68
submitted 1 month ago by cm0002@lemmy.zip to c/linux@programming.dev
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Truscape 37 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The TPM 2.0 implementation (mandated by Microsoft) is flawed. That much is certain.

If you'd like to know more details about the "benefits" and vulnerabilities of the standard, feel free to read the relevant wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Platform_Module

In my personal opinion, the TPM as a whole seems like a "solution in search of a problem", and developments that were able to foil its protection as early as 2010 from state and non-state actors should be a massive red flag.

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Physical security is very hard

TPM is a useful to help ensure physical security. TPM isn't perfect but it is decent for what it is.

[-] eleitl@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago

That assumes you can trust the unauditable. I can only accept open hardware, with verification of random samples.

this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2025
68 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

10440 readers
306 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS