Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
SFLK pushing 3.70!
No news...I like!
cmf
Seems the SSP acquisition is bullish for SFLK so far.
Let's hope it continues...don't know why it wouldn't.
SFLK above 3.50 e/
orda
I think that makes an excellent question to e-mail Lark or SKS.
You might get a nibble on that one.
Bob Gund
Thanks for your efforts in researching the TCG RAND. It's very helpful.
Regards,
Ramsey
eamonnshute
HP TPM functionality is not unlike IBM's.
As you know Wave's ETS offers cross-TPM interoperability, a requirement for TPM networking...neither HP nor IBM offer this.
I agree with Doma, that HP is looking to integrate Wave, not circumvent us.
Looks like 1100 shares bought the employment numbers:
500 @1.10
600 @1.13
IAMSAM
SFLK @ 3.12 (+.04)
SSPX= .6 SFLK= 1.87
SFLK closed 3.08 (+.26) e/
Nice find guvna...
TechScaler is listed as an IBM Hardware Business Partner.
There are many, many IBM Hardware Business Partners listed.
Who will be Wave's next IBM VAR partner?
protamine1...lack of sellers. e/
no sellers right now...
Best posted asks
BRUT 100 @ 1.20
ISLAND 100@ 1.22
cmf
A 500 sell @1.10 pre-market in neither here nor there, except the absence any real volume indicates that the market is currently not reacting to the TechScaler news.
Oh yaya
I am in for the long haul and prepared to wait.
I am not too hopeful for meaningful revs until Q4, maybe a Q earlier.
News could help bolster share price ahead of meaningful revs.
Sorry I can't be of more help!
Doma...thanks
As SKS said in the CC, whether they are 1.1b or 1.2, it's all the same to Wave's ETS.
I think the biggest concern is, will the impending 1.2 TSS delay/impede the PC OEM's TPM deployment, as some might prefer to wait for 1.2 (Dell for example), or will the OEMs go full bore with the 1.1b.
Taxi vader, nice work! e/
rachelelise
Good questions/summary. Please do e-mail him...I have already had my chance!
Sure sounds like he's saying that 1.2s can be deployed ahead of NGSCB processors, something I think some of us may have already have understood, and further that they can be deployed ahead of the 1.2 TSS.
If awk is right about all NSM Super I/Os being 1.2s, including those the German OEM is testing, then the answer is yes they can be deployed ahead of TSS specs.
Please let us know what you find out!
awk
Actually, isn't he saying here that v1.2 TPM can be implemented ahead of the TSS v1.2?
There are still some software specifications
for the
TSS v1.2 which will need to be completed and developed before all the
new
features can be turned on, but the current TSS V1.1 will work at the
v1.1 level
for the v1.2 hardware.
Does this mean that v1.2 TPM could be released ahead of the TSS v1.2? Full v1.2 features could be turned on later? Is an interoperable TSS like NTRU's a way to get 1.2 functionality to 1.2s that were released without the full 1.2 TCG software stack? I am assuming NTRU will be there with an interoperable v1.2 TSS once the specs are available.
awk
Maybe by "new chips" Lark means beyond what is currently being certifified, although not surprisingly, Lark does not confirm that NSM is even testing. But, Doma has determined that the early chips are currently undergoing certification.
Shouldn't we hope that initial NSM chips are 1.1b so that we can get the Super I/O show on the road? It's my understanding that 1.2s won't come out until the TSS is released. Do you agree?
eamonnshute
I agree the v1.2 TSS is not released yet from the TCG...the show must go on with 1.1b
I think Doma is correct that initial NSM Super I/Os will be v1.1b.
awk
Sorry to be so vague. Actually I was rushing out the door and just barely managed to run off that somewhat feeble response to khillo.
I am not sure either you or Doma are right re: whether NSM Super I/Os will be v1.1b or v1.2.
As I understand Lark's e-mails the v1.2 will become the next defacto standard as soon as it can be offered...still waiting on the TSS. It won't be any more expensive than the v1.1b and it will run concurrent with today's processors. NGSCB will require the new processors (LaGrande and SEM) but ahead of that, v1.2s can be used.
I can't imagine why IBM would not want a v1.2 ahead of NGSCB, if the v1.2 was available.
More from Wave on v1.2
This seems to confirm something I wasn't sure about, namely that v1.2 TPMs are functional with current processors. Therefore we don't need LaGrande/NGSCB to deploy for 1.2s to be used. Some of you may already have understood that v1.2 does not require LaGrande, but I was unclear on this point...that explains why I was belaboring the issue in the awk/doma exchange prior to e-mailing Lark.
March 29, 2004
There's v1.1 hardware and v1.2 hardware which are distinctly different,
except
that chips with V1.2 support all the functions and same interfaces as
V1.1chips
so that any applications which were written to run on V1.1 will still
be able to
run, unchanged, when the PC OEMs start deploying v1.2 chips. In order
for
applications to be able to use the NEW features in V1.2, they will
require a new
version of the Trusted Software Stack V1.2 and the applications must be
enhanced
to support the new features. There is nothing that either Intel nor
AMD need to
do with their processors to support the new V1.2 featues, other than
those
features which are specifically needed when NGSCB comes along. TPMs
are
separate chips from the processors with new security features from
Intel(LaGrande) and AMD(Secure Execution Mode).
Hope that helps,
Lark
khillo
I think a little of each.
