At the same time, boot sector attacks have become prevalent, which TPMs can protect from.
The net effect is the paranoid "never use anything that might possibly one day might be used for DRM" folks have made practical computer security worse by threatening anyone that adds TPM functionality into their product.
Good job.
What we do know thought is the software landscape of devices that are indeed locked down mostly to the benefit of the manufacturers. Turns out the uniformity of that software landscape didn't stop NSO from silently taking over phones. Different threat scenario, but I think the pattern is clear.
I think we need a closer examination on how often private devices are affected by firmware attacks or messing with boot. As far as I know they have become quite rare. Perhaps I need to shift my paranoia there, but I am not convinced.
But these questions are irrelevant if TPM stays optional. A lot of IT security comes down to trust problems, so I fail to see why possible disadvantages shouldn't be examined.
As far as I know I could activate TPM right now, so I also fail to see how "folks" hold practical security back. Weighting security mechanisms is also an essential step. I am just not convinced it does improve my practical security, while maybe it proves detrimental to general computing.
What are we missing out on exactly?
i have never seen a consumer motherboard with a TPM device in the last 15 years. In fact, the last batch of enthusiast AM4 ones ("pro" model), the TPM doesn't even have the Header populated, only the holes for one that you can solder a header.
And non-workstation office machines from hp and dell ship weird ones that probably won't even pass the win11 test.
Considering that the vast majority of boards aren't going to need the header, the board manufacturers can scale cost reduced versions for the masses and spin versions with a couple more headers for a couple more dollars for the fringe users that want them (pre-)populated. Seems like a rational business decision?
One reason is the constant stream of FUD from the anti-DRM folks.
https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
You think all those FIDO members don't care about DRM. That is beyond naive in my opinion. Security is a trust problem, so much should be clear before even starting to discuss it.
Also FUD is employed by presenting advantages of TPM as it often invokes ransomware.
Nice, but probably 99% of ransomware is just executed in user space and starts encrypting typical network drives in typical corporations. Some are more sophisticated, but I haven't seen any bios attacks recently. And why would they? Ransomware is quite profitable.
Yes? Fear, uncertainty and doubt is the correct attitude toward TPMs. (Assuming you count "We know it's going to hurt us, just not how long it will take to happen." as "doubt".)
This is completely false, and is in fact contradicted by the Lenovo PDF that we're discussing.
But they are. It's just that the vast majority of the market are indifferent so it gets accepted.
Conforming to the market would be to not add something that nobody wants.
The big difference between the TPM and something like a food seal is that the end user is the one that opens the food and knows that yes, "I did that myself; this is intended." Whereas with the TPM the only "user" with the right to break the seal is a 3rd party that has completely different--and often conflicting--interests to the end user (and owner of the device). If the end user/owner breaks the seal they're treated as an attacker. This is the big problem and the big bad thing that must not be allowed.
The entertainment/music industry (the only ones that actually want this) are looking for a guarantee that the end user has not modified the device that they own in order to play back their content. It's ridiculous.
It's not just ridiculous that they are seeking what is essentially a veto right over everyone's systems it's also ridiculous in that it assumes it'll actually be effective in any way, shape, or form.
There's a million and one ways to work around this kind of "protection" many of which are trivial (e.g. point a camera at the device). The industry knows this!
So then the question becomes: Why do it? The answer is simple: So they can be the gatekeepers for all devices sold and therefore be able to veto in essence any devices the don't like. They may even be able to extract a tidy profit from those who require certification.
The whole notion is anti-consumer and just generally a really bad idea from the perspective of technological progress and innovation. Content owners should not have any say whatsoever in how general purpose devices are made or used. They should conform to the market; not the other way around.