Talk:Trusted Computing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Contents

[edit] Weasel Words

The problem with this article is that it has weasel words. Here's some examples.

2nd paragraph

  • "Advocates of the technology" Who?
  • "Opponents believe" Who?
  • "which to critics" Who?

3rd paragraph

  • "A number of" How many?

The nature of trust

  • "security experts define" Who?
  • "Critics characterize" Who?
  • "While proponents claim" Who?
  • "critics counter" Who?
  • "Advocates of" Who?
  • "Proponents of trusted" Who?
  • "There is an amount of" How much?
  • "it is suspected that" Speculation

There's still more, but this is enough to warrant the {{weasel}} tag.

if someone wants to help this article , all this statements can be transformed in citations from the"proponets" and "opponents" links in the external links section Dbiagioli 12:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
made some corrections . i'm removing the weasel tag for exception 2 of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Improving_weasel-worded_statements:"holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify" Dbiagioli 20:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reasons for proposed merge of Trustworthy Computing

please see my reasons and discuss at Talk:Trustworthy_Computing#reasons for proposed merge. ObsidianOrder

[edit] Wave systems

I didn't put the link in originally but I replaced it, they are actually pretty central to this field, they own many patents in the area and have developed things like trusted keyboards &ct. --Gorgonzilla 20:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That may be, but there isn't really any useful information there that isn't already in the article. It's a corporate website with various commercial offerings, and there is no obvious notability since Wave Systems Corp. is not mentioned in the article. Since Wikipedia is not a link directory, I say there is no reason to further enlarge the External links section with this link. Haakon 20:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I think I'd side with Haakon on this one. Some of the other links could probably do with being re-examined too as the article is somewhat external link heavy at the moment. --Boxflux 06:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Given the current article which equates trusted computing with the TCG which is in turn a commercial consortium it is somewhat difficult to understand that position. Not that I can quite see why having made the decision TCG is the only game in town that there should be a separate article. I admit I have not done a lot in TCG and only attended one meeting, the very first. But there are a lot more games in the trusted/trustworthy space. --Gorgonzilla 00:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italian version

Wow, check out the Italian version of this article, which got FA status. I don't speak a word of the language, but perhaps there is an opportunity here to improve the English-language version of the article? -/- Warren 18:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

hello , i'm one of the contributor to that article and i could also translate some pieces , but it will take some time .. also , my english isn't perfect .however , i'll do my besr Dbiagioli 15:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Dbiagioli
translations form italian is almost done . Dbiagioli 13:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV-check

There appears to be a heavy bias towards a paranoid viewpoint espoused by a small minority in the "Disputed issues" section which lends undue credit to fearmongers. This portion of the article should either be substantially shortened (and "what-if" clauses removed) or the responses of competent professionals who have denounced such myths should be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.98.89.174 (talk • contribs).

One would expect a disputed section to include heavily disputed topics, and to be characterized as heavily disputed or (depending upon viewpoint) "paranoid" or "naive". Could you list specific examples rather than generically stating that it's heavily biased and/or paranoid. It would help other editors to determine whether there is any substance to the concern and the scope of what you feel is untoward. Right now I'd like to review that section but I have no idea what exact examples you want me to look at. Perhaps you could research the companies concerned, and their responses to these issues, and add the balancing viewpoints yourself if you feel up to it, or at least list what they should be. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with FT2. And besides, I think that the level of paranoia in the article is healthy. I will not use it to protect myself, how can I be sure that the hardware manufacturers will not put asymmetric backdoors in their random key-generators? See kleptography.

[edit] space punctuation???

I hope I'm not screwing up someone's legit system, but I'm going through and removing a lot of non-grammatical spaces (i.e. a space before a punctuation mark or double/triple spaces b/w words. Sorry if this is any problem --Gbinal 01:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed owner override for TC

The section on "Proposed owner override for TC" seems to be just another disputed issue. Some people think that it is a good idea, and some people don't. I suggest putting it with the Disputed Issues. Also, it is written with a very anti-TC POV. It complains that the TC folks have refused to scrap a feature in order to please the anti-TC folks. Yes, that's right, just like they disagree on other issues. It should just describe the dispute. Roger 01:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

frankly , one could also say that remote attestation is a bug as it is of little use to the average PC user , if any ... the TC proponents say that it's not a bug , it's a feature .. however Owner Override is now in the disputed issue section . Dbiagioli 06:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. The section still has too much of an anti-TC POV. It refers to "problems" and "solution". To those who think that attestation is a feature, there is no problem and owner override doesn't solve anything. I suggest deleting the whole section, except to say that some TC critics have suggested an owner override in order to give owners more control over their own computers, at the cost of making attestations less meaningful. It could just refer the Seth Schoen article for details. Roger 08:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that deletion is never a good idea . perhaps you could add to the section the reasons for which TC proponents think that owner override is a bad idea ? Dbiagioli 09:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Universal Computer

Add a section on the partisan objections of RMS and the GNU project as well as from the Free Software Foundation on how they claim this impurifies Alan Turing's Universal computer Theory -- That is a computer is a machine that can do the same function as any other existing machine (printing press, fax, polygraph, cassette tapes, records, radio, television, etc) and how trusted computing can possibly limit the computers' abilities to do these things.

