Re: Question about FAQ 5.21: "Why is there no "Nuke-Option"?"

[Arno Wagner <wagner@arnowagner.info>]

On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 15:38:06 CET, techmetx11 wrote:
> After seeing GrapheneOS's implementation of the same design idea, I feel
> like this idea wasn't given much thought in the FAQ.
 
You feel incorrectly. This has been extensively discussed. 
 
> This paragraph ignores the fact that the TPMs that come with computers
> have improved on-par to the standard of HSMs, and are now integrated
> straight in the CPU in most cases, rather than being a seperate chip or
> card that can be simply bus-probed or manipulated physically.

They really have not. Not even remotely. 
 
> > Still, if you have a good use-case (i.e.  non-abstract real-world
> > situation) where a Nuke-Option would actually be beneficial, please let
> > me know.
> 
> Imagine if you were being tortured by people to unlock a hard drive that
> you didn't want them to see the contents of, and so you give them the
> password to hopefully make it so that it wipes the TPM/HSM/etc. of the
> computer and destroy any chance of unlocking the contents, thus making
> their job futile and saving information from ending up on your
> adversaries' hands (even if it meant it cost you your life)

This senario has been discussed here many times. It is not a 
valid reason to have a nuke option. Also note the cryptsetup
has no TPM integration as part of the project.  

Regards,
Arno Wagner

-- 
Arno Wagner,     Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform.,    Email: arno@wagner.name
GnuPG: ID: CB5D9718  FP: 12D6 C03B 1B30 33BB 13CF  B774 E35C 5FA1 CB5D 9718
----
A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers. -- Plato

If it's in the news, don't worry about it.  The very definition of 
"news" is "something that hardly ever happens." -- Bruce Schneier