Re: [RFC v3][PATCH 2/2] intel_txt: Intel(R) TXT and tboot kernel support [LWN.net]

From:		Theodore Tso <tytso-AT-mit.edu>
To:		Joseph Cihula <joseph.cihula-AT-intel.com>
Subject:		Re: [RFC v3][PATCH 2/2] intel_txt: Intel(R) TXT and tboot kernel support
Date:		Tue, 12 May 2009 17:01:54 -0400
Message-ID:		<20090512210154.GC23773@mit.edu>
Cc:		linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, mingo-AT-elte.hu, arjan-AT-linux.intel.com, hpa-AT-zytor.com, andi-AT-firstfloor.org, chrisw-AT-sous-sol.org, jmorris-AT-namei.org, jbeulich-AT-novell.com, peterm-AT-redhat.com, gang.wei-AT-intel.com, shane.wang-AT-intel.com, John Gilmore <gnu-AT-toad.com>
Archive-link:		Article, Thread

On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 09:49:07PM -0700, Joseph Cihula wrote:
> Linux support for Intel(R) Trusted Execution Technology.

It should be noted that one of the prime purposes of the Trusted
Execution Technology (TXT), aka LaGrande Technology is for DRM
enforcement systems that can be nearly uncrackable.

It can be used for other things, such as restricting who can look at
your medical records (basically, the same technology that prevents you
from breaking the DRM on say, a high-definition movie from Hollywood)
can also be used to enforced who can look at your certain records,
such as medical records in a highly secure and non-circumvental
fashion.

Ross Anderson was one of the first to write about these concerns, over
five years ago:

     http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

It's interesting that his 2003 document was able to predict the
emergence of the LaGrande Technology (see question 15 in the above
FAQ).

So we should expect a certain amount of controversy and people
lobbying to resist the acceptance of this patch.

Regards,

						- Ted

(Log in to post comments)