about
TCPA.
There is nothing stopping a virtualized
At 10:58 PM 8/13/2002 -0700, Joseph Ashwood wrote:
Lately on both of these lists there has been quite some discussion
about TCPA and Palladium, the good, the bad, the ugly, and the
anonymous. :) However there is something that is very much worth
noting, at least about TCPA.
There is nothing
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Joseph Ashwood wrote:
However there is something that is very much worth noting, at least about
TCPA.
There is nothing stopping a virtualized version being created.
There is nothing that stops say VMWare from synthesizing a system view that
includes a virtual TCPA
- Original Message -
From: Ben Laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joseph Ashwood wrote:
There is nothing stopping a virtualized version being created.
What prevents this from being useful is the lack of an appropriate
certificate for the private key in the TPM.
Actually that does nothing to
11 matches
Mail list logo
