All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Re: [tpm2] 1.2 and 2.0
@ 2019-09-17 20:33 Rahul Hardikar
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Rahul Hardikar @ 2019-09-17 20:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tpm2

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1127 bytes --]

Thanks Andreas.  I feel even the protocol is slightly different, the
privacy CA steps differ slightly for 1.2 and 2.0.

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 12:23 AM Fuchs, Andreas <
andreas.fuchs(a)sit.fraunhofer.de> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> yes, 2.0 is a complete rework and not compatible with 1.2
> Thus one would have to do a complete rewrite of said software.
>
> The protocol and schemes would remain the same, but data-types and API are
> new.
>
> Cheers,
> Andreas
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* tpm2 [tpm2-bounces(a)lists.01.org] on behalf of Rahul Hardikar [
> rahulhardikar(a)gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 17, 2019 03:08
> *To:* tpm2(a)lists.01.org
> *Subject:* [tpm2] 1.2 and 2.0
>
> Hi All,
> General question here.
> Is 2.0 not at all compatible with 1.2?  The AIK scheme in 1.2 looks quite
> different than that of 2.0.
>
> How would one migrate to 2.0 support if they implemented AIK (attestation
> CA) using 1.2 structures, for example,  1.2 defines TCPA_IDENTITY_REQ which
> is so different that what's in 2.0
>
> How would one migrate such code?
> Thanks,
> Rahul
>

[-- Attachment #2: attachment.html --]
[-- Type: text/html, Size: 2175 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: [tpm2] 1.2 and 2.0
@ 2019-09-17  7:22 Fuchs, Andreas
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Fuchs, Andreas @ 2019-09-17  7:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tpm2

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 840 bytes --]

Hi,

yes, 2.0 is a complete rework and not compatible with 1.2
Thus one would have to do a complete rewrite of said software.

The protocol and schemes would remain the same, but data-types and API are new.

Cheers,
Andreas

________________________________
From: tpm2 [tpm2-bounces(a)lists.01.org] on behalf of Rahul Hardikar [rahulhardikar(a)gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 03:08
To: tpm2(a)lists.01.org
Subject: [tpm2] 1.2 and 2.0

Hi All,
General question here.
Is 2.0 not at all compatible with 1.2?  The AIK scheme in 1.2 looks quite different than that of 2.0.

How would one migrate to 2.0 support if they implemented AIK (attestation CA) using 1.2 structures, for example,  1.2 defines TCPA_IDENTITY_REQ which is so different that what's in 2.0

How would one migrate such code?
Thanks,
Rahul

[-- Attachment #2: attachment.html --]
[-- Type: text/html, Size: 1625 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* [tpm2] 1.2 and 2.0
@ 2019-09-17  1:08 Rahul Hardikar
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Rahul Hardikar @ 2019-09-17  1:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tpm2

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 379 bytes --]

Hi All,
General question here.
Is 2.0 not at all compatible with 1.2?  The AIK scheme in 1.2 looks quite
different than that of 2.0.

How would one migrate to 2.0 support if they implemented AIK (attestation
CA) using 1.2 structures, for example,  1.2 defines TCPA_IDENTITY_REQ which
is so different that what's in 2.0

How would one migrate such code?
Thanks,
Rahul

[-- Attachment #2: attachment.html --]
[-- Type: text/html, Size: 489 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2019-09-17 20:33 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-09-17 20:33 [tpm2] 1.2 and 2.0 Rahul Hardikar
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-09-17  7:22 Fuchs, Andreas
2019-09-17  1:08 Rahul Hardikar

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.