Slashdot

What was that info doing on a laptop? That in itself is very suspicious. Nobody should have a full list of the "approved people" outside of an database where each access is logged. That's info a terrorist group would want. It gives them a list of people who won't be searched. Those are the ones to exploit to get something past security.

The laptop disappeared from a locked room at an airport. This wasn't an ordinary laptop theft. TSA has to assume that the database is now in hostile hands. So now everyone with a "Clear" card should be subjected to extra searches.

Let's check out the "Clear" privacy policy. "Clear and its subcontractors, pursuant to legal agreements, have a comprehensive information security program to ensure the privacy of Clear applicants and members as well as the integrity of our systems. We apply ID's and passwords to insure that access to systems and data is only on a need-to-know basis. We use encryption (a strong data coding process) for all program sensitive data communications." ... "In the highly unlikely event that a member is the victim of identity theft (defined as the taking of a member's personal information so that fraudulent transactions are made in the member's name) that is the result of any unauthorized dissemination by Clear or its subcontractors, or theft from Clear or its subcontractors, of the member's personal data collected by Clear, we will reimburse the member for any otherwise unreimbursable monetary costs directly resulting from such Identity Theft. In addition, Clear will, at its own expense, offer any such member assistance in restoring the integrity of the member's financial or other accounts." ... "Clear has appointed an independent, outside Privacy Ombudsman, Law Professor Paul Schwartz, noted privacy expert and advocate. He will be identified to members as the person to contact if a member has a privacy complaint or privacy problem with administration of the Clear system or fidelity to our published Privacy Policies. The Independent Privacy Ombudsman is empowered to investigate all privacy complaints, gather the facts, and respond to members, as well as to post responses publicly and prominently on our website."

Yet there's no announcement of the security breach on the Clear web site.

The amazing discovery they made is that when people had time to think about a question, they gave better answers. This is profound.

The TPM chip that comes in computers is totally different than the hardware chips, curtained memory, and super-root apps that were in Palladium. In the NGSCB, the hardware had an active role of maintaining I/O, and managing memory.

The current version of the TPM is not in the active path at all. Fundamentally, all a TPM 1.2 chip is, is a smart card that is attached to the motherboard. The only difference between it and an Aladdin eToken that is plugged into a USB port are two things. First, are the platform configuration registers, which you manually have to put data into, and second the TPM is resettable from the BIOS screen.

TPM chips, as per the TCG 1.2 spec ship disabled and deactivated, and the user of the machine has to go into BIOS to enable the chip and take physical ownership. Otherwise, it can't be accessed by the machine in any way.

Motherboards TPM chips are rare to find. For a server I built that is to be able to boot unattended, but have all its volumes encrypted using BitLocker, I had to chase down stats on Intel's website and compare them to currently selling motherboards, then cross-reference them to make sure there was an actual chip, and not just BIOS headers.

The Atari founder is quite wrong. Using the TPM won't give much protection from pirates. We've already hard hardware devices encrypting software for decades -- the good old fashioned dongles.

Second, no modern OS ships with a trusted, sealed OS path that is forever static and can be signed from the OS company and passed directly to the TPM like console operating systems are done. Windows Server 2008 has different drivers load for RAID and other low level devices which vary widely party. For example, If you install a new role like Hyper-V on Windows Server 2008, you have to disable and re-enable BitLocker, or the OS path won't be the same. Bitlocker doesn't use OS signatures from a central source, when its enabled, it does its own signing and sealing of the boot path and other user selectable data (BIOS settings, NTFS stats, MBR, partition table.)

The Atari founder assumes too much. PCs are not consoles where having a chip on a static OS and hardware can provide adequate protection. For the TPM chip on PCs to be used for piracy protection, every gaming machine would have to have one physically present, enabled, activated, and ownership taken in the OS the chip is running under, the OS would have to have a static low level kernel that never changes from machine to machine regardless of CPU or devices installed, which for a PC is virtually impossible.

TPM chips also have been emulated too. All it takes is one person to be able to bypass the protection, and the game is cracked.

All and all, in my personal experience, TPM chips are a good thing, especially with BitLocker. A server can boot unattended but still possess hard disk encryption so someone who gets physical access to the box can't just boot a CD and copy off the server's contents. I'd recommend this for co-loc boxes, especially in these times where thieves are learning that a data center heist can net far more cash in information to sell on the ID theft market (or just plain old extortion) than a bank robbery would haul in.

A laptop owned by a company bound by corporate regs can use BitLocker or PGP to ensure the laptop has hard disk encryption, but doesn't have any more passwords the user has to remember. Finally, someone can use BitLocker + a PIN, so if someone steals a laptop or machine, they only have 3-5 guesses before the TPM refused entries or starts adding substantial delays between password guesses.

Of course, there are hard disk encryption programs with pre-boot authentication (TrueCrypt, PGP, etc.), but BitLocker is the only one that offers the feature of booting a machine completely unattended, but yet remain secure. Of course, one can have an OS boot then manually mount encrypted volumes, but BitLocker removes the hassle of this, especially if the machine is in a remote location where no admins would be present, and a network connection is not feasible.

The TPM chip in its current form is a security asset (IMHO). It, in its current incarnation, would provide little help for new DRM or antipiracy schemes.