From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1Lb32J-0006hr-NW for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 20:21:39 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Lb32I-0006hk-DD for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 20:21:38 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Lb32H-0006hY-1C for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 20:21:37 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=51920 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Lb32G-0006hV-R0 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 20:21:36 -0500 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:39457 helo=ciao.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Lb32G-0000HX-AX for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 20:21:36 -0500 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Lb32C-00050d-Cn for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Feb 2009 01:21:32 +0000 Received: from ip.82.144.214.15.stat.volia.net ([82.144.214.15]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 2009 01:21:32 +0000 Received: from cyberax by ip.82.144.214.15.stat.volia.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 2009 01:21:32 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: grub-devel@gnu.org From: Alex Besogonov Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 03:21:21 +0200 Message-ID: References: <499DB343.9020301@gmail.com> <499DF97E.1080800@student.ethz.ch> <20090221134607.GJ16068@thorin> <49A00DB7.2080003@student.ethz.ch> <20090221143440.GA16682@thorin> <49A0170E.9040908@student.ethz.ch> <20090221200844.GC18492@thorin> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip.82.144.214.15.stat.volia.net User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) In-Reply-To: <20090221200844.GC18492@thorin> Sender: news X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 01:21:38 -0000 Robert Millan wrote: >> Making sure, that noone can override it, can be awfully difficult, especially >> under a physical attacker. A hardware that is at least a bit designed to >> withstand such an attack can help a lot. > I'm not sure why is physical security so awfully difficult for you (can't you > use locks, tamper-proof seals, cameras and alarms?), but most people who're in > the bussiness of protecting physical goods manage to sort it out. My devices will be installed at clients' locations. It's impossible to guarantee that all devices will be physically secure. If you live in the USA then one day such device might contain your private data. Would you like it to be stolen? I'm trying to design them so that data can't be stolen easily. Even by me, if someday I become insane because of flame-wars in mailing lists. > In any case, if your attacker is that much determined to archieve their goal, > reverse engineering a small chip isn't going to stop them. Reverse engineering the TPM chip is very costly. And I'm not going to try to protect data from NSA or CIA or another three-letter agency. -- With respect, Alex Besogonov (cyberax@staffdirector.net)