From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1Laz2v-00039M-JG for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:06:01 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Laz2u-00039H-7B for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:06:00 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Laz2s-000392-6N for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:05:59 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=42773 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Laz2s-00038z-2Y for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:05:58 -0500 Received: from xsmtp1.ethz.ch ([82.130.70.13]:14484) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Laz2r-0005uE-HR for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:05:57 -0500 Received: from xfe1.d.ethz.ch ([82.130.124.41]) by xsmtp1.ethz.ch with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 21 Feb 2009 22:05:56 +0100 Received: from [192.168.2.105] ([81.221.97.38]) by xfe1.d.ethz.ch over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 21 Feb 2009 22:05:55 +0100 Message-ID: <49A06C56.1040008@student.ethz.ch> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 22:04:22 +0100 From: Jan Alsenz User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090104) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: The development of GRUB 2 References: <200902200945.51426.michael@gorven.za.net> <20090221135142.GK16068@thorin> <200902211729.52450.michael@gorven.za.net> <20090221203136.GF18492@thorin> In-Reply-To: <20090221203136.GF18492@thorin> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig07C3F3504045A59D94A3939F" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Feb 2009 21:05:56.0342 (UTC) FILETIME=[303A8160:01C99468] X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Windows 2000 SP4, XP SP1+ 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 21:06:00 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig07C3F3504045A59D94A3939F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi! I don't want to be picky here, but you know that remote attestation is si= mply sending signed hash values? The important thing is that the receiver has trust in the protection of t= he private key. So if you build me a coreboot/GRUB version with a trusted boot chain I ca= n happily implement a remote attestation scheme with it and ship it to my c= ustomers. Greets, Jan Robert Millan wrote: > On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 05:29:34PM +0200, Michael Gorven wrote: >> 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 everyt= hing >>>> involving cryptography. We don't refuse to use encryption algorithms= >>>> because they could be used for DRM, so why should we refuse to use T= PM? >>> I don't agree with this analogy. Unlike cryptography, TPMs have been= >>> designed from the ground up to serve an evil purpose. They *could* h= ave >>> designed them with good intent, for example either of these could app= ly: >>> >>> - 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 method= s >>> (e.g. locks). >>> >>> But they didn't. >> Just to clarify, are you objecting to the use of TPM on principle and = because=20 >> you don't want to encourage use of it, or because you think this speci= fic use=20 >> (trusted boot path) is dangerous? >=20 > I can't reply to this question, because it's not just a specific use, i= t's > part of the design, of its purpose. One of the design goals is remote > attestation, which is a threat to our freedom and is unethical. >=20 > If there was a device that behaves like a TPM except remote attestation= is > not possible (e.g. by one of the means described above), I wouldn't obj= ect > to it, and I think the GNU project wouldn't either, but then referring = to > that as "TPM" is misleading. >=20 --------------enig07C3F3504045A59D94A3939F Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmgbF0ACgkQfZylhtn4XvenrACgh6tWgFdhRk/9SNqDEpoWaRhN tdAAnRWPstS+jzeAqLA+/lVfJ7Rlv2eP =AyuY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig07C3F3504045A59D94A3939F--