Replies to post #5192 on Wave Systems Corp. (fka WAVXQ)

[rachelelise]

Larry

FWIW that is definitiely possible and the subject of much speculation. IMO if the Intel /Wave collaboration is to become more fruitful, then we will see Emabssy IP in LaGrande and/or emerge as part of the evolution of the TPM- the former being something of interest and a possible hedge/weapon for Intel against Microsoft and reliance on NGSCB (or whatever they will call it).

[Zeev Hed]

You remember the good old days of the "Math co-processor" a separate chip in the old days of the 8088 and much later processors? Well, it was incorporated in the pentium, and maybe even in the 300 series earlier. There is no reason a priori, as far as I can see, not to have a co-processor residing with the processor on the same chip obviating the need for an interface. I am told that some microcontrollers (a much simpler chip than the general microprocessors) have some security functions embedded within them. A very critical question is avoidance of tampering (whether on uses a co-processor or an integrated microprocessor), and I have not seen this issue addressed (it is obviated when you have a third party encryption key, but that is of course cumbersome, thus the advantage of having security functions at the PC itself).

[Wildman262]

Larry, that question has been addressed many times in the past. As I recall, I think the answer was that it was not technically or enconomically feasible to integrate the TPM functions directly into the microprocessor. Hence the seperate TPM. The TPM is a closed environment.

[WinLoseOrDraw]

Is it possible that INTC (in the future) would take the
WAVX chip on the MB and place it's capabilities into the main INTC chip ?

since the embassy chip itself is basically some off the shelf crypto silicon tacked on to an off the shelf processor, your question is already answered by wave itself.