|
|
|
|
|
by trasz
2254 days ago
|
|
Critical flaws in SGX are being found all the time. It's a failed experiment that someone put into commercial products. At the same time there are no examples of SGX-like architecture that actually do work. Enclaves are started from host code, but host code can't see into them. In other words you have no way of telling whether the enclave you've started is what you wanted, or if it includes malware. The scheme I've described does give integrity - after all, that's precisely how the actual trusted components work, SecureEnclave, TEE etc: you have a trusted hypervisor, and then run your secure components outside the untrusted OS, in a trusted environment in that trusted hypervisor. It gives you everything SGX could, without its fundamental design problems. |
|
Research has shown that it is not a panacea, but we already knew that. It’s hardware not a full proof cryptographic solution. Some solutions have enclaves gather their results in a fault tolerant way to increase security even more.
So we could say that Intel and hardware vendors in general are looking for a solution that doesn’t exist. Or we can say that this is greatly improving your option when you are really scared of host compromises in your product.