• jetEnglish
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    0
    ·
    8 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    Because the CPU has to decrypt the bulk of the data coming from the disc. And it needs a key to do that. Unless we route all traffic through the TPM to decrypt the disc. The CPU needs a key to do that

    • tiasEnglish
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      8 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      Surely some smart key exchange algorithm could be used for that, e.g. the CPU provides a public key to the TPM and the TPM encrypts the symmetric disk key with that public key. Similar to how TLS works.

      • xradeonEnglish
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        8 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        The private key would have to stored in clear text somewhere. Potentially if you had non volatile space on cpu that to store the private key, that might work. But if you’re going to do that, might as well just use an ftpm.

        • laughterlaughterEnglish
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          0
          ·
          8 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          Why not store it directly in the TPM, if that’s the device that will do that initial decryption?

          • xradeonEnglish
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            0
            ·
            8 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            You can’t do that since vulnerability is the connection between the TPM and the CPU, you need to encrypt that path.

            • LojcsEnglish
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              0
              ·
              8 months ago
              link
              fedilink

              Pretty sure they meant if you need to keep a persistent public/private pair you can keep them in the tpm and initiate the exchange from there

              • laughterlaughterEnglish
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                0
                ·
                8 months ago
                link
                fedilink

                That’s correct. I’m guessing if it hasn’t been implemented yet, then there is some technical roadblock I’m currently missing.

            • laughterlaughterEnglish
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              0
              ·
              8 months ago
              link
              fedilink

              The TPM comes out from the factory with a private key stored in it. The CPU has the public key.

              You turn on the laptop for the first time, and the communication between the CPU and the TPM is encrypted from the start.

              That’s what I’m referring to. Can’t this be done? I’m guessing it’s not that easy because I’m sure computer designers have already considered this idea.

        • jetEnglish
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          0
          ·
          8 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          Right and not to mention pairing the cpu and tpm for key exchange to avoid mitm attacks

        • LojcsEnglish
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          0
          ·
          8 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          Just generate one anew. You don’t need to use the same one each time

          • xradeonEnglish
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            0
            ·
            8 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            What do you mean by that? Generate a new private/public key pair every time you setup a new TPM? Or when you boot the system or something?

            • LojcsEnglish
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              0
              ·
              8 months ago
              edit-2
              8 months ago
              link
              fedilink

              On each connection. Or boot. Whenever you need

              Edit: to be clear, this would still be vulnerable to mitm attacks without a user entered password on top but at least you can’t just read the secrets from the bus. E2: And having a password wouldn’t be fully secure without such a scheme neither