3 ms·
It was touted as making cloud computing secure. How anyone could actually believe this is beyond me. The cloud provider has physical access to the host machine.
by iforgotpassword 1y ago
It was touted as making cloud computing secure. How anyone could actually believe this is beyond me. The cloud provider has physical access to the host machine. For all I know it could all be smokes and mirrors, emulated on a C64, while all my data is getting exfiltrated. The only people who ever bought into this is cryptobro crackheads and government contractors doing it for compliance bullshit. Up to 0% of cloud customers went as far as to even try to verify the thing does what it says it does.
Case in point: TeleMessage. Supposedly E2E-Encrypted message archival turns out to be a plain text database on some servers. Surprised Pikachu face.
- sublimefire 1y agoThis is some tinfoilhat stuff. An extreme suggestion that a cloud provider would physically open up machines and exfiltrate the keys so that they could then read the memory of a customer workload, for what reason? Remember that hardware is virtualised and makes it difficult to pin point which server is running what. Not using such tech makes it easier for the cloud provider to inspect memory so that is not a better approach.
- iforgotpassword 1y agoIf you argue that you can trust the cloud provider not to be malicious, you also just argued that you don't need SGX at all. No tinfoil hat required. And yes, not using that tech is not a better approach then, but not worse either. But better in the way that Intel doesn't need to build convoluted shit into their cpus that might actually worsen security through exploits.