- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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.


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.
really, unless it’s a Precursor-style open chip and able to be verified by the consumer that it hasn’t been tampered with, then we’re already putting an awful lot of faith in the primary CPUs in our systems, anyway
there’s also so much mistrust of TPMs that every verified damage wrought by them ought to be very well documented by now
TPMs are certainly worthy of our vigilance, but it seems like we should be spending more energy pestering CPU and GPU vendors for better behaviour