4 ms·
It is telling that not a single comment here sees this as a bad thing. Maybe Intel should take the hint. Users want to own their hardware!
by dmitrygr 7y ago
It is telling that not a single comment here sees this as a bad thing. Maybe Intel should take the hint. Users want to own their hardware!
- wmf 7y agoPeople commenting on this thread are a very self-selected group.
- dmitrygr 7y agoa potentially fair point. Please provide one or two reasons as to how this development is not absolutely great for users
- lxgr 7y agoSee my comment further down. Not all trusted computing is user-hostile. Don't confuse the technology with its (primary early) applications.
- sounds 7y agoTrusted computing is such an ambiguous term. Intel alone controls the certificate chain for the CPU I own? I don't trust it, and it's user-hostile. Users won't know that it's because of Intel that, for instance, their legacy apps don't run any more. Or their Mac's NVMe drive cannot be recovered (though, yes, this is Apple's Trusted Computing chip, not Intel's). I take it as the tech community's responsibility to clearly point out who violated their trust on this one. Trusted computing could be "not user-hostile," or perhaps that's what "user-friendly" means? But to not be user-hostile the certificate chain must be surrendered at point of sale. It's ironic that sysadmins for large corporations _are_ enabled by Intel's management tools, and _are_ aware of the purpose of these trusted computing tools. But end users _are_ _not_ enabled, _are_ _not_ aware, and are thus treated hostilely by Intel and cannot do the things they absolutely need to do with their own PC.
- dsr_ 7y agoThe original term, "trusted", is a military intelligence term. It does not mean the ordinary sense of trust, which indicates complete confidence in the integrity and accuracy of the referent. It means that you have no choice but to rely on it.
- zozbot234 7y agoBy that standard, all hardware is "trusted" regardless of what Intel does. You have to rely on it, and if it misbehaves or stops working you're SOL.
- sounds 7y agoIn that sense, I don't trust Intel. I don't rely on their hardware.
- pdkl95 7y ago"Trusted" may be military intelligence jargon, but term "trusted computing" originated at Microsoft in the early 2000s. After several particularly nasty internet worms gave the company a (justified) reputation of terrible network security, the they launched the "Trustworthy Computing"[1] initiative to rebuild trust in their platform with several security improvements. "Trustworty Computing" eventually became the "Palladium"[2] project with more ambitious goals including DRM. Palladium evolved into NGSCB ("Next-Generation Secure Computing Base") when Microsoft joined with other companies to form the TCPA ("Trusted Computing Platform Alliance") that later became the ("Trusted Computing Group"). The term has always been used by Microsoft (and later the TCPA/TCG) mean a trustworthy platform, from the developer perspective[3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustworthy_computing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustworthy_computing [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next-Generation_Secure_Computing_Base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next-Generation_Secure_Computi... [3] https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
- dsr_ 7y agoMicrosoft redefines terms to suit them, what a shocker. 5200.28-STD - DoD Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria - August 15, 1983 - The Orange Book.
- kllrnohj 7y agoUser-friendly secure authentication mechanisms (like Windows Hello or fingerprint readers) was just broken. The TPM keeps the user's own data secure, too, after all. How is that not absolutely disastrous for users?
- zymhan 7y agoThis is a valid concern. If you disagree, at least comment when you downvote.
- takeda 7y agoAny consumer who understand it what it is for would be against it. TPM is essentially a device that takes control away from the computer owner, it is protecting some company's software from YOU.
- sabas123 7y agoAs if that is necessarily a bad thing. It also means that it helps me defend against software imposing as me.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- raxxorrax 7y agoPeople wanting flawed TPM modules certainly are a very self-selected group too. Not really an argument. As long as the module can be disabled I have no problem with it. So I don't see the problem on the side of people wanting control here.
- kick 7y agoUsers will buy hardware they don't have control over anyway so Intel doesn't have to worry about them! I want nothing more than for Intel to stop acting as awful as it does, but the market doesn't care about what users want for goods that are almost mandatory.
- IanSanders 7y ago>Maybe Intel should take the hint. Users want to own their hardware! This reminds me of that change.org petition from years ago addressed to intel to remove management engine et al. Which was ridiculously naive and disconnected from reality, in my opinion.
- Josephineus 7y agoIf this really does enable breaking the root of trust on the last 5 years of hardware then it is a terrible thing regardless of IME.