Talk:Next-Generation Secure Computing Base

Question regarding criticism of NGSCB

Where should information about criticism belong? I've thought about adding this information to the development history section, but a part of me feels that a new section dedicated to criticism would be more appropriate. What are your thoughts? (Maza (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2014 (BST))

Bitlocker

I would really, really like to include information about Bitlocker in this article, rather than giving the feature its own article. I know it is already mentioned in the "Legacy" section, but as the vestigial remnant of NGSCB, I feel that it deserves its own section. I've even gone through the trouble of creating a wiki table based on Bitlocker and its relationship to Platform Configuration Registers in the Trusted Platform Module. Are there any objections to giving Bitlocker its own section here? (Maza (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2014 (BST))

i cant see anyone objecting to that , go for it --Dans34^Talk 18:44, 2 September 2014 (BST)

Thank you, Dans34. Normally I wouldn't ask but you, ah, you know how some people can be about that sort of thing. There might be complaints that Bitlocker is not what Microsoft originally intended, and while that is technically true, Microsoft officially refers to Bitlocker as part of its NGSCB vision. Additionally, Bitlocker actually has quite a bit in common with at least one aspect of NGSCB, and that is the sealed storage feature; they both use the SEAL command. Bitlocker doesn't seal individual data (or 'blobs') as originally intended, but it does seal the keys that are used to encrypt the operating system volume.. It reminds me of Microsoft's statement to "Encrypt the data, Seal just the key" for large data blocks. (Maza (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2014 (BST))