To your inevitable followup question: no, I'm not going to talk to you about it.
To your overarching point: if you are on a cloud platform that promises you will never share hardware with any other company – which virtually nobody is – you are still at greater risk simply being on a nanosecond-timeable switched network with your attackers. But local crypto timing attacks are far more powerful.
Nobody bothers with this stuff because simple application-layer attacks are so simple that there's little impetus to develop and mainstream the attack techniques to exploit them. You're naive indeed if you think that's a gauge of how practical those attacks are.
I wonder where your stridency on this topic comes from. I've read all your comments here --- I mean all of them, on HN period --- and I haven't been able to discern what background you might have in software crypto security. You're here saying something that contradicts virtually every other software crypto person I know, is why I wonder.
You talked earlier about "all the papers you read being theoretical" (I'm paraphrasing). What papers would those be? Because I'm a little familiar with this research (we pirated it gleefully for our virtualized rootkit detection talk several years ago), and, relative to the crypto literature at large, x86 side channel research is striking in how non- theoretical it is; to wit: most crypto papers don't come with exploit testbed how-tos.
So your NDA allows you to acknowledge that a side-channel cryptographic compromise is possible but not give any details? That's a really funny NDA. I call bullshit.
Since I have executed one with my employer yes I do.
For example if you asked me directly if such an attack was possible I cannot answer you due to my NDA even though I have personal experience with the matter. You seem really eager to answer that it is though.
All of the NDAs I have signed have never said anything like "you can't say how, but you can say that we pulled it off". In fact most of the NDAs I've signed have been along the lines of "you don't talk about Fight Club".
Can we deduce that you are willing to violate your NDA to write that you have observed such an attack or that you never executed an NDA regarding the specific attack? Yes.
To your inevitable followup question: no, I'm not going to talk to you about it.
To your overarching point: if you are on a cloud platform that promises you will never share hardware with any other company – which virtually nobody is – you are still at greater risk simply being on a nanosecond-timeable switched network with your attackers. But local crypto timing attacks are far more powerful.
Nobody bothers with this stuff because simple application-layer attacks are so simple that there's little impetus to develop and mainstream the attack techniques to exploit them. You're naive indeed if you think that's a gauge of how practical those attacks are.
I wonder where your stridency on this topic comes from. I've read all your comments here --- I mean all of them, on HN period --- and I haven't been able to discern what background you might have in software crypto security. You're here saying something that contradicts virtually every other software crypto person I know, is why I wonder.
You talked earlier about "all the papers you read being theoretical" (I'm paraphrasing). What papers would those be? Because I'm a little familiar with this research (we pirated it gleefully for our virtualized rootkit detection talk several years ago), and, relative to the crypto literature at large, x86 side channel research is striking in how non- theoretical it is; to wit: most crypto papers don't come with exploit testbed how-tos.