3 ms·
Right, except for the part where it's been patched by a microcode update [0]. You can always choose not to provision enclaves with secrets unless the CPU has SM
by _nhynes 7y ago
Right, except for the part where it's been patched by a microcode update [0]. You can always choose not to provision enclaves with secrets unless the CPU has SMT disabled.
[0] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/security-center/advisory/intel-sa-00161.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/security-center/advi...
- teraflop 7y agoIf SGX is broken, how can you trust the CPU not to lie about whether it has applied the microcode update and/or disabled SMT?
- tiziano88 7y agoSGX is "broken" in that it allows exfiltrating data via side channels; AFAICT no one has broken the attestation process by which the CPU effectively signs a statement of its internal state (including SMT) with a key fused into the CPU by Intel at manufacturing time, and which is used as a building block for remote attestation.
- betterunix2 7y agoIf you look at the Usenix paper on the FORESHADOW attack, they did break attestation as well by applying their attack to the quoting enclave to extract attestation keys.