Re: A _good_ and valid use for TPM

[Jan Alsenz <janalsenz@student.ethz.ch>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1331 bytes --]

Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 10:17:02PM +0100, Jan Alsenz wrote:
>>> First of all, I think it's a poor approach, because there's no way to garantee
>>> the TPM is doing what it's supposed to (can you read its source code?  how do
>>> you know for sure there are no backdoors?).
>> As I said before: you can make the very same argument for every single part of
>> your PC.
>> Why do you trust Intel or AMD with your CPU? They are also involved in the TCG!
> 
> You took the least relevant part of my argument, and assumed this is the reason
> I object to TPMs.  Please check the rest of my previous mail.

I didn't assume that. And I picked this argument because it is the only one I
object!
Because I think it is not an argument...

> Anyway, it's obvious that I trust my CPU because I have no other choice.  The
> context in which I said this, is different: there are better choices there.

... and since you seem to agree, please don't use it.


You seem to assume, that I really like the idea of a TPM, or something like that.
I can assure you, that this is not the case. My only goal is to keep the
discussion based on facts and reason. Which way too often get lost in this kind
of discussion (and I want to stress that this is not an accusation to anyone here).

Greets,

Jan


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]