Re:Potential impact of the Intel ME vulnerability
by mjg59 on Monday November 27, 2017 @08:51PM
(#15793577)
There's a huge practical benefit - the user gains disk encryption without having to remember a secure passphrase. That's a big deal.
Re:Potential impact of the Intel ME vulnerability
by wildmusings on Monday November 27, 2017 @09:06PM
(#15793646)
Exactly and to elaborate, it means that the only secret a user needs to remember is a short PIN for OS-level authentication. The TPM's protection against modified boot and OS components make a brute force very difficult. Further, Windows will actually feed that PIN to the TPM for purposes of OS-level authentication, which leverages the TPM's enforcement of rate limits and lockouts in addition to OS-level implementations of those protections.
A nice improvement would be to use a PIN entered at boot for purposes of drive decryption and then automatically pass it through to the OS-level login.
Re:Potential impact of the Intel ME vulnerability
by cm2187 on Tuesday November 28, 2017 @03:39AM
(#15795441)
And for a server it enables to reboot autonomously while protecting you from someone pulling a hard drive from the array (think server colocation).
Re:Potential impact of the Intel ME vulnerability
by brians on Tuesday November 28, 2017 @01:47AM
(#15794990)
It sounds like your threat model doesn’t interactive hardware adversaries. Mine does, so worry about how they might capture my long pass phrase is a big concern.
Well, to whom do I tell my long passphrase? Right: my computer. Every morning. Is it running the same software as last night, no keyloggers, etc?
That’s what the TPM is for.
Things are different in the case of something like a phone. In that case you are pretty much forced to use some low entropy key that could otherwise be brute forced. Then a secure hardware device makes sense, particularly if the phone does not use the device for everything but the kitchen sink as in this case.