Talk:Trusted Execution Technology

message: The atricle's comma placement and syntax seems a bit off to me. I'd place a cleanup template, but haven't yet figured out how. Also, the vocabulary seems a bit advertish to me.
Orange & Viridian 09:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i'm not a native english speaker . if you wish to correct my mystakes ,you're welcome. Dbiagioli 13:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Where did you found the info that the TPM is designed to withstand physical attack ?  and the packaging is designe to self-destruct ? could you provide a link please?Dbiagioli 07:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  la grande main use 

message: This phrase is extremely POV:  "aimed at giving users, especially in the business segment, a way to defend themselves against software-based attacks aimed at stealing sensitive information".
This is the POV of DRM proponents.  OTOH, my POV is that it is aimed at taking freedom away from users, rendering them incapable of defending themselves.  Please make this phrase more neutral.  For example, it could start with "Intel claims that it is aimed at....", and then followed by "OTOH, opponents of DRM think that...".
See: POV, Digital_restriction_management#Controversy.
: done Dbiagioli 15:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: The article is, in my opinion, rather weak on the details of where TXT differs from existing security solutions. The TPM chip is obviously new and novel, but the article also makes mention of parts of the architecture where I cannot understand why ordinary virtual memory would not suffice, such as:
: "The processor : With a private environment for applications, so that the hardware resources (such as memory pools) are locked to the calling applications and cannot be accessed whether for read or write by any other process running on the platform"
:: This sounds exactly like virtual memory.
: "The chipset : Enforces security on the main board by controlling more accurately the memory management policy, enhancements to memory access mechanisms, channel control mechanisms for hardware extensions (user I/O, Graphics, etc.) and secure interface to the TPM"
:: Except for the secure interface to the TPM, this statement is very vague. How do these "enhancements to memory access mechanisms" differ from current bus access?
: "The user Input : Protection states over keyboard, and mouse, allowing users to interact with trusted platform applications, without the risk of being compromised, neither observed by other running software"
:: Other running software cannot normally observe keyboard or mouse input unless directed to them as is on current operating systems, and even if they can, that sounds like a problem to be solved in software, rather than in hardware to me.
: "The Display Interface : This feature enables trusted platform applications to send display data to specific context (a window for example) memory buffer, preventing running software from stealing the being-transmitted information"
:: Same thing here; even if other programs can access other programs' window contents, that still sounds like a system software problem rather than a hardware problem to me.
It would be great if someone knowledgeable could clarify these issues. Dolda2000 (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifications 

message: This article is remarkably vague on what exactly Intel TXT actually is.  Instead, it reads like a list of marketing features, without any implementation details.   TXT is advertised as a CPU feature, yet there's no mention of where the CPU with TXT support fits into this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.82.47 (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vague ?