On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 05:02:00PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > On 7/7/2019 6:30 AM, Dr. Greg wrote:
> > All well taken points from an implementation perspective, but they
> > elide the point I was trying to make. Which is the fact that without
> > any semblance of a discussion regarding the requirements needed to
> > implement a security architecture around the concept of a TEE, this
> > entire process, despite Cedric's well intentioned efforts, amounts to
> > pounding a square solution into the round hole of a security problem.
> Lead with code. I love a good requirements document, but one of the
> few places where I agree with the agile folks is that working code
> speaks loudly.
>
> > Which, as I noted in my e-mail, is tantamount to security theater.
>
> Not buying that. Not rejecting it, either. Without code
> to judge it's kind of hard to say.
We tried the code approach.
By most accounts it seemed to go poorly, given that it ended up with
Jonathan Corbet writing an LWN feature article on the state of
dysfunction and chaos surrounding Linux SGX driver development.
So we are standing around and mumbling until we can figure out what
kind of code we need to write to make the new driver relevant to the
CISO's and security architects we need to defend SGX to.
Have a good week.
Dr. Greg
As always,
Dr. Greg Wettstein, Ph.D, Worker
IDfusion, LLC Implementing SGX secured and modeled
4206 N. 19th Ave. intelligent network endpoints.
Fargo, ND 58102
PH: 701-281-1686 EMAIL: greg@xxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Five year projections, are you kidding me. We don't know what we are
supposed to be doing at the 4 o'clock meeting this afternoon."
-- Terry Wieland
Resurrection
