Re: TPM support status ?

[Michael Gorven]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 04:42:32PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 02:25:21PM +0200, Michael Gorven wrote:
> > On Wednesday 19 August 2009 13:51:34 Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> > > 1) Making use of TPM you become dependent on good will of TPM
> > > manufacturer. You can never know if or when the TPM manufacturer or
> > > someone connected with them will ask you to use remote attestation to
> > > prove them that you use only the software they signed and that they
> > > effectively control your computer.
> >
> > How are you dependent? If they ask you to use remote attestation then just say 
> > no
>
> The trick is, you can't skip a remote attestation test.  Either you prove
> you're clean or you're not.  So if you "just say no", what does it mean?
>
> It could mean you can't access your bank account unless you use their
> designated non-free browser.
>
> It could mean you can't read a book unless you use their designated non-free
> reader (with DRM restrictions, etc).

So use a different bank and a different publisher.

> Since we're going to say no anyway, there's no reason to do it later.  The
> longer we wait the stronger they'll be, and the more difficult for us to
> reject their unreasonable demands.

Because there are valid use cases that aren't about restricting the 
owner's freedom.

> > > Why do I as user need someone else to check my computer?
> >
> > Because you don't always own or completely control the computer. 
>
> Right, but we're defending the rights of the legitimate owner of that device,
> which doesn't have to be the same as the end user (e.g. kiosk).

I don't see how you're defending the owner's rights. If the owner wants 
to lock down the device then they should be able to.

--
http://michael.gorven.za.net/
PGP Key ID 6612FE85
S/MIME Key ID AAF09E0E

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature