I wonder how much more expensive it is to rent the whole physical machine at all times for confidential computing purposes, compared to the losses incurred by a breach.
More evidence that "confidential computing" is just a trick to convince people to hand over control of their computing to "someone else's machine". Never trusted the clown, and never will.
What purpose does the "news" of finding another way to break "confidential computing" serve, other than proliferate the incorrect assumption that there even was a working concept beforehand?
5 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 21.9 ms ] thread