I'll leave the comments about MS requiring TPM chips for Win11 to others.
But as you can read in the article linked by /u/osy, the TPM ecosystem is a victim of design by committee where such things as a threat model are not a thing. They were focused on building a "generic security solution" or some other nonsense, instead of making a threat model, then a protocol, then a verification of the protocol under the threat model - like people did for example with TLS 1.3.
Of course you need to first use them...
You need to use pre-boot auth, like a PIN. Obviously, the TPM needs to have some kind of authentication to release the key, not just the default mode where Windows just needs to request it. This is all outlined in MS documentation: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/operating...
It is controllable through group policy, so orgs that care can force users into it.
A PIN auth step eliminates the convenience value proposition of a TPM.
Selling passwordless authentication as a solution requiring a PIN just isn't recognizing that the PIN is now the password.
The only secure implementation is called D-RTM which requires a level of chip, OEM, and OS support that's not done in practice.
[1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/hardware-...
IIRC Apple's version of TPM (Secure Enclave) should be immune to such attacks (since it's on the SoC, but I'm not sure whether the communication is encrypted or not), and the main data encryption method for GNU/Linux (LUKS) does not utilize TPM by default (might depend on distro though).
EDIT: I believe that the method in the video only works for volumes that aren't password/PIN-protected.
I do not recall if cryptsetup's TPM2 support sets up encrypted session, but for BitLocker just setting it to require PIN breaks this attack (the PIN is used as part of TPM policy preventing automatic decryption).
Additionally, some laptops at the very least attempt to erase TPM on case open.
Such measures should protect against backdooring attempts (by the visible physical damage to the case) but they won't prevent an attacker from reading the secret key.
Guess turning on pre boot pw is next thing to do.
It's disappointing that TPM-only is the default for Bitlocker, but you can just use something else (pin/password, key file, ...).
Plus, in a business where laptops may get reused, it could be a method to make an old Windows install inaccessible by wiping the backup key from the cloud and clearing the TPM on the device without any formatting. You may want to do a quick format to be sure (you never know if someone kept their private files in the EFI partition) but it'll protect you against data recovery risks from reassigned sectors without having to force everyone to enter a password twice every time they boot their laptop.
[1] https://www.orangecyberdefense.com/ch/insights/blog/tpm-snif... (2021)
Then I believe modern TPM communication is encrypted.
On too of that you want your laptop to support physical tampering resistance, which prevents both this (outdated) chip attack and freezing the RAM. When you then boot the laptop the master password is required. I would prefer it to throw off the PCR but hey, it works too.
I do wonder if you have 8GB of soldered RAM and 8GB on a stick, Windows keeps the key in the soldered part to increase difficulty stealing?
This! If security is your prime directive in your line of work(government, highly sensitive data, etc), then as long as your device has been outside your physical possession and in the hands of an untrusted third party, then it's automatically considered compromised and gets wiped or discarded by your IT department.
Because no amount of marketing security fluff from Microsoft, Apple, Google can stand against targeted attacks of state actors or knowledgeable motivated well funded actors with freshly acquired zero days.
The security they provide is only good enough against the average thief off the street, which I guess covers 98% of Average Joe's threats.
Even CC security certifications never judge a device whether it's hackable or not, but only on how long it takes for it to be hacked by an accredited lab, because nothing with outside physical access is ever unbackable. With enough time and six figure equipment off the publicly available commercial market, everything reveals its secrets eventually. And that's without zero days off the black market.
If you want secure Bitlocker, use a password.
It's _also_ insecure by design because in every deployed implementation (including with PIN), it is S-RTM meaning that _any_ UEFI driver vuln will compromise your TPM key. Yes, any UEFI vulnerability in its countless vendor drivers, USB stack, network stack, etc.
To be precise, both Windows (according to the article) and Linux+systemd (since systemd v251) support letting the user specify a TPM PIN and then use parameter encryption. But yes, both make it optional.
TPM could be used for DRM in the sense that DRM software could refuse to run on system that isn't approved, but it's not going to stop you from enjoying a DRM free system - in fact it can help by explicitly supporting clearing of TPM state by owner.
because they want the threat model to be "what any customer who is going to buy this shit might have as a threat".
But more generally, you don’t need a long term key to prevent sniffing attacks like this; Diffie-Hellman is a thing. Doing an unauthenticated DH would make this attack harder and slower (active MitM probably requires removing the TPM chip from the board) but would not prevent it.
But could the communication be authenticated? Like in CPU having a public cert, self signed. TPM then can authenticate the CPU that generates the key and later sends it only over an authenticated TLS session to the same CPU.
Even there, only Apple has effective protection against street-thieves. Nearly all other models of phones/laptops can have their anti-theft features reset by a guy in a dark alley with a flash programmer...
So far, most thieves aren't interested in your info, they just want to reset the hardware and give it a new serial number.
Consider how different a wireless hacking attack is from one where somebody has to sneak up and stab your device with an RJ-45 plug.