--
On 3 Feb 2005 at 22:25, Anonymous wrote:
> Now, my personal perspective on this is that this is no real
> threat. It allows people who choose to use the capability to
> issue reasonably credible and convincing statements about
> their software configuration. Basically it allows people to
> t
Dan Kaminsky wrote:
TCPA eliminates external checks and balances, such as antivirus. As the
user, I'm not trusted to audit operations within a TCPA-established
sandbox. Antivirus is essentially a user system auditing tool, and
TCPA-based systems have these big black boxes AV isn't allowed to a
Trei, Peter wrote:
It could easily be leveraged to make motherboards
which will only run 'authorized' OSs, and OSs
which will run only 'authorized' software.
And you, the owner of the computer, will NOT
neccesarily be the authority which gets to decide
what OS and software the machine can run.
If y
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dan Kaminsky writes:
>
>>>Uh, you *really* have no idea how much the black hat community is
>>>looking forward to TCPA. For example, Office is going to have core
>>>components running inside a protected environment totally immune to
>>>antivirus.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Ho
The best that can happen with TCPA is pretty good -
it could stop a lot of viruses and malware, for one
thing.
No, it can't. That's the point; it's not like the code running inside
the sandbox becomes magically exploitproof...it just becomes totally
opaque to any external auditor. A black h
Erwann ABALEA wrote:
> I've read your objections. Maybe I wasn't clear. What's wrong in
installing a cryptographic device by default on PC motherboards?
I work for a PKI 'vendor', and for me, software private keys is a
nonsense. How will you convice "Mr Smith" (or Mme Michu) to buy an
expensive CC
Peter Gutmann wrote:
Neither. Currently they've typically been smart-card cores glued to the
MB and accessed via I2C/SMB.
and chips that typically have had eal4+ or eal5+ evaluations. hot topic
in 2000, 2001 ... at the intel developer's forums and rsa conferences
---
Erwann ABALEA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I've read your objections. Maybe I wasn't clear. What's wrong in installing a
>cryptographic device by default on PC motherboards? I work for a PKI 'vendor',
>and for me, software private keys is a nonsense.
A simple crypto device controlled by the same
Uh, you *really* have no idea how much the black hat community is
looking forward to TCPA. For example, Office is going to have core
components running inside a protected environment totally immune to
antivirus.
How? TCPA is only a cryptographic device, and some BIOS code, nothing
else. Does
Erwann ABALEA
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Trei, Peter wrote:
>
> > Seeing as it comes out of the TCG, this is almost certainly
> > the enabling hardware for Palladium/NGSCB. Its a part of
> > your computer which you may not have full control over.
>
> Please stop relaying FUD. You have full control
>
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Dan Kaminsky wrote:
> Uh, you *really* have no idea how much the black hat community is
> looking forward to TCPA. For example, Office is going to have core
> components running inside a protected environment totally immune to
> antivirus.
How? TCPA is only a cryptographic de
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Erwann ABALEA wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Trei, Peter wrote:
> >
> >> Seeing as it comes out of the TCG, this is almost certainly
> >> the enabling hardware for Palladium/NGSCB. Its a part of
> >> your computer which you may not
Bonjour,
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Erwann ABALEA wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Trei, Peter wrote:
>
> > Seeing as it comes out of the TCG, this is almost certainly
> > the enabling hardware for Palladium/NGSCB. Its a part of
> > your computer which you may not have full control over.
>
> Please stop rel
>>> Ian G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2/2/2005 6:38:46 PM >>>
> I'm just curious on this point. I haven't seen much
> to indicate that Microsoft and others are ready
> for a nymous, tradeable software assets world.
No, and neither are corporate customers, to a large extent.
Accountability is, in fact, a
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 05:30:33PM +0100, Erwann ABALEA wrote:
> Please stop relaying FUD. You have full control over your PC, even if this
Please stop relaying pro-DRM pabulum. The only reason for Nagscab is
restricting the user's rights to his own files.
Of course there are other reasons for h
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Erwann ABALEA wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Trei, Peter wrote:
Seeing as it comes out of the TCG, this is almost certainly
the enabling hardware for Palladium/NGSCB. Its a part of
your computer which you may not have full control over.
Please stop relaying FUD. You have full contr
"Tyler Durden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>That "chip"...is it likely to be an ASIC or is there already such a thing as
>a security network processor? (ie, a cheaper network processor that only
>handles security apps, etc...)
>
>Or could it be an FPGA?
Neither. Currently they've typically bee
Uh, you *really* have no idea how much the black hat community is
looking forward to TCPA. For example, Office is going to have core
components running inside a protected environment totally immune to
antivirus. Since these components are going to be managing
cryptographic operations, the "we
Erwann ABALEA wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Trei, Peter wrote:
Seeing as it comes out of the TCG, this is almost certainly
the enabling hardware for Palladium/NGSCB. Its a part of
your computer which you may not have full control over.
Please stop relaying FUD. You have full control over your
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Trei, Peter wrote:
> Seeing as it comes out of the TCG, this is almost certainly
> the enabling hardware for Palladium/NGSCB. Its a part of
> your computer which you may not have full control over.
Please stop relaying FUD. You have full control over your PC, even if this
one
Seeing as it comes out of the TCG, this is almost certainly
the enabling hardware for Palladium/NGSCB. Its a part of
your computer which you may not have full control over.
Peter Trei
Tyler Durden
> ANyone familiar with computer architectures and chips able to
> answer this
> question:
>
> Th
21 matches
Mail list logo
