Replies to post #71689 on Wave Systems Corp. (fka WAVXQ)

[bbigtim]

awk/Addendum

I agree with your excellent summary, but I think it would helpful to augment it a bit. There is a third model -- the discrete security co-processor. Even NGSCB will not be as secure as use of a discrete security co-processor like the Embassy chips which were developed by Wave. However, while use of a discrete security co-processor as the TPM could significantly harden security on a TCG compliant device right now, I think it is unlikely that discrete security co-processors will be included on the motherboard of NGSCB equipped computers. TPMs are likely to be updated to add additional programmability and features, but the architecture selected by Microsoft reduces the likelihood TPMs will be augmented to provide for internal execution of secure code.

I do think that we may still see motherboard adoption of discrete security co-processors for special military or intelligence applications. I think it is likely we will also see less powerful co-processors used in keyboards and smart-card readers to protect data before it reaches the OS.

[helpfulbacteria]

Great post, Awk...

Just one of the highlights:

"No applications - not even Janus - will be integrated into Longhorn(LaGrande/SEM) by default. Within the secure execution environment and under the control of the secure kernel OS ANY DRM scheme can be executed. Every DRM scheme is delivered to the secure execution environment via a certified/verified/encrypted applet(program) that contains all the instructions what this applet is/does and what is supposed to be done(computed). This, by the way, applies to every architecture featuring a secure execution environment, including TrustZone...The trick about LaGrande/TrustZone/SEM architectures is that they are application agnostic...and secure!"

Best Regards :)

c m

[barge]

Awk---One reason why I typically will quote excerpts from the post I'm replying to is because I want to convey to both the poster and the general reader EXACTLY what I'm responding to. I find that important to do because there is the wide spread tendency(actually, it's an epidemic that never abates on this board) for folks to rebuttal posts by arguing points that were never offered by the post they're replying to.

Your last two replies to me I find exceedingly frustrating because you simply refuse to make any effort to respond to the thrust of my argument. How in the hell is a long-winded comparison/contrast between the Vanilla Chip VS the Interoperable Chip got to do with the rather straight forward point I was trying to make. Bigtim got it, and replied like he actually read my post. Why can't you do the same?