From Wave re: v1.2 TPMs
Lark Allen@WAVE_DOMAIN
03/29/2004 12:56 PM
V1.2 is completely backwards compatible with V1.1b so there should not
be any
problem transitioning to V1.2 hardware when it is available. As far as
I know,
cost will not be a primary issue in the transition, in fact, V1.2 could
be less
expensive, just becuse it will be more recent chip technology. I think
we'll
see a natural migration to v1.2 as the products are available, since
there won't
be any major reasons not to move forward one the chips are certified
and tested
by the OEMs.
There are some important new features which are part of v1.2 which will
be of
interest to the PC OEMS and applications vendors. There are some new
privacy
features such as anonymous attestation, and a quasi-clock or monotonic
counter
which improves the security and gives access to trusted time when
calibrated
with a trusted time server, and a few other items, including the
features which
are needed for NGSCB. There are still some software specifications
for the
TSS v1.2 which will need to be completed and developed before all the
new
features can be turned on, but the current TSS V1.1 will work at the
v1.1 level
for the v1.2 hardware.
I'm not sure exactly where National is in their product cycle and
testing for
the Super I/O, but I would expect all new chips to be V1.2 level.
They've done
a good job so far in pushing things ahead.
Thanks
Lark
Doma
Would you surmise that if the 1.2 TSS (TCG Core Software Stack) is finished, that TPMs will all go to 1.2 functionality ahead of NGSCB?
I should think the 1.2 becomes the standard device once all 1.2 specs are completed, whether NGSCB is ready or not. I assume a 1.2 TPM would be backwards compatible with today's hardware.
In any case, whether it's 1.1s or 1.2s all that matters is that NSM scales up the TPM Super I/Os to meet current demand. I guess a question is how high will that demand be pre-1.2
Wildman
But 1.2v TPMs will be deployed ahead of LaGrande/NGSCB...that is my assumption, because 1.2s will work with today's hardware. Somebody please correct me if 1.2s will not work with today's hardware.
As I see it, all that matters for the immediate term is in what volume the NSM Super I/Os will be adpoted, be they 1.1s or 1.2s. How quickly they are offered with 1.2 TPM functionality is less related to when NGSCB will deploy than how soon NSM will offer them. Again, I am assuming that 1.2s will work with pre-LaGrande hardware.
Doma/awk
1.2s are backwards compatible with 1.1s...seems it's simply a question of how close are 1.2 NSM TPMs to being ready.
My own hunch is that NSM will make enough TPM 1.1 Super I/0s to keep up with current demand, I am assuming the 1.1s are closer to being certified, and will next go to 1.2s exclusively when they are ready and certified.
Doma, can we determine if your German link for the ones presently in certification process are 1.1s?
awk
You are right...it's semantics!
I think it's a safe assumption that SafeKeeper functionality is present in the integrated Super I/O. Logically it follows that the NSM/Wave SafeKeeper bundling terms remain in effect, which SKS basically said in the CC and later confirmed in the Bob Gund e-mail.
Doma, much thanks for your excellent DD in uncovering the extent of the NSM Super I/Os!
Doma
No doubt that the SafeKeeper is a stand-alone chip whereas the Super I/O will integrate the (an) NSM TPM...somehow. Presumably it's the the exact same functionality as the separate chip but integrated into an existing piece of hardware.
I thought one of your links referred to the NSM Super I/O as incorporating a SafeKeeper, but I could be wrong.
awk/doma
I thought the NSM Super I/O will integrate the SafeKeeper, no?
TIA
UncleverName
As always, your tireless efforts are appreciated!
Regards,
R2
oknpv
It's likely that SSPX will trade pretty close to it's SFLK valuation, right up to when the deal closes:
SSPX= .6 SFLK
So at today's current prices for example (SSPX @ 1.70/SFLK @ 2.95) it's pretty much in line.
awk
So, the ALI M1689 supports the Atmel and Infineon TPMs (meaning they are both integratable into it) but this chipset is only for the AMD Opteron (K8) and not for Intel processors?
Further, at the present time, any PC OEM that uses an Intel processor would have the sole option of an NSM Super I/O?
TIA
Doma
Nobody seems to know if Atmel and Infineon make Super I/Os, or whether or not they do, if their respective stand-alone TPMs are integratable into a Super I/O, be it their Super I/O or one from another source.
As wonderful as it is to imagine IBM replacing stand-alone Atmel TPMs with an integrated NSM bundled w/ Wave, I am not sure Atmel will allow that to happen. Clearly Atmel and Infineon will have to do something in the way of offering integrated products to compete with NSM.
RWK, hopefully SFLK keeps going! e/
Wildman
Here is the other post clarifying the $10/month per seat:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=2618114
SFLK 2.78. I like! e/
RWK
Yes, 3.5M shares is a bit more than the 3M I thought Wave owned.
Hopefully management is hopeful about SFLK's chances to appreciate. Likely they have more of a clue than most.
Go SFLK!
Tony, I meant SSPX, not WAVX! e/
eamonnshute
I thought it was WAVX= .6 SFLK
If so, that's more like 1.8 shares SFLK
$4.84M @yesterday's close
The transaction calls for Bellevue, Washington-based Saflink to exchange 0.6 of its shares for each outstanding share of SSP-Litronic, also known as SSP Solutions (NasdaqNM:SSPX - News).
http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040322/tech_sspsolutions_2.html