Re: [Fed-Talk] FW: Army to require built-in security
Re: [Fed-Talk] FW: Army to require built-in security
- Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] FW: Army to require built-in security
- From: Amanda Walker <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 20:13:14 -0700
On Aug 4, 2006, at 7:11 AM, Timothy J. Miller wrote:
Amanda Walker wrote:
Among other things, the TPM is a tamper resistant and tamper
evident key repository and RSA cipher engine.
Thank you for not saying "tamper proof." ;)
"Tamper proof" is a contradiction in terms.
However, I'm not so sure about "tamper evident."
Under the TCPA protection profile, the TPM is required to be tamper
evident to be certified as TCPA compliant:
http://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/public/files/ppfiles/
PP_TCPATPMPP_V1.9.7.pdf
http://intel.com/design/mobile/platform/downloads/
Trusted_Platform_Module_White_Paper.pdf
Now, granted... we're probably not talking the type of stuff the NSA
requires for Type 1 here, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's more
secure than a smart card.
Amanda Walker
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden