Timeline for What really is the difference between firmware TPM and a discrete one and should it be trusted more?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S May 19, 2023 at 15:08 | history | suggested | Ben Voigt | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fix major typo in title
|
| May 19, 2023 at 14:56 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S May 19, 2023 at 15:08 | |||||
| Feb 25, 2023 at 16:02 | answer | added | Dan Turissini | timeline score: 0 | |
| Feb 23, 2022 at 3:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackSecurity/status/1496319102486466564 | ||
| Feb 23, 2022 at 1:24 | answer | added | ARGYROU MINAS | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 29, 2021 at 9:12 | vote | accept | T. Maxx | ||
| Jan 27, 2021 at 16:17 | answer | added | MemAllox | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jan 26, 2021 at 20:50 | comment | added | dandavis | It's 90% marketing. even a custom "stone etching" might be vulnerable to glitching/pulsing/timing attacks or de-capping and microscope inspection, etc. Something built on top of an OS will have the attack surface of that OS in addition to vulns of their specific code. Something proprietary sure sounds secure, but it's merely obscure, and it's actual security is hard to determine. | |
| Jan 26, 2021 at 9:01 | comment | added | Overmind | A physical TPM offers most security ....well it's more like it protects by preventing it's own tampering/cloning. If it's not hardware it's easier to tamper with. | |
| Jan 26, 2021 at 7:33 | history | asked | T. Maxx | CC BY-SA 4.0 |