Linux

yea, ever since TPM was first making the conspiracy rounds in the 90's there has been a huge misunderstanding of its purpose, let alone its capabilities. I 100% agree with the author that looking at the TPM as an evil blackbox is really just depriving users of a tool that can be implemented in an open source way to secure user privacy. The GPU however is impossible to implement in an opensource way by everyone except a small handful of semiconductor companies, and even then you would rely on proprietary microcode that woul take millions of manhours to reverse engineer if it were even possible. So if I were some megacorp who relied on Imaginary Property, the GPU that was exclusively created by a fellow megacorp is where I'd place my trust.

I also dont know why Win11 requires a tpm2.0, but since it does, and my current computer doesnt have one, I'm certanly not going to run it.

https://www.semiaccurate.com/2022/01/18/amds-new-cpus-may-be-safe-to-deploy/

Just wait till you read about Pluton. 🙃

I still have a lot of mistrust for the TPM, but that's OK, my paranoia has room to accommodate everyone.

I think having a TPM enables a number of worthwhile security features.

But most of those security features place the TPM at the root of trust, something that is SEVERELY undermined by the fact that it is not open source, meaning it is inherently untrustworthy.

Is it not the one chip we should demand and accept nothing less than complete openness in its implementation and complete control by the person who owns the device? I also think the types of protections it grants in theory are very good, but the fact that it's proprietary means it's terrible at actually granting you those protections.

Historical context : it's a 1yo post.

TPM itself isn't the problem. TPM itself technically might be a good solution, what the FSF precisely put forward is "out of the user's control". They even mention how it's not about theoretical ideas but how it's actually used. If Microsoft gets to decide HOW your computers works DESPITE you wanting NOT to behave that way AND it makes Microsoft itself, or its partners, even more entrenched then it's a serious problem, it means "your" computer is their computer.

What we have all witnessed is that bit by bit OSes like Windows, but also MacOS and Android, are not simply providing stores or tightly controllers channel (with fees for themselves) but ALSO removing entirely, or making it radically harder, to install software the user actually wants to install (not malware).

It's not about TPM, it's as usual about who control your computer.

The encryption of streaming media is annoying, but it's not what I fear. The ability to lock the software that I run on my hardware to "approved vendors" only is what worries me, and it's what TPM promises. A security model where the only trusted party isn't even the person owning the hardware.

I replaced Raspberry Pis with Intel NUC mainly because NUC comes with TPM 2.0. I can now encrypt my drives without storing the key in plaintext.

I could not read the blog because it blocked me for using VPN (speaking of DRMs :) ). While I agree DRM is evil and should be ablolished from user's computers, readers should not get wrong idea about TPM. It's what protects your phone and servers from attackers. Desktop would also benefit from it a lot.