1 |
On Monday 30 Mar 2015 01:32:21 Walter Dnes wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 03:30:07PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote |
3 |
> |
4 |
> > With TPM, full-disk encryption, and a verified boot path, you could |
5 |
> > actually protect against that scenario (they'd have to tear apart the |
6 |
> > TPM chip and try to access the non-volatile storage directly, and the |
7 |
> > chips are specifically designed to defeat this). Secure boot would |
8 |
> > not hurt either (with your own keys). Of course, they could still try |
9 |
> > to hack in via USB/PCI/etc, or plant keyloggers and such. I'm not |
10 |
> > suggesting physical security isn't important. It just isn't a good |
11 |
> > reason to completely neglect console security. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Be careful what you wish for. I have my doubts that TPM chips would |
14 |
> boot linux with Microsoft offering "volume discounts" to OEMS. Call me |
15 |
> cynical. |
16 |
|
17 |
Well, yes, post Snowden revelations we can reasonably suspect that the TPM |
18 |
OEMs have degraded the randomness of the chip sufficiently for spooks to be |
19 |
able to crack your keys. |
20 |
|
21 |
-- |
22 |
Regards, |
23 |
Mick |