4 ms·
And it could do so while still giving the owner tamper-evident control. Yet that never seems to happen - security is too good of an excuse for expanding vendor
by jevoten 5y ago
And it could do so while still giving the owner tamper-evident control. Yet that never seems to happen - security is too good of an excuse for expanding vendor control at the expense of consumers.
- my123 5y agoNote that Intel’s implementation is on the PCH/chipset, and as such allowing users to freely swap CPUs.
- fsflover 5y agoPurism Librem 14 laptop gives the control to the user with TPM.
- rosndo 5y ago> Yet that never seems to happen Except with secureboot and TPMs?
- my123 5y agoA TPM allows to detect this tampering if used properly for that use case. (To clarify, Windows with BitLocker bound to TPM and Secure Boot on does _not_ do this, taking a shortcut) UEFI Secure Boot doesn’t have much to do with this, because this is about loading an altered UEFI firmware.
- rosndo 5y agoWe went from > Yet that never seems to happen to > UEFI Secure Boot doesn’t have much to do with this, because this is about loading an altered UEFI firmware I think it’s pretty clear that jevoten was talking in a broader context. What he describes has in fact happened with other comparable security technologies.