3 ms·
Isn't SGX not so secure ? [1] Specifically this claim "In a semi-synchronous attack, we extract 96% of an RSA private key from a single trace. We extract the
by pellucide 9y ago
Isn't SGX not so secure ? [1]
Specifically this claim
"In a semi-synchronous attack, we extract 96% of an RSA private key from a single trace. We extract the full RSA private key in an automated attack from 11 traces within 5 minutes."
[1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/03/using_intels_sg.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/03/using_intels_...
- anonymousDan 9y agoIt's vulnerable to side-channel attacks, like a lot of trusted hardware. The challenge with trusted hardware is you have a much stronger threat model than a lot of previous work on side-channel attacks, in that instead of having to protect against remote or local unprivileged software attacks, you now have to guard against a local privileged attacker (e.g. a malicious OS or hypervisor), or potentially even someone with physical access. Having said that it is possible to design software in such a way as to be resistant to many side-channel attacks (albeit with a lot of effort and a performance hit) and I imagine future generations of SGX could add hardware protection against the most egregious channels. Of course if you have enough money/time it will always be possible, the question is whether an SGX based blockchain can be designed in such a way as to make it not worth the effort.