The binary performing the inference isn’t running in the TEE, because the TEE runs on a weaker processor.
The TEE is validating that the binary running on the main processors hasn’t been tampered with
That’s decent, but doesn’t match the statement that inference is happening in the TEE
I think the phrase “running in the TEE” is the idiomatic way to describe a program running on the main CPU, attested by the TEE processor, and protected/isolated from other processes on the system (modulo exploits, lol). I’m vaguely familiar with AMD’s SEV-SNP, mainly from reading security papers rather than any hands-on experience. I make no claims about Apple’s Secure Enclave, though.
think the phrase “running in the TEE” is the idiomatic way to describe a program running on the main CPU
In the Confidentiality/Integrity/Availability triangle, a secondary process running in another operating system gives you integrity, but not confidentiality
Attesting is very different from protecting
The binary performing the inference isn’t running in the TEE, because the TEE runs on a weaker processor. The TEE is validating that the binary running on the main processors hasn’t been tampered with
That’s decent, but doesn’t match the statement that inference is happening in the TEE
I think the phrase “running in the TEE” is the idiomatic way to describe a program running on the main CPU, attested by the TEE processor, and protected/isolated from other processes on the system (modulo exploits, lol). I’m vaguely familiar with AMD’s SEV-SNP, mainly from reading security papers rather than any hands-on experience. I make no claims about Apple’s Secure Enclave, though.
I very much disagree with
In the Confidentiality/Integrity/Availability triangle, a secondary process running in another operating system gives you integrity, but not confidentiality