Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel deprecates SGX on Core series processors

edc.intel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–138 of 138 posts

Re: Intel deprecates SGX on Core series processors

#131

Post by kibwen »

betterunix2 wrote: post #115
kibwen wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specifically the next generation of SGX is pushing ahead, since a number of flaws were identified in the original design.

I'm taking bets on how long before the next generation is completely broken as well. It is only a matter of time, and the timeline is likely short.

The onus is on Intel to provide a solution that is sound. That said, there's no reason to assume that what they're doing is impossible, any more so than assuming that cryptography in general is impossible.

Re: Intel deprecates SGX on Core series processors

#132

Post by josh2600 »

espadrine wrote: post #102
phire wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have seen a deployed altcoin built on SGX. Can't remember the name or if it was even successful. In my opinion, it's a huge risk. With a regular blockchain, the fact that someone might maliciously be running the wrong code is baked into the design, and the security model has to handle it. With SGX, you are relying on Intel's security model to make sure everyone is running the same code. If SGX is ever broken (which…

> I have seen a deployed altcoin built on SGX. That may be MobileCoin[0]. Before that, from the same inspiration, Signal built SVR[1], a recovery system for the address book that uses SGX to ensure the servers cannot decrypt the backup. I wonder how they will react to this deprecation. [0]: https://developers.mobilecoin.com/overview/security/secure-e... [1]: https://signal.org/blog/secure-value-recovery/#deus-sgx-mac…

Yeah mobilecoin makes heavy use of SGX. For what it’s worth Intel isn’t going to deprecate this server side for modern use cases anytime soon.

The trade offs between zk and hardware accelerated encryption still lean towards hardware though I’m not sure how much longer that will be true. It’s very difficult to imagine a general purpose ZK machine, but you don’t need general purpose compute to get most of the value out of defi as it exists today.

In short, we’re 5-10 years away from the first general compute zk machines/vm’s imho but bespoke zk circuits are starting to appear for many use cases. Checkout plonky2 as a cool example of a modern fast zk circuit, the polygon team is doing great work here.

We’ve been working towards a fully zk winterfell implementation/proposal but it’s not there yet.

In closing, one of the unique things in mobilecoin is private information recovery at scale using MobileCoin fog (https://mobilecoin.com/news/fog-foward-in-oblivious-computin...) which isn’t possible with any zk circuit I’ve ever seen (due to the need to store lots of information durably with fast access that doesn’t leak access patterns to the server).

Re: Intel deprecates SGX on Core series processors

#133

Post by inter_netuser »

bawolff wrote: post #73
inter_netuser wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AKA: "share your contacts with the NSA only"

Even if you dont believe in sgx, the nsa would still have to be in signal's servers somehow, in which case you are probably screwed anyways

why anyways?

don't they say the chat is end to end encrypted?

Re: Intel deprecates SGX on Core series processors

#134

Post by judge2020 »

simion314 wrote: post #60
judge2020 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Societally, when some person or org uses a Xeon processor for CSAM distribution, nobody things "man I wish Intel stopped this". However, when it's Apple considering end-to-end encrypted iCloud Photos or iCloud backups, people (read: federal law enforcement) will blame Apple for allowing CSAM to proliferate locked away from law enforcement. edit: as for why this is bad, federal law enforcement have a lot more pull whe…

>However, when it's Apple considering end-to-end encrypted iCloud Photos or iCloud backups Apple never used the excuse they want to do end to end encryption, did this changed recently? because as far as I know only fanboys used this excuse pulled out of the air. This fanboys always have the most shit excuses like "if Apple let' s you do X what if some child does X while walking and falls in a hole, then Apple will lo…

The original article is here[0], but it seems this article might not be holding its weight[1], so perhaps there never was a plan to encrypt iCloud backups.

0: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv...

1: https://blog.elcomsoft.com/2021/01/apple-fbi-and-iphone-back...

Re: Intel deprecates SGX on Core series processors

#135

Post by janwas »

WithinReason wrote: post #128
janwas wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Golly, another sweeping statement :) It seems to me a GPU might actually sort more slowly. For 64-bit keys, we sort about 1 GB/s per (5 year old) Skylake core, and perhaps 5-6 parallel. This (2018) reports 3.5 GB/s: https://benkarsin.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/dissertation.p... And a 6-year old GPU radix sort reports 2.1 GB/s: https://github.com/Bulat-Ziganshin/Compression-Research/tree... BTW I've worked on a produ…

This (2020) reports "Despite the fact that we send the entire data array to the video card and back, sorting on GPU of 800 MB of data is performed about 25-fold faster than on the processor." https://dev.to/tishden/computing-with-gpu-why-when-how-and-s... This shows a approximately 20x speedup (2021, graph 1 vs 3): https://www.irjet.net/archives/V8/i7/IRJET-V8I7714.pdf

Thanks for the example! Sounds like 1.6 GB/s on an entire Tesla K80 (300W TDP). This is in fact several times slower than our results on Skylake (with half the TDP), but note that K80 is from 2014.

