Missing TPM a dead end for HD content delivery?

rpp3po

macrumors regular
Original poster
Aug 16, 2003
172
0
Germany
Until today nobody has been able to verifiy the existence of a trusted platform module (TPM) on the Mac Pro. There has been speculation that this was due to market timing, because Intel's reference board design did not include one.

HD-content owners have made clear from the beginning that a protected content path is of absolute necessity for HD playback. A TPM really makes this a lot easier as any involved drivers can be digitally signed against it.

Apple has earned a bad track record concerning early adopters in the recent years. Hopefully they don't 'fix' this issue with the Blue Ray enabled Mac Pros locking early adopters out again. (They could argue: "Hey it was supposed to be a work horse, no entertainment platform").
 

iMeowbot

macrumors G3
Aug 30, 2003
8,643
0
rpp3po said:
Until today nobody has been able to verifiy the existence of a trusted platform module (TPM) on the Mac Pro.
Eh? OS X for Intel has been making use of TPM since Apple first announced the Intel switch. I thought that everyone knew this by now.

[ edit: okay, I see what this is about. In a c't article back in August, a reviewer overlooked the chip on the Mac Pro, but other sources quickly noted that it was indeed there. ]
 

Trekkie

macrumors 6502a
Nov 13, 2002
906
15
Wake Forest, NC
Apple doesn't use the TPM in it's DRM today and they've been very successful on both sides of the content providors and the content lovers.

What makes you think they won't leverage that to NOT use TPM in the future?

The only benefit of TPM I personally want is the CRTM + TPM combination that proves that your system booted up secure & started the operating system securely with a signature so you know since last boot you were hosed.

The only reason i'm really interested in that is that from a proof of concept point of view you could rootkit the OS with a VT enabled virus that would virtualize your host operating system and run a spambot/spyware/whatever infested core operating system. Then it doens't matter how secure your OS is, if it doesn't have root control of the hardware...

That is in theory.
 

rpp3po

macrumors regular
Original poster
Aug 16, 2003
172
0
Germany
iMeowbot said:
[ edit: okay, I see what this is about. In a c't article back in August, a reviewer overlooked the chip on the Mac Pro, but other sources quickly noted that it was indeed there. ]
This 'indeed there' had later been pulled back again at every source I have found so far on that topic.

The only 'proof' I have found in this forum shows pictures which are not detailed enough to show the label of the IC supposed to have been overseen.

Can you verify the existence of a TPM?
 

iMeowbot

macrumors G3
Aug 30, 2003
8,643
0
rpp3po said:
Can you verify the existence of a TPM?
You can simply run the ioreg command.

Also, I notice that on some boards there was some confusion about the chip labeled SLB9635TT12 -- yes, that is the TPM.

You can see it at infineon here. At the bottom of the page, check out the linked images.
 

rpp3po

macrumors regular
Original poster
Aug 16, 2003
172
0
Germany
Trekkie said:
What makes you think they won't leverage that to NOT use TPM in the future?
It would be fairly easy to write a hypervisor emulating an enhanced firmware interface (EFI) for commodity Xeon PCs. You could then boot Mac OSX from within.

Without a TPM and EFI having been virtualized there would be left no significant difference between a homemade Xeon PC (same Intel chipset) and a Mac Pro.

A TPM can hypthetically be virtualized, too, but there is no sub multi million way of extracting the private keys from the original Apple chipsets. So a TPM could keep hackers away from booting OS-X, EFI cannot.

So with the Mac Pro being the first Intel without TPM could later be forced to get locked out of whole new OS-X versions, if such EFI-virtualizer ever gets written and Apple wants to stay exclusive.
 

rpp3po

macrumors regular
Original poster
Aug 16, 2003
172
0
Germany
iMeowbot said:
Also, I notice that on some boards there was some confusion about the chip labeled SLB9635TT12 -- yes, that is the TPM.
Ok, the picture at Infineon's site looks good. But how about a picture from inside a Mac Pro?

If you cannot provide a link, but own a Mac Pro, what's your ouput of ioreg run from the terminal?
 

iMeowbot

macrumors G3
Aug 30, 2003
8,643
0
Wait a second, you're spreading FUD about a machine you don't even have?!! Yeesh, I'm outta here.
 

rpp3po

macrumors regular
Original poster
Aug 16, 2003
172
0
Germany
iMeowbot said:
Wait a second, you're spreading FUD about a machine you don't even have?!! Yeesh, I'm outta here.
I wan't to be sure before wasting a lot of money on this. What's wrong with that?

All info on that topic has been negative so far. So there is reason to worry.

I guess you have copy & pasted that 'ioreg' comment from somewhere else without knowing what it means.
 

iMeowbot

macrumors G3
Aug 30, 2003
8,643
0
rpp3po said:
that 'ioreg' comment from somewhere else without knowing what it means.
The man command will tell you what ioreg does. It will tell you if the component has been detected and logged into the device registry. And you can check this out for yourself at any Apple dealer.

Of course, this isn't the first time you have come to MacRumors to spread FUD. No more PowerBooks ever? Back in 2003? Yeah.
 

rpp3po

macrumors regular
Original poster
Aug 16, 2003
172
0
Germany
iMeowbot said:
The man command will tell you what ioreg does. It will tell you if the component has been detected and logged into the device registry. And you can check this out for yourself at any Apple dealer.
Regularyly reading Xeon registers through inline assembler code I certainly know how to use a man page and what ioreg does. So anybody around who could post a quick output of ioreg, instead of just talking about it? That would really help.
 

rpp3po

macrumors regular
Original poster
Aug 16, 2003
172
0
Germany
iMeowbot said:
Of course, this isn't the first time you have come to MacRumors to spread FUD. No more PowerBooks ever? Back in 2003? Yeah.
Must be hard to have intrinsic reading skills of your shape, being unable to separate irony from honesty.

Looks like YOU don't own a Mac Pro, but act as if you could contribute to the discoussion.
 

iMeowbot

macrumors G3
Aug 30, 2003
8,643
0
rpp3po said:
Must be hard to have intrinsic reading skills of your shape, being unable to separate irony from honesty.
Ah, was that like the very funny irony in this post?
rpp3po said:
I had once bought my Powerbook G4 (besides other aspects) because it was very quite. A few SMC updates later the fan was running continuously and as such probably lowering average temperatur and service return rate for Apple.
The talk of "SMC updates" on a PowerBook is rather interesting since there were no such things.

You have never seen an Apple machine in person, have you?
 

rpp3po

macrumors regular
Original poster
Aug 16, 2003
172
0
Germany
iMeowbot said:
Ah, was that like the very funny irony in this post?

The talk of "SMC updates" on a PowerBook is rather interesting since there were no such things.

You have never seen an Apple machine in person, have you?
I'm just writing you from a 12" PowerBook. The fan behavior was indeed changed through kext revisions of the os fan control. The web is full of this, even guides about how to put back the old kext's. I'm a Apple user since the G3 so stop your desperate attempts to insult me to cover your own crab.
 

rpp3po

macrumors regular
Original poster
Aug 16, 2003
172
0
Germany
iMeowbot said:
Also, I notice that on some boards there was some confusion about the chip labeled SLB9635TT12 -- yes, that is the TPM.

You can see it at infineon here. At the bottom of the page, check out the linked images.
Issue resolved. Your statements were false:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=236669

iMeowbot said:
Wait a second, you're spreading FUD...
As it turns out, it was you who was spreading FUD (or better UD), wasn't it?
 

iMeowbot

macrumors G3
Aug 30, 2003
8,643
0
In the referenced thread, the kernel extension that speaks to the TPM is identified.