David Wagner wrote:
Ben Laurie wrote:
Mike Rosing wrote:
The purpose of TCPA as spec'ed is to remove my control and
make the platform trusted to one entity. That entity has the master
key to the TPM.
Now, if the spec says I can install my own key into the TPM, then yes,
it is a very useful
Mike Rosing wrote:
The difference is fundamental: I can change every bit of flash in my BIOS.
I can not change *anything* in the TPM. *I* control my BIOS. IF, and
only IF, I can control the TPM will I trust it to extend my trust to
others. The purpose of TCPA as spec'ed is to remove my
On 11 Aug 2002, David Wagner wrote:
Ben Laurie wrote:
Mike Rosing wrote:
The purpose of TCPA as spec'ed is to remove my control and
make the platform trusted to one entity. That entity has the master
key to the TPM.
Now, if the spec says I can install my own key into the TPM, then
Mike Rosing wrote:
Why exactly is this so much more of a threat than, say, flash BIOS
upgrades? The BIOS has a lot more power over your machine than the
TPM does.
The difference is fundamental: I can change every bit of flash in my BIOS.
I can not change *anything* in the TPM. *I* control
AARG!Anonymous wrote:
Adam Back writes:
- Palladium is a proposed OS feature-set based on the TCPA hardware
(Microsoft)
Actually there seem to be some hardware differences between TCPA and
Palladium. TCPA relies on a TPM, while Palladium uses some kind of
new CPU mode. Palladium
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 09:15:33PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote:
Back in the Clipper days [...] how do we know that this
tamper-resistant chip produced by Mykotronix even implements the
Clipper spec correctly?.
The picture is related but has some extra wrinkles with the
TCPA/Palladium
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 16:25:26 -0700
From: AARG!Anonymous [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The only way that TCPA will become as popular as you fear is if it really
solves problems for people. Otherwise nobody will pay the extra $25 to
put it in their machine.
Although I support the
