▲ 645 ▼ Fed-up Torvalds suggests disabling AMD’s 'stupid' performance-killing fTPM RNG (www.theregister.com) submitted 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/linux@lemmy.ml 153 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] nan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 3 years ago (1 child) We use the TPM pretty extensively with no Windows in the environment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ArcticAmphibian@lemmus.org 3 points 3 years ago (5 children) But with a reason, I'm sure. There's no reason for the everyday consumer to need one, other than Microsoft wanting more control. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] bear@slrpnk.net 11 points 3 years ago (1 child) Data encryption and decryption without entering a password is a pretty darn good reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ArcticAmphibian@lemmus.org -6 points 3 years ago (2 children) Sure, but does a grandmother's Solitaire & Facebook PC really need quick encrypting and decrypting? Anyone not dealing with sensitive info doesn't need one. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Shere_Khan@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 3 years ago (1 child) Yes, because they are the least likely to know they are a part of a botnet permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 years ago How would at-rest encryption make it less likely that your computer joins a botnet, or more likely that you'd notice if it did? permalink fedilink source parent [–] bear@slrpnk.net 8 points 3 years ago (1 child) There's no downside to having it. There's many downsides to not having it. This seems pretty cut and dry to me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 0 points 3 years ago* (1 child) There’s no downside to having it. Sure there are. If it gets compromised with malicious code, I have no way of removing it. I can protect ring 0. I can keep crap out of ring 0. If all else fails, I can nuke everything in ring 0 and boot a fresh OS installation. But I can't do a single bleeping thing except throw out the whole machine if malware takes over ring -1. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bear@slrpnk.net 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) This is already the case with your motherboard firmware, which fTPM is a part of. You are correct in that you have no real way to handle malware in it except throw it away. This doesn't change in any way if you get rid of TPM. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 1 point 3 years ago It decreases the attack surface. permalink fedilink source parent [–] kingthrillgore@kbin.social 10 points 3 years ago (1 child) TPM actually provides some useful components to isolate encryption outside of Ring 0, which is a trust win. But any technology must be weighted against its power to oppress. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org -1 points 3 years ago* And its power to make the system less secure. Isolating things outside ring 0 means malware can isolate itself outside ring 0 as well, and then it's impossible to detect or remove without throwing out the entire machine. Which is much, much scarier than anything an ordinary rootkit might do. permalink fedilink source parent [–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 3 years ago (1 child) yes, the reason is to securely store cryptographic keys. even your own. It comes preloaded with microsoft ones usually, but you're free to delete them and install your own permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 0 points 3 years ago …so far. permalink fedilink source parent [+] knight@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 years ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 5 points 3 years ago Like what google does? You mean disallowing people who use a privacy respecting android rom from using their banking apps and such? Soon very possibly banking websites included? permalink fedilink source parent [–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 0 points 3 years ago* It's only more secure until someone discovers yet another RCE bug in the firmware, and then you've got malware in your machine that's impossible to detect or remove. Because it's secure. Against you. permalink fedilink source parent [+] some_guy@kbin.social -9 points 3 years ago (2 children) the average citizen has nothing to hide therefore deserves no privacy permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SteveTech@programming.dev 9 points 3 years ago I think you forgot a /s permalink fedilink source parent [–] Hexarei@programming.dev 3 points 3 years ago I'm sure you'll be ok sending me your social security number, home address, bank login details, credit card number, a copy of all the files on your hard drive... I mean, you deserve no privacy right? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ArcticAmphibian@lemmus.org 3 points 3 years ago (5 children) But with a reason, I'm sure. There's no reason for the everyday consumer to need one, other than Microsoft wanting more control. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] bear@slrpnk.net 11 points 3 years ago (1 child) Data encryption and decryption without entering a password is a pretty darn good reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ArcticAmphibian@lemmus.org -6 points 3 years ago (2 children) Sure, but does a grandmother's Solitaire & Facebook PC really need quick encrypting and decrypting? Anyone not dealing with sensitive info doesn't need one. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Shere_Khan@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 3 years ago (1 child) Yes, because they are the least likely to know they are a part of a botnet permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 years ago How would at-rest encryption make it less likely that your computer joins a botnet, or more likely that you'd notice if it did? permalink fedilink source parent [–] bear@slrpnk.net 8 points 3 years ago (1 child) There's no downside to having it. There's many downsides to not having it. This seems pretty cut and dry to me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 0 points 3 years ago* (1 child) There’s no downside to having it. Sure there are. If it gets compromised with malicious code, I have no way of removing it. I can protect ring 0. I can keep crap out of ring 0. If all else fails, I can nuke everything in ring 0 and boot a fresh OS installation. But I can't do a single bleeping thing except throw out the whole machine if malware takes over ring -1. