- cross-posted to:
- linux@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- linux@programming.dev
As part of their “Defective by Design” anti-DRM campaign, the FSF recently made the following claim:
Today, most of the major streaming media platforms utilize the TPM to decrypt media streams, forcefully placing the decryption out of the user’s control (from here).
This is part of an overall argument that Microsoft’s insistence that only hardware with a TPM can run Windows 11 is with the goal of aiding streaming companies in their attempt to ensure media can only be played in tightly constrained environments.
I’m going to be honest here and say that I don’t know what Microsoft’s actual motivation for requiring a TPM in Windows 11 is. I’ve been talking about TPM stuff for a long time. My job involves writing a lot of TPM code. I think having a TPM enables a number of worthwhile security features. Given the choice, I’d certainly pick a computer with a TPM. But in terms of whether it’s of sufficient value to lock out Windows 11 on hardware with no TPM that would otherwise be able to run it? I’m not sure that’s a worthwhile tradeoff.
What I can say is that the FSF’s claim is just 100% wrong, and since this seems to be the sole basis of their overall claim about Microsoft’s strategy here, the argument is pretty significantly undermined. I’m not aware of any streaming media platforms making use of TPMs in any way whatsoever. There is hardware DRM that the media companies use to restrict users, but it’s not in the TPM - it’s in the GPU.
You must log in or register to comment.
deleted by creator
I still have a lot of mistrust for the TPM, but that’s OK, my paranoia has room to accommodate everyone.
I think having a TPM enables a number of worthwhile security features.
But most of those security features place the TPM at the root of trust, something that is SEVERELY undermined by the fact that it is not open source, meaning it is inherently untrustworthy.
Is it not the one chip we should demand and accept nothing less than complete openness in its implementation and complete control by the person who owns the device? I also think the types of protections it grants in theory are very good, but the fact that it’s proprietary means it’s terrible at actually granting you those protections.
Historical context : it’s a 1yo post.
TPM itself isn’t the problem. TPM itself technically might be a good solution, what the FSF precisely put forward is “out of the user’s control”. They even mention how it’s not about theoretical ideas but how it’s actually used. If Microsoft gets to decide HOW your computers works DESPITE you wanting NOT to behave that way AND it makes Microsoft itself, or its partners, even more entrenched then it’s a serious problem, it means “your” computer is their computer.
What we have all witnessed is that bit by bit OSes like Windows, but also MacOS and Android, are not simply providing stores or tightly controllers channel (with fees for themselves) but ALSO removing entirely, or making it radically harder, to install software the user actually wants to install (not malware).
It’s not about TPM, it’s as usual about who control your computer.
Agree. Saying TPM is bad is same as saying Encryption is bad. It’s not about the technology. It’s about the evil hearted corporations using these technologies to limit user freedom.
I replaced Raspberry Pis with Intel NUC mainly because NUC comes with TPM 2.0. I can now encrypt my drives without storing the key in plaintext.
I could not read the blog because it blocked me for using VPN (speaking of DRMs :) ). While I agree DRM is evil and should be ablolished from user’s computers, readers should not get wrong idea about TPM. It’s what protects your phone and servers from attackers. Desktop would also benefit from it a lot.
The encryption of streaming media is annoying, but it’s not what I fear. The ability to lock the software that I run on my hardware to “approved vendors” only is what worries me, and it’s what TPM promises. A security model where the only trusted party isn’t even the person owning the hardware.
In practice, Machine Owner Keys are a thing, though it depends on Microsoft still signing shim, I believe.
Having Microsoft in the chain of trust rather than a standards body is rather concerning, though.
Modern hardware absolutely should have an encryption processor; TPM just isn’t great.
