[solenoid0937]

> 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.

[toast0]

It'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]

Thats not true. Almost no consumer systems ship with SGX.

[mschuster91]

> 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.

[gspr]

It 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]

The audience of this article are people working with infrastructure, not people developing user facing products. See quote: "If your infra consistently enforces mTLS ..."

[UltraSane]

Exactly. Remote attestation is nothing more than an elaborate hashing and signing scheme using trusted hardware and is VERY useful.