The "trusted" boot functions provide the ability to store in Platform Configuration Registers (PCR), hashes of configuration information throughout the boot sequence. Once booted, data (such as symmetric keys for encrypted files) can be "sealed" under a PCR. The sealed data can only be unsealed if the PCR has the same value as at the time of sealing. Thus, if an attempt is made to boot an alternative system, or a virus has back-doored the operating system, the PCR value will not match, and the unseal will fail, thus protecting the data. The initialization and management functions allow the owner to turn functionality on and off, reset the chip, and take ownership. This group of functions is somewhat complex, to provide strong separation of what can be done at BIOS (boot) time, and what can be done at normal run-time,
Il faut encore qu'il explique comment les mesures ont lieu ! Comment faire la différence entre un noyau corrompu et un noyau fraichement recompiler ? Parce que l'on a mis le hash dans le TPM ? Et donc la puce refuse de fonctioner ?
But to argue thart trusted computing is bad because it can support DRM is fallacious - it completely ignores the security TCPA can add to good applications, such as the security of my personal authentication keys, or my personal encrypted files. See the companion paper, which goes into more detail on the good things that can be done with TCPA.
Mais qui conserve la master key !!
Secondly, the obvious application of TCPA is to enable individuals to secure their private keys, and to secure their encrypted data against viruses or other attacks that compromise the operating system, not DRM.
Il ne dit toujours pas comment.
The only way this can work is if someone, like the manufacturer, has recorded a given TCPA chip's public endorsement key, and can use this knowledge to certify identity keys from the given TCPA chip. This is not required, and software access to the endorsement key can be disabled. There is certainly a privacy aspect of access to the endorsement key, as it uniquely identifies the platform, and the TCPA specification goes to great lengths to allow for anonymous certification. The best defense for privacy conscious users is simply to turn off the endorsement
key.
La fameuse clef à bannir. Ils ne sont pas contre la virer finalement. Il faudrait bien faire gaffe à ce que cela ne soit pas implémenté (et donc rendu obligatoire par windows et ensuite, il y aura le rien "ne marche sans mais vous pouvez toujours le déactivé")
"Allow for complete privacy." Disabling the endorsement key provides complete privacy. Ensuring complete privacy while using any form of endorsement key is clearly very difficult. The operations around the Endorsement Key are actually meant to protect user privacy by enabling the generation of multiple abstracted identities. The specification went to great lengths to define a process whereby the Endorsement Key functionality is limited to the generation of these identities only. A privacy CA can be selected by the user as the only entity that can link the Endorsement key with a specific identity. A different privacy CA can be used for each identity if desired. The user has complete control over the choice of if and how to use the endorsement key.
# Re: IBM présente TCPA
Posté par Nicolas Boulay (site web personnel) . En réponse à la dépêche IBM présente TCPA "tel qu'il aurait dû être". Évalué à 1.
Il faut encore qu'il explique comment les mesures ont lieu ! Comment faire la différence entre un noyau corrompu et un noyau fraichement recompiler ? Parce que l'on a mis le hash dans le TPM ? Et donc la puce refuse de fonctioner ?
But to argue thart trusted computing is bad because it can support DRM is fallacious - it completely ignores the security TCPA can add to good applications, such as the security of my personal authentication keys, or my personal encrypted files. See the companion paper, which goes into more detail on the good things that can be done with TCPA.
Mais qui conserve la master key !!
Secondly, the obvious application of TCPA is to enable individuals to secure their private keys, and to secure their encrypted data against viruses or other attacks that compromise the operating system, not DRM.
Il ne dit toujours pas comment.
The only way this can work is if someone, like the manufacturer, has recorded a given TCPA chip's public endorsement key, and can use this knowledge to certify identity keys from the given TCPA chip. This is not required, and software access to the endorsement key can be disabled. There is certainly a privacy aspect of access to the endorsement key, as it uniquely identifies the platform, and the TCPA specification goes to great lengths to allow for anonymous certification. The best defense for privacy conscious users is simply to turn off the endorsement
key.
La fameuse clef à bannir. Ils ne sont pas contre la virer finalement. Il faudrait bien faire gaffe à ce que cela ne soit pas implémenté (et donc rendu obligatoire par windows et ensuite, il y aura le rien "ne marche sans mais vous pouvez toujours le déactivé")
"Allow for complete privacy." Disabling the endorsement key provides complete privacy. Ensuring complete privacy while using any form of endorsement key is clearly very difficult. The operations around the Endorsement Key are actually meant to protect user privacy by enabling the generation of multiple abstracted identities. The specification went to great lengths to define a process whereby the Endorsement Key functionality is limited to the generation of these identities only. A privacy CA can be selected by the user as the only entity that can link the Endorsement key with a specific identity. A different privacy CA can be used for each identity if desired. The user has complete control over the choice of if and how to use the endorsement key.
Mieux. :)
"La première sécurité est la liberté"