On Wednesday 24 Feb 2016 19:08:42 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:05 AM, Frank Steinmetzger <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well my concern was more that SGX would provide leverage for even more > > eavesdropping, rather than prohibit it. > > Yeah, I'm one of those persons who tends to consider most fears of > TPMs and UEFI overblown, but these CPUs that almost have independent > CPUs inside with full RAM+hardware access which are secured against > the main CPU do concern me quite a bit.
You have to see this from a demand angle of the computing market. I suspect Intel is just responding to market demand for 'better security'. For big corporates better security means protection from internal (employees) as well as external threats. Most CIOs would sleep comfortably in the thought that they can blame Intel when things go sideways and try to keep their jobs among the blame-fest and ricochets that ensues. Of course our concept of security (who we trust with our computing) is orthogonal to your average CIO's out there who are invariably acting as a procurement agent. Dare I observe, we do not really feature as a target market for Intel. PS. Thanks Max for sharing a good article on this topic. I am interested to see if similar analysis has been performed on the AMD offerings. -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