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bear@slrpnk.net 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) This is already the case with your motherboard firmware, which fTPM is a part of. You are correct in that you have no real way to handle malware in it except throw it away. This doesn't change in any way if you get rid of TPM. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 1 point 3 years ago It decreases the attack surface. permalink fedilink source parent [–] kingthrillgore@kbin.social 10 points 3 years ago (1 child) TPM actually provides some useful components to isolate encryption outside of Ring 0, which is a trust win. But any technology must be weighted against its power to oppress. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org -1 points 3 years ago* And its power to make the system less secure. Isolating things outside ring 0 means malware can isolate itself outside ring 0 as well, and then it's impossible to detect or remove without throwing out the entire machine. Which is much, much scarier than anything an ordinary rootkit might do. permalink fedilink source parent [–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 3 years ago (1 child) yes, the reason is to securely store cryptographic keys. even your own. It comes preloaded with microsoft ones usually, but you're free to delete them and install your own permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 0 points 3 years ago …so far. permalink fedilink source parent [+] knight@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 years ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 5 points 3 years ago Like what google does? You mean disallowing people who use a privacy respecting android rom from using their banking apps and such? Soon very possibly banking websites included? permalink fedilink source parent [–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 0 points 3 years ago* It's only more secure until someone discovers yet another RCE bug in the firmware, and then you've got malware in your machine that's impossible to detect or remove. Because it's secure. Against you. permalink fedilink source parent [+] some_guy@kbin.social -9 points 3 years ago (2 children) the average citizen has nothing to hide therefore deserves no privacy permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SteveTech@programming.dev 9 points 3 years ago I think you forgot a /s permalink fedilink source parent [–] Hexarei@programming.dev 3 points 3 years ago I'm sure you'll be ok sending me your social security number, home address, bank login details, credit card number, a copy of all the files on your hard drive... I mean, you deserve no privacy right? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bear@slrpnk.net 11 points 3 years ago (1 child) Data encryption and decryption without entering a password is a pretty darn good reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ArcticAmphibian@lemmus.org -6 points 3 years ago (2 children) Sure, but does a grandmother's Solitaire & Facebook PC really need quick encrypting and decrypting? Anyone not dealing with sensitive info doesn't need one. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Shere_Khan@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 3 years ago (1 child) Yes, because they are the least likely to know they are a part of a botnet permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 years ago How would at-rest encryption make it less likely that your computer joins a botnet, or more likely that you'd notice if it did? permalink fedilink source parent [–] bear@slrpnk.net 8 points 3 years ago (1 child) There's no downside to having it. There's many downsides to not having it. This seems pretty cut and dry to me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 0 points 3 years ago* (1 child) There’s no downside to having it. Sure there are. If it gets compromised with malicious code, I have no way of removing it. I can protect ring 0. I can keep crap out of ring 0. If all else fails, I can nuke everything in ring 0 and boot a fresh OS installation. But I can't do a single bleeping thing except throw out the whole machine if malware takes over ring -1. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bear@slrpnk.net 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) This is already the case with your motherboard firmware, which fTPM is a part of. You are correct in that you have no real way to handle malware in it except throw it away. This doesn't change in any way if you get rid of TPM. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 1 point 3 years ago It decreases the attack surface. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] ArcticAmphibian@lemmus.org -6 points 3 years ago (2 children) Sure, but does a grandmother's Solitaire & Facebook PC really need quick encrypting and decrypting? Anyone not dealing with sensitive info doesn't need one. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Shere_Khan@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 3 years ago (1 child) Yes, because they are the least likely to know they are a part of a botnet permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 years ago How would at-rest encryption make it less likely that your computer joins a botnet, or more likely that you'd notice if it did? permalink fedilink source parent [–] bear@slrpnk.net 8 points 3 years ago (1 child) There's no downside to having it. There's many downsides to not having it. This seems pretty cut and dry to me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 0 points 3 years ago* (1 child) There’s no downside to having it. Sure there are. If it gets compromised with malicious code, I have no way of removing it. I can protect ring 0. I can keep crap out of ring 0. If all else fails, I can nuke everything in ring 0 and boot a fresh OS installation. But I can't do a single bleeping thing except throw out the whole machine if malware takes over ring -1. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bear@slrpnk.net 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) This is already the case with your motherboard firmware, which fTPM is a part of. You are correct in that you have no real way to handle malware in it except throw it away. This doesn't change in any way if you get rid of TPM. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 1 point 3 years ago It decreases the attack surface. