On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:08:53AM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote: > "Support" for a TPM is a rather tricky thing. > > By itself the TPM is independent of any CPU. However, it's also not very > useful (though for Pond's use case, it works). > > The TPM gets much more useful when it's integrated with features on the > motherboard, BIOS, CPU, northbridge, IOMMU etc. Then you have a full blown > TCG-compliant TC environment, which is useful for many things. Actually it > was never very useful for DRM - that was only one theoretical possibility > that was never implemented and even if it had been, TC is to DRM much as > cryptography is to DRM. So the FUD was just that: fear, uncertainty and > doubt which probably crippled a highly useful cryptographic security tool > for good. One of the more shameful periods of the tech industries history, > if you ask me.
The reason why TPM functionality was so much hated upon is because it was pushed by a software/hardware monopoly, not just for DRM but for locking down the system in general. Obviously a real open and verifyable TPM (aka hardened secret compartment with some crypto primitives) could be very useful in practice. However, this is not what was pushed back then. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get your SQL database under version control now! Version control is standard for application code, but databases havent caught up. So what steps can you take to put your SQL databases under version control? Why should you start doing it? Read more to find out. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=49501711&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ bitcoin-list mailing list bitcoin-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-list
