4 ms·
> whenever I see "remote attestation" I associate this with "hostile" HN is bizarre. This is just standard infrastructure security practice at any tech company
by solenoid0937 4mo ago
> whenever I see "remote attestation" I associate this with "hostile"
HN is bizarre. This is just standard infrastructure security practice at any tech company of meaningful size. You are misunderstanding the target use case and audience of this article.
- gspr 4mo agoIt is true that it is pretty common in large companies. It is also true that it feels very hostile to some people (myself included).
- solenoid0937 4mo agoThe audience of this article are people working with infrastructure, not people developing user facing products. See quote: "If your infra consistently enforces mTLS ..."
- toast0 4mo agoIt's absolutely useful for corporate owned infrastructure. But it's also useful for DRM stuff like authorized 4k blu-ray playback on PCs... which is only allowed on systems with Intel SGX.
- justincormack 3mo agoThats not true. Almost no consumer systems ship with SGX.
- mschuster91 4mo ago> This is just standard infrastructure security practice at any tech company of meaningful size. The problem is, the same features we want for infrastructure are automatically being abused to restrain our consumer hardware - and to make it worse, for barely a good reason at all.
- UltraSane 4mo agoExactly. Remote attestation is nothing more than an elaborate hashing and signing scheme using trusted hardware and is VERY useful.