The "25-fold speedup", as is often the case for such reports, comes from not optimizing the CPU side.

Re: Intel deprecates SGX on Core series processors

#136

Post by espadrine »

josh2600 wrote: post #132
espadrine wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have seen a deployed altcoin built on SGX. That may be MobileCoin[0]. Before that, from the same inspiration, Signal built SVR[1], a recovery system for the address book that uses SGX to ensure the servers cannot decrypt the backup. I wonder how they will react to this deprecation. [0]: https://developers.mobilecoin.com/overview/security/secure-e... [1]: https://signal.org/blog/secure-value-recovery/#deus-sgx-mac…

Yeah mobilecoin makes heavy use of SGX. For what it’s worth Intel isn’t going to deprecate this server side for modern use cases anytime soon. The trade offs between zk and hardware accelerated encryption still lean towards hardware though I’m not sure how much longer that will be true. It’s very difficult to imagine a general purpose ZK machine, but you don’t need general purpose compute to get most of the value out…

That is a good strategy. I hope the ZK VMs come to a reasonable performance before SGX goes fully away. Even though Intel won’t kill it for Xeon soon, I wouldn’t be surprised if they did in 5 years.

I wonder whether we can have our cake and eat it too; are there plans for FPGA-accelerated ZK machines?

Re: Intel deprecates SGX on Core series processors

#137

Post by simion314 »

judge2020 wrote: post #134
simion314 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>However, when it's Apple considering end-to-end encrypted iCloud Photos or iCloud backups Apple never used the excuse they want to do end to end encryption, did this changed recently? because as far as I know only fanboys used this excuse pulled out of the air. This fanboys always have the most shit excuses like "if Apple let' s you do X what if some child does X while walking and falls in a hole, then Apple will lo…

The original article is here[0], but it seems this article might not be holding its weight[1], so perhaps there never was a plan to encrypt iCloud backups. 0: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv... 1: https://blog.elcomsoft.com/2021/01/apple-fbi-and-iphone-back...

Yes, the End to End Encryption part is just fanboys speculation nothing official from Apple, even after they had a lot of bad PR they did not even slightly hint that they are doing it for E2E.

Google and FB reported a lot more CSAM then Apple so far, so what do Apple fans think

1 Apple users have less CSAM then Google/FB users

2 Apple users use Google for CSAM, maybe those services are better qwuality or for what they use it for

3 Apple never cared about CSAM and did the minimum work possible, and they never care for CSAM now either but for some reason they needed this backdoor scan and report process to always run on devices.

4 some other reason, maybe Apple users are not into this shit, keeping in mind Apple is anti adult software on their devices , some people would avoid their censored devices

Re: Intel deprecates SGX on Core series processors

#138

Post by rektide »

rektide wrote: post #44
hedora wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think “responsible” is a bit too strong a word, when most of these computations could just run on the client. I agree this work is important and enclaves are better than nothing though.

I want to spew curse words, because, from what I have been able to comprehend, all the web crypto systems contravene what you & I seem to agree is a moral, logical goal. All are design to give the host site access to security keys, & to insure the user-agent/browser has the fewest rights possible. We have secure cryptography, but only as long as it's out of the user-agent/client's control. We've literally built a new…

Hi chiming in to double down on this, as the downvotes ongoingly slowly slowly creep downward even still.

In most places, end-to-end security is the goal. But we've literally built the web crypto model to ensure the end user reaps no end-to-end benefit from web cryptography.

The alternative would be to trust the user-agent, to allow end-to-end security. But we don't allow this. We primarily use crypto to uniquely distinctly identify users, as an alternative to passwords.

This is a busted jank ass sorry sad limited piece of shit way for the web to allow cryptography in the platform. This is rank.

The Nitrokey security key people saw this huge gap, & created a prototype/draft set of technologies to enable end-to-end web encryption & secure storage with their security keys. https://github.com/Nitrokey/nitrokey-webcrypt

Post reply on HN