4 ms·
Sadly, leaking the key is not the answer. You'd give independent developers the freedom to use SGX, but at the same you'd make SGX worthless. Details: if the k
by costan 11y ago
Sadly, leaking the key is not the answer. You'd give independent developers the freedom to use SGX, but at the same you'd make SGX worthless.
Details: if the key used to sign architectural enclaves (like the Launch Enclave) would leak, this would completely break SGX. Anyone with the key could create their own Quoting Enclave and the guarantees behind software attestation would go down the drain.
- amluto 11y agoYou're assuming that SGX is only useful in conjunction with attestation. I want to use SGX to protect cryptographic keys. Attestation is mostly unnecessary. For normal computing, as long as you control the machines and can bootstrap trust yourself, you don't need Intel's attestation mechanism at all. You do, however, need to ability to launch an enclave.
- costan 11y agoBut enclaves are worthless without attestation. If the OS is evil and you don't do attestation, it can emulate SGX and run your code in a simulated enclave environment where EGETKEY returns keys that the OS knows about. If the OS is not evil, you can use process isolation to generate and protect the keys.
- ctz 11y agoThis is a pretty black-and-white view of things. A security technology does not need to solve all problems simultaneously to be of use. (But, you do need to do thorough analysis and be cognisant of the risks.) Ignoring the cloud computing aspect of SGX, no amount of attestation can recover from your-OS-is-compromised-from-day-one scenario. The attestation is only as good as its verifier.