4 ms·
Given that SGX is an Intel-only technology (it isn't even supported on AMD's x86 CPUs, let alone on ARM), and given that SGX has been repeatedly broken by specu
by duskwuff 5y ago
Given that SGX is an Intel-only technology (it isn't even supported on AMD's x86 CPUs, let alone on ARM), and given that SGX has been repeatedly broken by speculative-execution vulnerabilities, this feels like a total non-starter.
- uluyol 5y agoYou can say the same things about virtualization. Vendors use different virtualization extensions (see AMD-V vs VT-x) but we have interfaces that let us treat them as broadly being the same thing. Likewise virtualization has its fair share of bugs. That doesn't make either virtualization or SGX worthless.
- lawl 5y agoVirtualization has usecases beyond security though. So even if virtualization was completely insecure by design, it wouldn't be useless. Does the same apply to SGX? What is SGX good for if it's not secure?
- jamesgeck0 5y agoThe article repeatedly states that the protocol would also work with Arm's TrustZone. Is Arm’s technology insufficiently equivalent?
- SavantIdiot 5y agoI believe it is: TrustZone is used for attestation in embedded secure boot models when verifying a new flash-image during in-field firmware updates. This paper sounds like an application of that process to HTTP.
- timthorn 5y agoTrustZone is used to secure the boot but can be used for other purposes too.