windows-itpro-docs
windows-itpro-docs copied to clipboard
Clarify kind of hardware TPMs that Windows Hello will accept for attestation
Currently, it is very ambiguous (and not aligned) which kind of TPM's that the Windows Hello Attestation API will accept as "valid."
Based on some preliminary testing, it is not clear at all what Windows Hello (the functionality of which used to be grouped under Microsoft's Passport technology) is using to check if a TPM supports attestation and often seems to be in disagreement with Windows' itself elsewhere. This seems like either a bug, or an oversight somewhere. Below are the support testing results:
TPM Kind | Windows' Device Security Center Reports Support | Windows Hello Reports Support |
---|---|---|
Hyper-V Virtual TPM | Yes | Yes |
VMWare Virtual TPM | Yes | No |
AMD Ryzen CPU fTPM | Yes | No |
INTC Laptop TPM | Yes | Yes |
If this is not a bug and undocumented, intended behavior, I believe it should please be documented so users of the API can be aware of the limitations.
Adding a quick follow up: Another set of documentation states that "Windows uses any compatible TPM in the same way." This furthers the idea that the current behavior is a bug or the "compatibility" is not laid out clearly enough for a TPM 2.0 device.
The 1Password team would love to have these updated and/or clarified, so we could use such information to improve our Windows Hello support in 1Password 8. In the event that the issue re: Ryzen and VMware TPM is in fact not a bug, we could better inform customers about the limitations.
Does this mean that all Ryzen CPU series without Pluton support cannot be used with attestation here even if they have fTPM?
That means for devices like the Lenovo ThinkPad Z13 and Z16, when Pluton is configured as the TPM 2.0 for a Windows 11 system, Pluton helps protect Windows Hello credentials by keeping them further isolated from attackers.
https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2022/01/04/ces-2022-chip-to-cloud-security-pluton-powered-windows-11-pcs-are-coming/
Closing the issue. After talking to the feature PMs, there are no immediate plans to add this level of details to the documentation. It will be considered in the future.