Intel won't back down on chip ID feature (1999)

Re:Intel won't back down on chip ID feature (1999) by boramalper on Sunday April 16, 2023 @02:31PM (#35592867)

I see that you are quoting Wikipedia, which claims to be quoting Trusted Platform Module FAQ from 2006[0]. However, if you actually read the FAQ, the authors explicitly reject that:

> Can the Trusted Platform Module control what software runs?

> No. There is no ability to do this. The subsystem can only act as a 'slave' to higher level services and applications by storing and reporting pre-runtime configuration information. Other applications determine what is done with this information. At no time can the TCG building blocks 'control' the system or report the status of applications that are running.

I'm not saying TPMs cannot be (or are not, today) used to give non-users control over what users can do with software running on their machine, however in the absence of evidence, I'm not inclined to believe that trusted computing efforts started with such "evil" intentions in the first place.

Albeit heavily abused, TPMs are still a great idea IMO.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20061003155033/https://www.trust...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Intel won't back down on chip ID feature (1999) by marcosdumay on Sunday April 16, 2023 @02:45PM (#35593042)

In what way you expect the capabilities of a hardware module to restrict the goals of a companies group?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Intel won't back down on chip ID feature (1999) by lioeters on Sunday April 16, 2023 @05:04PM (#35594252)

Good catch, thank you for the correction. I should have dug deeper, at least to skim through the source material, instead of trusting a Wikipedia article to confirm my bias.

[ Parent | on HN ]