Thanks, --Mofomojo 06:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

pelase revert as soon as possible the paragraph "key concepts " , "possible uses" ,"disputed issues " to the original order .the article is unreadable and illogic now .Dbiagioli 15:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
i've done it myself as i've not received any response Dbiagioli 05:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US army & trusted computing support

``The U.S. army has also stated that every new PC bought by the army must support trusted computing [3]" - the referenced article DOES NOT state this.

Thanks for spotting this; I've removed the statement from the article. -/- Warren 17:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
well, the 'referenced article' _stated_ ' this  : see http://www.fcw.com/article95422-07-26-06-Web http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/265 ... and ,, by the way , if you look at the 'suggested models' https://ascp.monmouth.army.mil/scp/cb/cb_products.jsp and if you check them one by one (take for example https://ascp.monmouth.army.mil/scp/cb/cb_item_details.jsp?cat_id=4&ven_id=9 ) you 'll discover that everyone has got a TPM ... the US army has just decided that it does'n want to publicize that fact . Dbiagioli 06:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You write at footnote 4 that "the link [no longer states] that pc must have a TPM." That doesn't mean that the Army dropped the requirement, does it? 10/21/2006 Jvsullivan 19:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

well , if' you re able to find proof of the fact that the army still requires a TPM , i'll be happy to change the page. I haven't found it Dbiagioli 14:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to be trouble to you, but you're making the affirmative assertion that the requirement was dropped. To base that affirmative assertion on the absence of evidence that it wasn't dropped doesn't seem very encyclopedic. If I come across a reiteration of the requirement, I'll certainly point it out. But I think you should reconsider characterizing the absence of a reiteration as a reversal. Thanks for your attention. Jvsullivan 17:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

the problem is , we have not any evidence that the requirement is still in force , so ,giving the fact that the army changed the page, we have to suppose that it was cancelled ... f course in my personal opinion the requirement was not dropped ,but , without the proof that the requirement is still in place , what should be written on the page ? we think the requirement is still in place but we've got no evidence of that ?? Dbiagioli 18:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"We have to suppose"? The cited source says nothing to support the proposition that the requirement was dropped. What is it about an FAQ page that happens not to mention the continued existence of the requirement that compels publication of a supposition that the requirement has been dropped? This isn't adding up. Please take a look at the list accomplishments under strategic goal 3 in this October 2006 Army publication: http://www.army.mil/ciog6/news/500Day2006Update.pdf : "Require Trusted Platform Module (TPM) 1.2 for new computer buys" Thanks. Jvsullivan 19:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

that's enoug for me -- page changed .Dbiagioli 21:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apple?

The article claims that Apple uses the TPM chip for the Intel version of Mac OS X. This information seems to be false. See [[1]]

well , it seems apple has changed its mind .. old macs had a TPM inside , as your link shows Dbiagioli 11:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC).
No, the article isn't saying that no Macs had TPMs inside. It's saying that TPM or no TPM, Apple never USED the TPM. Apple may have decided to stop including TPM chips in the new models, but the key point being made is that they NEVER USED TPM DRM.
ok, so why apple has included the TPM in some models ? and by the way, the fact that they haven't done it before doesn't mean than they are not planning to do it. Dbiagioli 18:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
by default the intel motherboards come with TPM's. Look at any other vendor's computers. I guess they just decided in the end to cut that little cost (it costs like $1 or so per motherboard) and just not include it. Let me say it again - look at other brands . It's very common to have onboard TPM, that doesn't mean all manufactures plan on using them. And as for planning to do, you can say that for anyone. Sheesh!

[edit] Endorsement Key Section

From an inexperienced person perspective (hence why I'm reading a Wikipedia article on the subject!) there is a missing bit of information in the Endorsement Key section on how the signing of a random number proves the identity and validity of the TPM involved. I presume it is because the manufacturer or other trusted third party holds a copy of the public key and this is retrieved by the inquirer for the purpose of communication? If this or otherwise is the case I think it would be worthy of noting. Thanks. George Jenkins 21:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

no ,the new protocol the TCG uses to prove a TPM's identity (direct anonymous attestation) is much more complex and involves a lot of advanced math . i've added a link to its stub , but explaining it in a wikipedia article is very difficult ,IMHO . Dbiagioli 07:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relation to Pentium 3 PSN

Does anyone know how this is different from the P3 PSNs? I seem to remember that they didn't catch on.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/r/u/Talk%7ETrusted_Computing_894e.html"