TPM Header on motherboards

I intend purchasing an Asus 600 series motherboard but I note that the motherboards have a TPM Header only. There is there no TPM module onboard on any of the motherboards in the series. Does that mean I will not be able to run Windows 11? I have searched online for the TPM module but to no avail.

Does anyone know which budget-priced mainboard would have a TPM module onboard and is compatible with Intel i3 Processor?

TPM modules are readily available from Amazon UK in various pinouts, including Asus ones.

bob

Correct me if I'm wrong ( I often am...) but didn't Microsoft get rid of the TPM requirement?


edit-

Here it is. You'll be able to bypass Windows 11 TPM 2.0 requirement

TairikuOkami said:

It is like saying that I do not need antivirus, I have a common sense.

Funny you say that because that's EXACTLY how this ship sails. I wouldn't call it common sense per say, but an above average understanding of tech and cybersecurity in general. Also, anti-virus software nowadays is an absolute bucket of rat vomit full of privacy invading code and bloat. Well, that's my opinion anyway. I just roll vastly different than others. I actually have not used an anti-virus product since circa 2015. And no, I have never been "hacked" by some Guy Fawkes hoodie wearing idiot or had my PC infected by malware let alone ransomware. I take full memory dumps and analyze those for shenanigans, monitor the network among other things. That's why I say I have an above average knowledge in this stuff. So I don't need that warm and fuzzy felling that comes with some privacy invading/PC destroying anti-virus product. Most people get "pwned" because they simply don't know any better, they're ignorant.

As to the TPM requirement. I actually think there's some shenanigans attached to it... But time will only tell. I can almost see and hear the media report on it. You'll probably one day see articles on Wire, the Verge and on everyone's favorite YouStupid (YouTube) bloviating channel.


In a nutshell, here's what I'm afraid of.

The one area where the TPM architecture has gone out on a limb in the trade-off between cost and functionality is in the area of privacy - many sophisticated architectural features and layers of indirection in the design exist purely to enable online services to use TPMs without forcing the compromise of a user's privacy. This operates through a system of pseudonymous identities which can be managed locally and registered with trusted third parties (trusted not to reveal a user's identity), and also via direct anonymous attestation - an implementation of a zero knowledge proving protocol which is designed to allow a TPM to attest to a particular configuration without revealing this identity to anyone. This is an extremely advanced protocol in comparison with other deployed systems, and shows that whilst the TPM is generally aimed at the low-cost market, compromises have not been made in the area of privacy. The only caveat to be considered is that inclusion of advanced architectural features does not necessarily mean that applications and systems will take advantage of these features - ultimately it will depend on whether the final online service provider is economically motivated to protect the user's privacy.

The Trusted Platform Module Explained

I honestly believe the name "trusted" in TPM should be changed to Telemetry. Telemetry Platform Module...

Now with my use of FDE (Full Disk Encryption) (not Bitlocker), when my PC is totally shut down without any power saving mode that I never use, it'll be next to impossible to get in. The ways in which I know how are a RAM dump or a side channel attack. Both of which I have mitigations in place for such a thing, but not really needed unless I worked with highly classified Top Secret Information or something. Do I feel the need for a TPM knowing full well what Andre has said here? Nope. I personally think a TPM, like biometrics is a false sense of security. But each to their own.


Extra credit.

Wikipedia has some Info on attacks against a TPM.

This to me is like RFC 7217. nanog: Windows 11 now implements RFC 7217 (stable privacy addresses)!

The thing is like 99% of people are not going to realize one big fundamental flaw. The info is out there this is the thing that worries me the most as it has room for nefarious means.

keywords: Key attestation, Certificate Authority CA, MFA and 2FA

Basically atm its about accessing corporate or sensitive data from a remote network like authenticating certain devices to allow remote access from those devices etc or to harden a network so that only certain devices can access etc.

The ramifications i see in stuff like this is basically skynet they want to know who you are exactly behind the computer.

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/...3-eda06bddf661
Just read through this and actually give it some time and thought, this is the tip of the iceberg. With other areas like TPM and key atestation combined with MFA we can see the potential for the very stuff i am alluding here.

They touting all these benefits to all this TPM, crypto and biometric stuff but really there is all sorts of stuff that can be done that is against the end users best interest.

opt out of it all if you have any regards for your personal privacy.