zlacker

>>gjsman+(OP)
The problem isn't the capability of remote attestation. The problem is who's using it, i.e. who's defining what "security" means. As noted above, for a company, "security" often means intentionally inhibiting my freedom, not actually securing anything I care about.

We would benefit from a better public discussion of what "security" encompasses. Else, we risk conflating "what MS wants me to do with my computer" with "preventing hackers from stealing my credit card number".

Imagine a world where you could submit personal information to a company, with the technological assurance that this information would not leave that company... and you could verify this with remote attestation of the software running on that company's servers.

>>alexhs+ne
> The problem is who's using it, who's defining what "security" means?

Ask that question every time you see the word "security" written. There is no such word as bare security.

- security for who?

- security from who?

- security to what ends?

Much of the time security is a closed system, fixed-sum game. My security means your loss of it.