Boy do you have a lot to say on the subject. Just in case you're interested in the feedback, from out here it looks like you're going to extremes and it's causing you some distress. I'm worried about you.
Take a break, do something else for a change. Maybe stop reading everything the radical fringe has to say.
I looked up the CBDTPA. It's from 2002. It's been defeated, according to those who opposed it. It looks like it died in committee.
I'm sure if something so sinister as you wrote about here was happening, for real, now, I'd have heard about it on Slashdot.
Incidentally, the Fortune Systems 32:16 had encrypted binaries, machine-locked, that were decoded by a PAL on the motherboard. In 1982. I know, because I worked for a company that sold them, and transferred the PALs to replacements for broken motherboards. It doesn't seem to have mattered much in the long run.
There's a truth about the presumption of guilt I know from watching encrypted OS X components fail their checks. This is absolutely part of what Apple feels is justified behavior just because the TPM blows the whistle. I found some code that can change the secret key inside a certain TPM to a new value - sometimes just a new random value, sometimes a specified value (I think the process is called squirting
( ... )
Comments 2
Take a break, do something else for a change. Maybe stop reading everything the radical fringe has to say.
I looked up the CBDTPA. It's from 2002. It's been defeated, according to those who opposed it. It looks like it died in committee.
I'm sure if something so sinister as you wrote about here was happening, for real, now, I'd have heard about it on Slashdot.
Incidentally, the Fortune Systems 32:16 had encrypted binaries, machine-locked, that were decoded by a PAL on the motherboard. In 1982. I know, because I worked for a company that sold them, and transferred the PALs to replacements for broken motherboards. It doesn't seem to have mattered much in the long run.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment