Preferences

> There is also a real potential for abusing TPMs or cryptographic co-processors to enforce remote attestation.

Remote attestation can be misused, yes. But why writing it as TPM is the problem? In cases where remote attestation is used for good, TPM improves the setup, if anything.

I dont see the rationale for what you wrote, and am genuinely curious what it is.


You can't do remote attestation without something like a TPM.

Let's compare these scenarios:

A) TPMs are optional and 30% of users have them. A bank is thinking about requiring remote attestation to use their services. Since they'd lock out 70% of users they decide to not do it.

B) TPMs are mandatory and 90% of users have them. A bank is thinking about requiring remote attestation to use their services. Since they'd only lock out 10% of users they decide to do it.

And banking is the nice example here. Refusing to serve a site if the user is using an ablocker is very much in the interest of powerful players in the space, see WEI. Every platform that has wide spread TPM adoption, namely Android and iOS have shown that they will abuse them for anti-consumer purposes sooner or later. We are talking about Microsoft here, the current and past poster child for anti-consumer decisions.

I hope that explains why making TPMs blanket available introduces new risks to sovereign computing.

I see your point. Its the very unbalanced power balance between consumers and providers, and the dishonest tactics of the latter. It ought to be addressed politically (its idealistic, I know). Until then use free software and multiple devices, or something like that. The TPM chips in themselves are a powerful concept, that can, and should, be used to the consumers advantage.
Because that's what has been going on in the Android world for years and for the iPhone was the case from the start.

Root your phone, even if it is just for the ability to make full backups (because that is, to this day, not a thing on Android)? Say goodbye to banking, most games, even the proposed new EU "digital identity" government wallet was supposed to enforce attestation.

And everyone with a phone on the "bad vendor" list that either doesn't get Google certification from the start or gets it revoked due to sanctions? Same.

Then you really should be angry at Apple and Google, not the hardware.

The preparations for eIDAS 2.0 (the EU thing) has been heavily inspired by SSI. If they keep up the good work, and implement it properly, security and privacy will be top notch. And that is only possible by using TPM (or really SE when we talk about mobile phones).

Yes, I know that eIDAS might end up not meeting the early promises. We will have to see. But in that case it will be despite the possibilities that the hardware provides, not because of them.

TPMs form the root of trust needed for remote attestation. If not TPMs, cryptographic co-processors can do similar things, or work in tandem with TPMs to accomplish the same thing.

This item has no comments currently.

Keyboard Shortcuts

Story Lists

j
Next story
k
Previous story
Shift+j
Last story
Shift+k
First story
o Enter
Go to story URL
c
Go to comments
u
Go to author

Navigation

Shift+t
Go to top stories
Shift+n
Go to new stories
Shift+b
Go to best stories
Shift+a
Go to Ask HN
Shift+s
Go to Show HN

Miscellaneous

?
Show this modal