Decorative Cryptography

All encryption is end-to-end, if you’re not picky about the ends. config TCG_TPM2_HMAC bool "Use HMAC and encrypted transactions on the TPM bus" default n select CRYPTO_ECDH select CRYPTO_LIB_AESCFB select CRYPTO_LIB_SHA256 select CRYPTO_LIB_UTILS help Setting this causes us to deploy a scheme which uses request and response HMACs in addition to encryption for communicating with the TPM to prevent or detect bus snooping and interposer attacks (see tpm-security.rst). Saying Y here adds some encryption overhead to all kernel to TPM transactions. Last year, I came agross a Linux kernel feature called TCG_TPM2_HMAC. It claims to detect or prevent active and passive interposer attackers. That’s one of my sleeper agent activation phrases, so I dug in.

Chris Fenner’s Personal Blog

Given with yesterday's article on here about the issues of PGP, it looks like all software encryption short of a one-time pad are decorative.

I like the idea of a key part of the the CPU (comment below); does anyone know why Intel/ARM/AMD have not picked up this IBM feature?

The logic you're using here is: if PGP is unsafe, all cryptography must be unsafe too? No, that doesn't hold, at all.