Talk:Embedded Security Subsystem - Revision history

Jonthomas at 08:37, 30 October 2008

2008-10-30T08:37:38Z

2008-10-30T08:37:01Z

2008-10-30T08:26:21Z

‎But what's its use ?

2008-03-05T23:49:01Z

‎TPM removal???: not possible in some thinkpads.

2008-03-05T12:40:42Z

2006-07-20T22:07:27Z

‎TPM removal???

2006-05-04T20:09:54Z

TPM removal???

2006-01-19T11:34:57Z

‎X60, X60s and T60 with TCG 1.2-compliant Atmel chip

2006-01-18T13:23:22Z

‎X60, X60s and T60 with TCG 1.2-compliant Atmel chip

2006-01-18T12:46:37Z

X60, X60s and T60 with TCG 1.2-compliant Atmel chip

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:37, 30 October 2008
Line 90:		Line 90:


−	~~== '''~~Can anyone offer an alternative to full system restore to get around this problem, or a have link that has a SOLUTION to this problem (however bizarre)?~~''' ==~~	+	Can anyone offer an alternative to full system restore to get around this problem, or a have link that has a SOLUTION to this problem (however bizarre)?


	I am tempted to see how well the rubber coating makes my T42 bounce :-)		I am tempted to see how well the rubber coating makes my T42 bounce :-)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:37, 30 October 2008
Line 78:		Line 78:

	2) when using SSL (eg, when shopping online) the encryption keys are store inside the TPM itself rather than on your hard drive. this makes them harder to extract either manually of by a trojan		2) when using SSL (eg, when shopping online) the encryption keys are store inside the TPM itself rather than on your hard drive. this makes them harder to extract either manually of by a trojan
		+
		+	== endless display of "checking status of the security system" message on startup ==
		+
		+	many thinksters will have seen this message more times than they care to remember.
		+
		+	I have yet to find a way to get around this problem other than a full system restore from backup.
		+
		+	in my experience it is usually caused by a incompatible software firewall (or update) and occasionally antivirus software.
		+
		+	sometimes you can wait for it to time out & ask for your logon password (20mins or so). but usually it just goes on endlessly.
		+
		+
		+	== '''Can anyone offer an alternative to full system restore to get around this problem, or a have link that has a SOLUTION to this problem (however bizarre)?''' ==
		+
		+
		+	I am tempted to see how well the rubber coating makes my T42 bounce :-)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:26, 30 October 2008
Line 71:		Line 71:

	Thanks.		Thanks.
		+	there is quite a good audio segment about TPM on grc.com. you will have to find it for your self.
		+
		+	I am not an expert, but have some knowledge. as I understand it definite benefits include:
		+
		+	1) it has a TRUE random number generator. this is useful for the generation of encryption keys. e.g. online banking or buying thing with your credit card online (uses SSL technology).
		+
		+	2) when using SSL (eg, when shopping online) the encryption keys are store inside the TPM itself rather than on your hard drive. this makes them harder to extract either manually of by a trojan

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:49, 5 March 2008
Line 57:		Line 57:
	Answer: Yes, it is true the TPM chip is 97SC3203. But the TP won't work w/o it. It will give the security chip tamper error. Anyway, the chip internal ROM can be read in the same way as the PC8394T-VJG ROM.		Answer: Yes, it is true the TPM chip is 97SC3203. But the TP won't work w/o it. It will give the security chip tamper error. Anyway, the chip internal ROM can be read in the same way as the PC8394T-VJG ROM.

		+	----
		+
		+	The ROM you're reading from the PC8394T-VJG is the ROM of the TPM included inside the C8394T-VJG, AFAIK :-)
		+
		+	And if you have a PC8394T-VJG, you don't have a removable 97SC3203 or anything like that.
		+
		+	--[[User:Hmh\|hmh]] 00:49, 6 March 2008 (CET)

	== But what's its use ? ==		== But what's its use ? ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:40, 5 March 2008
Line 56:		Line 56:

	Answer: Yes, it is true the TPM chip is 97SC3203. But the TP won't work w/o it. It will give the security chip tamper error. Anyway, the chip internal ROM can be read in the same way as the PC8394T-VJG ROM.		Answer: Yes, it is true the TPM chip is 97SC3203. But the TP won't work w/o it. It will give the security chip tamper error. Anyway, the chip internal ROM can be read in the same way as the PC8394T-VJG ROM.
		+
		+
		+	== But what's its use ? ==
		+
		+	Despite all the info, it is still unclear what this system is good for.
		+	What is the typical scenario for using it? How does it compare to just plain encryption of you HD?
		+
		+	Thanks.

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:07, 20 July 2006
Line 54:		Line 54:

	So, according to the photo in the article, the TPM chip is on a removable daughter card. With the chip removed, will the PC still operate as a normal (non TPM-enabled) PC?		So, according to the photo in the article, the TPM chip is on a removable daughter card. With the chip removed, will the PC still operate as a normal (non TPM-enabled) PC?
		+
		+	Answer: Yes, it is true the TPM chip is 97SC3203. But the TP won't work w/o it. It will give the security chip tamper error. Anyway, the chip internal ROM can be read in the same way as the PC8394T-VJG ROM.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:09, 4 May 2006
Line 50:		Line 50:
	[[User:Wyrfel\|Wyrfel]] 12:34, 19 January 2006 (CET)		[[User:Wyrfel\|Wyrfel]] 12:34, 19 January 2006 (CET)
	----		----
		+
		+	== TPM removal??? ==
		+
		+	So, according to the photo in the article, the TPM chip is on a removable daughter card. With the chip removed, will the PC still operate as a normal (non TPM-enabled) PC?

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:34, 19 January 2006
Line 45:		Line 45:

	Update: In the same document I found "LPC bus (PC87382 Super I/O, AtmelÂ® 97SC3203)" in the architecture section.		Update: In the same document I found "LPC bus (PC87382 Super I/O, AtmelÂ® 97SC3203)" in the architecture section.
		+	----
		+	I believe that TCG 1.2 includes an API for software communication with the chips, so the drivers should be chip independent. Not sure, though.
		+
		+	[[User:Wyrfel\|Wyrfel]] 12:34, 19 January 2006 (CET)
		+	----

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:23, 18 January 2006
Line 43:		Line 43:

	What about linux support for this chip?		What about linux support for this chip?
		+
		+	Update: In the same document I found "LPC bus (PC87382 Super I/O, AtmelÂ® 97SC3203)" in the architecture section.

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:46, 18 January 2006
Line 34:		Line 34:
	----		----
	Yeah, I am seeing less and less on ESS 1.0 on www.ibm.com, which is my source for this stuff. If I come across anything concrete, I'll post it.		Yeah, I am seeing less and less on ESS 1.0 on www.ibm.com, which is my source for this stuff. If I come across anything concrete, I'll post it.
		+
		+	== X60, X60s and T60 with TCG 1.2-compliant Atmel chip ==
		+
		+	Lenovo's "Personal Systems Reference" on Thinkpad Notebooks version 301, January 2006 states that Thinkpads X60, X60 and T60 are equipped with a "Trusted Platform Module / Atmel chip / TCG 1.2-compliant".
		+
		+	Could this be the Atmel AT97SC3203?
		+	Can anyone confirm this?
		+
		+	What about linux support for this chip?