3 ms·

This is exactly why Intel's upcoming SGX worries me greatly, too. NSA could get the "key" to all SGX machines and therefore to all applications using SGX to sec

This is exactly why Intel's upcoming SGX worries me greatly, too. NSA could get the "key" to all SGX machines and therefore to all applications using SGX to secure themselves properly (ironically enough) [1]. Intel really needs to figure out how to protect the SGX system against such a key robbery, and not by promising to only give access to a couple of employees in the whole company who know a very special hand-shake. Intel needs to modify the SGX system in such a way that you don't have to trust Intel (or anyone hacking Intel) to keep the key secure, even if that means the company not giving itself access to SGX at all (which includes not having the ability to update it). [1] - http://blog.invisiblethings.org/2013/09/23/thoughts-on-intels-upcoming-software.html http://blog.invisiblethings.org/2013/09/23/thoughts-on-intel...

kevin_b_er 12y ago
You mistake the point of SGX. The point of is a reincarnation of treacherous computing. Intel SGX requires remote attestation. This means that YOU, the owner of the device, is not trusted. To have 3rd party keys would mean they would have to trust you. With trust in you, how could it be marketed to the copyright owners? The answer is that it cannot. The point of Intel SGX is to deny ownership of the device to its owner. But yes, any situation like this where you cannot be trusted means a hacker can gain a higher level of trust than you if they break the security.
- mike_hearn 12y ago
  SGX does not require remote attestation. Just like all prior TC platforms, it offers remote attestation but there is no requirement that it be used. By the way, very frequently the owner of a computer is not in fact trustworthy. Situations where that occurs crop up all the time in security engineering. For example a big use of TC is making Bitcoin wallets that are secure against malware. There are other uses too, like safe outsourcing of private data storage/computation to the cloud.
  - anonymousDan 12y ago
    Yup, cloud is a major motivation for SGX (see e.g. https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/osdi14/osdi14-paper-baumann.pdf https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/osdi14/osdi14... for an example of how it might be put to use). I think it is good idea for making it more difficult for malicious insiders to mount an attack, but any claims of it protecting you from the NSA are laughable given Intel will probably hand over keys to them anyway.

kevin_b_er 12y ago

You mistake the point of SGX. The point of is a reincarnation of treacherous computing. Intel SGX requires remote attestation. This means that YOU, the owner of the device, is not trusted. To have 3rd party keys would mean they would have to trust you. With trust in you, how could it be marketed to the copyright owners? The answer is that it cannot. The point of Intel SGX is to deny ownership of the device to its owner. But yes, any situation like this where you cannot be trusted means a hacker can gain a higher level of trust than you if they break the security.

mike_hearn 12y ago
SGX does not require remote attestation. Just like all prior TC platforms, it offers remote attestation but there is no requirement that it be used. By the way, very frequently the owner of a computer is not in fact trustworthy. Situations where that occurs crop up all the time in security engineering. For example a big use of TC is making Bitcoin wallets that are secure against malware. There are other uses too, like safe outsourcing of private data storage/computation to the cloud.
- anonymousDan 12y ago
  Yup, cloud is a major motivation for SGX (see e.g. https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/osdi14/osdi14-paper-baumann.pdf https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/osdi14/osdi14... for an example of how it might be put to use). I think it is good idea for making it more difficult for malicious insiders to mount an attack, but any claims of it protecting you from the NSA are laughable given Intel will probably hand over keys to them anyway.