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Shere_Khan@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 3 years ago (1 child) Yes, because they are the least likely to know they are a part of a botnet permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 years ago How would at-rest encryption make it less likely that your computer joins a botnet, or more likely that you'd notice if it did? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 years ago How would at-rest encryption make it less likely that your computer joins a botnet, or more likely that you'd notice if it did? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bear@slrpnk.net 8 points 3 years ago (1 child) There's no downside to having it. There's many downsides to not having it. This seems pretty cut and dry to me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 0 points 3 years ago* (1 child) There’s no downside to having it. Sure there are. If it gets compromised with malicious code, I have no way of removing it. I can protect ring 0. I can keep crap out of ring 0. If all else fails, I can nuke everything in ring 0 and boot a fresh OS installation. But I can't do a single bleeping thing except throw out the whole machine if malware takes over ring -1. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bear@slrpnk.net 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) This is already the case with your motherboard firmware, which fTPM is a part of. You are correct in that you have no real way to handle malware in it except throw it away. This doesn't change in any way if you get rid of TPM. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 1 point 3 years ago It decreases the attack surface. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 0 points 3 years ago* (1 child) There’s no downside to having it. Sure there are. If it gets compromised with malicious code, I have no way of removing it. I can protect ring 0. I can keep crap out of ring 0. If all else fails, I can nuke everything in ring 0 and boot a fresh OS installation. But I can't do a single bleeping thing except throw out the whole machine if malware takes over ring -1. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bear@slrpnk.net 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) This is already the case with your motherboard firmware, which fTPM is a part of. You are correct in that you have no real way to handle malware in it except throw it away. This doesn't change in any way if you get rid of TPM. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 1 point 3 years ago It decreases the attack surface. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bear@slrpnk.net 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) This is already the case with your motherboard firmware, which fTPM is a part of. You are correct in that you have no real way to handle malware in it except throw it away. This doesn't change in any way if you get rid of TPM. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 1 point 3 years ago It decreases the attack surface. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 1 point 3 years ago It decreases the attack surface. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kingthrillgore@kbin.social 10 points 3 years ago (1 child) TPM actually provides some useful components to isolate encryption outside of Ring 0, which is a trust win. But any technology must be weighted against its power to oppress. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org -1 points 3 years ago* And its power to make the system less secure. Isolating things outside ring 0 means malware can isolate itself outside ring 0 as well, and then it's impossible to detect or remove without throwing out the entire machine. Which is much, much scarier than anything an ordinary rootkit might do. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org -1 points 3 years ago* And its power to make the system less secure. Isolating things outside ring 0 means malware can isolate itself outside ring 0 as well, and then it's impossible to detect or remove without throwing out the entire machine. Which is much, much scarier than anything an ordinary rootkit might do. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 3 years ago (1 child) yes, the reason is to securely store cryptographic keys. even your own. It comes preloaded with microsoft ones usually, but you're free to delete them and install your own permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 0 points 3 years ago …so far. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] knight@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 years ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 5 points 3 years ago Like what google does? You mean disallowing people who use a privacy respecting android rom from using their banking apps and such? Soon very possibly banking websites included? permalink fedilink source parent [–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 0 points 3 years ago* It's only more secure until someone discovers yet another RCE bug in the firmware, and then you've got malware in your machine that's impossible to detect or remove. Because it's secure. Against you. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 5 points 3 years ago Like what google does? You mean disallowing people who use a privacy respecting android rom from using their banking apps and such? Soon very possibly banking websites included? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 0 points 3 years ago* It's only more secure until someone discovers yet another RCE bug in the firmware, and then you've got malware in your machine that's impossible to detect or remove. Because it's secure. Against you. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] some_guy@kbin.social -9 points 3 years ago (2 children) the average citizen has nothing to hide therefore deserves no privacy permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SteveTech@programming.dev 9 points 3 years ago I think you forgot a /s permalink fedilink source parent [–] Hexarei@programming.dev 3 points 3 years ago I'm sure you'll be ok sending me your social security number, home address, bank login details, credit card number, a copy of all the files on your hard drive... I mean, you deserve no privacy right? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SteveTech@programming.dev 9 points 3 years ago I think you forgot a /s permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Hexarei@programming.dev 3 points 3 years ago I'm sure you'll be ok sending me your social security number, home address, bank login details, credit card number, a copy of all the files on your hard drive... I mean, you deserve no privacy right? permalink fedilink source parent