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
1 But who decides what is fair and what is not? It only works if you
2 retain control... which supposedly you do with linux, but not if there
3 are binary drivers that you can't examine the source code, or are
4 incapable of examining the source code because it is too large.
5
6
7 On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 20:52 -0800, Anthony Gorecki wrote:
8 > On Tuesday, November 22, 2005 15:15, Dan Noe wrote:
9 > > This would enable enhanced
10 > > virus/malware protection, because the evil code wouldn't be signed by a
11 > > trusted party.
12 > >
13 > > I don't know much about the technology at this point, but like many
14 > > things just because it /can/ be abused doesn't mean it is per se a bad
15 > > idea. It can be used to make computing safer, especially in an open
16 > > source environment where the uses are freely criticized
17 >
18 > I agree with the above.
19 >
20 > I will never tolerate the use of digital restrictions management technology if
21 > it is required by a third party, however if I wish to use certain aspects of
22 > trusted computing for my own purposes, I welcome the kernel's support of that
23 > technology. Dubious uses of the technology are to be expected by corporations
24 > such as Microsoft, but I believe that it can also be very valuable for
25 > legitimate implementations.
26 >
27 >
28
29 --
30 gentoo-security@g.o mailing list