zlacker

>>gjsman+(OP)
Ew. Why are all the chip manufacturers going along with this stupid plan? I want to buy a processor and then own it and have it work in my best interests, not consume electricity and generatie heat enforcing draconian 3rd party DRM policies.

>>metada+n
The conspiratorial answers here are emotionally satisfying, but ultimately wrong. The reason chip makers and OS vendors are adding this is customer demand, by which I mean enterprises. Companies want remote attestation and guaranteed-immutable OS images on their networks, and I honestly can't say I blame them. In a perfect world they could have it and we could somehow firewall it away from the consumer space entirely, but that's not going to happen.

>>Analem+u7
On-premise, open-source, customer-owned remote attestation servers are possible. Avoid outsourcing integrity verification to 3rd-party clouds.

>>walter+H8
Yes, they are possible... And they are implemented using all the evil things like Secure Boot, TPM, and Pluton.

MS remote attestation doesn't require remote cloud or anything like that, I recall it supporting air-gapped environment from the start (guess why, the top-price enterprise clients want that, including resigning windows with their own secure boot keys).

Disclaimer: for various reasons open source remote attestation in corporate is currently on my roadmap at work

>>p_l+Dj
> And they are implemented using all the evil things like Secure Boot, TPM, and Pluton.

There is nothing evil with TPM when you fully control it. See: Librem Key.