From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1Latnx-0007Nn-TV for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:30:13 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Latnw-0007NU-MH for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:30:12 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Latnu-0007N7-Jz for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:30:12 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=40620 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Latnu-0007N3-Dx for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:30:10 -0500 Received: from mammon.mene.za.net ([78.46.253.195]:41494 helo=mail.mene.za.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Latnt-0005t6-UJ for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:30:10 -0500 Received: from mail.mene.za.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.mene.za.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F21FA33A5E3 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:30:00 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gorven.za.net; h=from:to :subject:date:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id; s=alpha; bh=jIZ9+tRUMDaV8 WQVZWkg8sFEfTg=; b=DGXAkNF7apxaP62KprXPCy76x51EmltcAOJsvhlGZhw0j RL7fNJtf1xtohoN+mvlvUXPO3ZgoYL0Vkc5z47j+bgXkLqGgu5foAAPbIpO7uhQ4 dOkj/yVQyUghVg92+hc/ceeyaNVIWeTuruP8CYsqnito3LNGvsKlTN+NnFvVBk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gorven.za.net; h=from:to:subject :date:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id; q=dns; s=alpha; b=DGrbDCt Fd6v9FDzrzNAPumZlrc0My/RqRWGXaUYgJl+wwWkzZOtupL8B0eWICV7bQYd5b3l F4+0SQjghVg4uBJMMoMEifLRQF/XfEbu0p4pvGGVfhdrGseTdfLYav00+W7E9SvT eWF1itWMlyClYY7X4EMntpse2amewXX8xK90= Received: from molech (dsl-241-58-76.telkomadsl.co.za [41.241.58.76]) by mail.mene.za.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 91F3633A5AE for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:29:59 +0100 (CET) From: Michael Gorven To: The development of GRUB 2 Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:29:34 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 References: <200902200945.51426.michael@gorven.za.net> <20090221135142.GK16068@thorin> In-Reply-To: <20090221135142.GK16068@thorin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart11362023.9zK1ilbm0y"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200902211729.52450.michael@gorven.za.net> X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) Subject: Re: A _good_ and valid use for TPM X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 15:30:13 -0000 --nextPart11362023.9zK1ilbm0y Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Saturday 21 February 2009 15:51:42 Robert Millan wrote: > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 09:45:28AM +0200, Michael Gorven wrote: > > TPM can be used for good or for bad, but this is the case for everything > > involving cryptography. We don't refuse to use encryption algorithms > > because they could be used for DRM, so why should we refuse to use TPM? > > I don't agree with this analogy. Unlike cryptography, TPMs have been > designed from the ground up to serve an evil purpose. They *could* have > designed them with good intent, for example either of these could apply: > > - Buyer gets a printed copy of the TPM's private key when they buy a > board. > > - An override button that's physically accessible from the chip can be > used to disable "hostile mode" and make the TPM sign everything. From > that point physical access can be managed with traditional methods > (e.g. locks). > > But they didn't. Just to clarify, are you objecting to the use of TPM on principle and becau= se=20 you don't want to encourage use of it, or because you think this specific u= se=20 (trusted boot path) is dangerous? Michael =2D-=20 http://michael.gorven.za.net PGP Key ID 6612FE85 S/MIME Key ID AAF09E0E --nextPart11362023.9zK1ilbm0y Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBJoB3wO9SWvWYS/oURAmf7AJ0cSSmVcfc2Yvgjop2SgmMMQ8wH+wCdE1A4 8dGofNVpCTcJb1grXLZ+Ru0= =2BWu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart11362023.9zK1ilbm0y--