> If you are utilizing the secure coprocessor on a machine that is tasked with keeping secrets secure, and you are worried about sophisticated attackers, then t

> If you are utilizing the secure coprocessor on a machine that is tasked with keeping secrets secure, and you are worried about sophisticated attackers, then this is incredibly serious. If you are worried about sophisticated attackers, and you are trusting a "secure coprocessor" with such an unspecified and undocumented interface as this, I'd argue that you have no reason to think that the tool you have chosen to defend against the threat you're worried about is adequate. Contrast a coprocessor with no documented security boundary (if I'm missing something on that front, please post a link!) against a traditional HSM. Sure, the latter have had some flaws too, historically, but the well-defined boundary is key to even being able to assess suitability. I've not seen any documentation of this coprocessor's interface/boundaries at all. Let alone any that approaches the level of detail you'd get with an HSM.