Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> I can't really imagine how it would be implemented.

People do stuff that they claim implements it using trusted, "tamperproof" hardware.

What they're ignoring is that not all of the assurance is "cryptographic". Some of it comes from trusting that hardware. It's particularly annoying for that to get glossed over by a company that proposes to make the hardware.

You can also do it on a small scale using what the crypto types call "secure multiparty computation", but that has enormous performance limitations that would make it useless for any meaningful machine learning.



There is no known solution to remote software attestation that does not depend on trusted hardware.


That's correct. But Apple is not making that clear, and is therefore misrepresenting what assurance can be offered.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: