[14979] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Difference between TCPA-Hardware and other forms of trust
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Peter Gutmann)
Sat Dec 20 12:24:15 2003
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:48:34 +1300
From: pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann)
To: gnu@toad.com, jerrold.leichter@smarts.com
Cc: cryptography@metzdowd.com, gnu@new.toad.com
John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com> writes:
>They eventually censored out all the sample application scenarios like DRM'd
>online music, and ramped up the level of jargon significantly, so that nobody
>reading it can tell what it's for any more. Now all the documents available
>at that site go on for pages and pages saying things like "FIA_UAU.1 Timing of
>authentication. Hierarchical to: No other components. FIA_UAU.1.1 The TSF
>shall allow access to data and keys where entity owner has given the 'world'
>access based on the value of TCPA_AUTH_DATA_USAGE; access to the following
>commands: TPM_SelfTestFull, TPM_ContinueSelfTest, TPM_GetTestResult,
>TPM_PcrRead, TPM_DirRead, and TPM_EvictKey on behalf of the user to be
>performed before the user is authenticated."
That gobbledigook sounds like Common Criteria-speak. So it's not deliberate,
it's a side-effect of making it CC-friendly.
>nobody reading it can tell what it's for any more
Yup, that's definitely Common Criteria.
Peter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
