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.
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?
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.
