I arrived at that decision over four years ago ... TCPA possibly didn't
decide on it until two years ago. In the assurance session in the TCPA
track at spring 2001 intel developer's conference I claimed my chip was
much more KISS, more secure, and could reasonably meet the TCPA
requirements at
[resend via different node: [EMAIL PROTECTED] seems to be dead --
primary MX refusing connections]
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:
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
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Adam Back wrote:
Summary: I think the endorsement key and it's hardware manufacturers
certificate is generated at manufacture and is not allowed to be
changed. Changing ownership only means (typically) deleting old
identities and creating new ones.
Are there 2
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
I arrived at that decision over four years ago ... TCPA possibly didn't
decide on it until two years ago. In the assurance session in the TCPA
track at spring 2001 intel developer's conference I claimed my chip was
much more KISS, more secure, and could reasonably meet the TCPA
requirements at
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
[resend via different node: [EMAIL PROTECTED] seems to be dead --
primary MX refusing connections]
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:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Adam Back wrote:
Summary: I think the endorsement key and it's hardware manufacturers
certificate is generated at manufacture and is not allowed to be
changed. Changing ownership only means (typically) deleting old
identities and creating new ones.
Are there 2
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
