[11067] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
TPM cost constraint [was: RE: Revenge of the WAVEoid]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lucky Green)
Wed Jul 10 15:28:11 2002
From: "Lucky Green" <shamrock@cypherpunks.to>
To: "'Bill Stewart'" <bill.stewart@pobox.com>
Cc: <cryptography@wasabisystems.com>, <cypherpunks@lne.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 19:05:20 -0700
In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.2.20020706142900.0ba07a50@idiom.com>
Bill wrote:
> At 10:07 PM 06/26/2002 -0700, Lucky Green wrote:
> >An EMBASSY-like CPU security co-processor would have seriously blown
> >the part cost design constraint on the TPM by an order of
> magnitude or
> >two.
>
> Compared to the cost of rewriting Windows to have a
> infrastructure that can support real security? Maybe, but
> I'm inclined to doubt it, especially since most of the
> functions that an off-CPU security co-processor can
> successfully perform are low enough performance that they
> could be done on a PCI or PCMCIA card, without requiring motherboard
> space.
Upon re-reading the paragraph I wrote, I can see how the text might have
been ambiguous. I was trying to express that there was a cost constraint
on the part. Adding the cost of an EMBASSY or SEE environment to the
purchase of every new PC is more than the market for bare-bones or even
mid-range PC's will bear.
--Lucky
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@wasabisystems.com
