[Cryptography] Intel SGX: Augean stables piled higher & deeper?

Tony Arcieri bascule at gmail.com
Wed May 20 09:33:31 EDT 2015

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 6:19 AM, Henry Baker <hbaker1 at pipeline.com> wrote:

> Since SGX is intended as an "improvement" in security, it deserves a much
> higher level of scrutiny than do other types of HW improvements.  In
> particular, it deserves some sort of proof that this "improvement" didn't
> inadvertently (or not: NSA) introduce additional bugs/insecurities.
> We spend endless hours debating random number generators, but
> modifications like this get a pass.  How come?

I think you confused the issue by using the phrase "mathematical proof"
(repeatedly) in regard to an object in the physical world. That's not
really how these things work. They're not made of math.

Something like this is more germane to the discussion:


Tony Arcieri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20150520/e093f6bb/attachment.html>

More information about the cryptography mailing list