Gentoo Archives: gentoo-security

From: Daniel Lynch <more.on@×××××××××.net>
To: gentoo-security@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-security] Re: Why we need TPM in Linux kernel?
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 02:21:39
Message-Id: 1134872179.6822.0.camel@localhost
In Reply to: [gentoo-security] Re: Why we need TPM in Linux kernel? by Anthony Gorecki
But who decides what is fair and what is not? It only works if you
retain control... which supposedly you do with linux, but not if there
are binary drivers that you can't examine the source code, or are
incapable of examining the source code because it is too large.

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 20:52 -0800, Anthony Gorecki wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 22, 2005 15:15, Dan Noe wrote: > > This would enable enhanced > > virus/malware protection, because the evil code wouldn't be signed by a > > trusted party. > > > > I don't know much about the technology at this point, but like many > > things just because it /can/ be abused doesn't mean it is per se a bad > > idea. It can be used to make computing safer, especially in an open > > source environment where the uses are freely criticized > > I agree with the above. > > I will never tolerate the use of digital restrictions management technology if > it is required by a third party, however if I wish to use certain aspects of > trusted computing for my own purposes, I welcome the kernel's support of that > technology. Dubious uses of the technology are to be expected by corporations > such as Microsoft, but I believe that it can also be very valuable for > legitimate implementations. > >
-- gentoo-security@g.o mailing list