Confidential Computing: Advancements, Implementations, and Applications in Secure Data Processing

Abstract

Confidential computing stands as a pivotal paradigm in modern cybersecurity, fundamentally altering how data protection is approached by extending safeguards to data during active processing. This innovative methodology capitalizes on hardware-based Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) to establish an impenetrable bastion, meticulously ensuring the confidentiality, integrity, and authenticity of sensitive information even while it is in use. This comprehensive research report undertakes a profound exploration of confidential computing, meticulously dissecting its underlying technical architecture, specifically focusing on the intricate implementations of prominent TEE technologies such as Intel Software Guard Extensions (SGX), AMD Secure Encrypted Virtualization (SEV), and ARM’s Confidential Compute Architecture (CCA). Furthermore, the report delves into the sophisticated programming models and robust frameworks essential for developing secure applications within these environments, analyzes the practical performance implications and inherent overheads, meticulously outlines the stringent security guarantees offered, and critically examines the persistent challenges associated with the widespread deployment of confidential computing across diverse operational landscapes. Beyond foundational aspects, the report illuminates advanced application domains, including the intricacies of secure multi-party computation (SMPC) and the transformative potential of federated learning, where the bedrock principle of data remaining encrypted and inviolable throughout its computational lifecycle unlocks unprecedented possibilities for privacy-preserving collaboration and analysis.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

1. Introduction

The relentless proliferation of data-driven applications, fueled by the explosive growth of cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and big data analytics, has undeniably amplified global concerns surrounding data privacy and security. While traditional security paradigms have historically focused on protecting data at rest (e.g., encryption of storage drives) and data in transit (e.g., TLS/SSL protocols for network communication), a critical vulnerability has long persisted: the exposure of data during its active processing state. In conventional computing environments, when data is loaded into memory for computation, it typically exists in an unencrypted, plaintext format, rendering it susceptible to a myriad of threats, including unauthorized access by privileged software (such as operating systems, hypervisors, or even administrators), sophisticated malware, or malicious insiders. This fundamental gap in the security chain has become increasingly untenable, particularly with the escalating demand for outsourcing sensitive workloads to untrusted cloud infrastructure and the imperative for collaborative data analysis that respects stringent privacy regulations like GDPR and HIPAA.

Confidential computing emerges precisely to address this formidable challenge. By establishing a secure, isolated execution environment – known as a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) – directly within the central processing unit (CPU), it ensures that data, once loaded into this enclave, remains encrypted and protected throughout its entire processing lifecycle. This architectural innovation signifies a profound shift, offering a new frontier in data protection that complements existing security measures by extending their reach into the previously vulnerable computational domain. The core promise of confidential computing is to provide cryptographic assurances that data and code remain confidential and untampered with, even from the underlying operating system, hypervisor, or other software components that would typically possess full access to system memory and CPU state. This report embarks on a detailed examination of the mechanisms underpinning confidential computing, meticulously dissecting its technical foundations, exploring the practical nuances of its real-world implementations, and forecasting its transformative impact across various industries. Through this detailed analysis, we aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of how confidential computing is reshaping the landscape of secure and privacy-preserving computation.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

2. Technical Implementations of Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs)

Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) constitute the bedrock of confidential computing. At their core, TEEs are isolated, secure areas within a main processor that guarantee code and data loaded inside them are protected with respect to confidentiality and integrity. This protection extends even to privileged software running outside the TEE, such as the operating system or hypervisor. The fundamental properties of a TEE include: data confidentiality, ensuring sensitive information is inaccessible to unauthorized entities; data integrity, guaranteeing that data and code within the TEE cannot be tampered with; and attestability, providing a verifiable proof to remote parties that genuine, untampered code is executing within a legitimate TEE.

2.1 Intel Software Guard Extensions (SGX)

Intel Software Guard Extensions (SGX) represents Intel’s pioneering hardware-based TEE technology, designed to allow user-level code to allocate private regions of memory, called enclaves, that are protected from all other software on the system, including privileged code like the operating system, hypervisor, and firmware. Introduced with Intel’s Skylake processors, SGX provides a robust foundation for application-centric confidential computing.

2.1.1 Architectural Overview

SGX leverages a set of new CPU instructions and architectural extensions to create these secure enclaves. The key components include:

• Enclaves: An enclave is a protected region of memory and processor state that is isolated from the rest of the system. Code and data within an enclave are encrypted and integrity-protected while residing in DRAM, and only the CPU itself can decrypt and access this content. Any attempt by software outside the enclave to access or modify enclave memory will result in a hardware-level trap.
• Enclave Page Cache (EPC): This is a specially protected region of DRAM that stores enclave pages. Access to the EPC is strictly controlled by the CPU, which uses an Enclave Page Cache Map (EPCM) to manage permissions and ensure cryptographic protection.
• Processor Reserved Memory (PRM): A portion of physical memory designated by the system BIOS as reserved for SGX enclaves. This memory is managed by the EPCM.
• Cryptographic Protection: Each enclave is assigned a unique encryption key by the CPU. Data pages moved in and out of the CPU package (e.g., to DRAM) are encrypted using this key and accompanied by a Message Authentication Code (MAC) to ensure integrity. This prevents adversaries from reading or modifying enclave data even if they gain physical access to the memory bus.

2.1.2 Attestation

One of SGX’s most critical features is attestation, which allows a remote relying party to cryptographically verify that a specific, untampered enclave is running on a genuine Intel SGX-enabled platform. This process is essential for establishing trust in cloud environments.

• Local Attestation: Allows an enclave to prove its identity and integrity to another enclave on the same platform.
• Remote Attestation: Enables an enclave to prove its identity and integrity to a remote service or user. This involves a specialized ‘quoting enclave’ that signs a cryptographic measurement of the target enclave (its MRENCLAVE, MRSIGNER, ISVPRODID, ISVVSN, and other attributes). This signed quote is then sent to an Intel Attestation Service (IAS), which verifies the authenticity of the platform and the quote, issuing an attestation report that the relying party can trust. This report confirms that the enclave is running on a genuine SGX CPU and that its code and configuration match an expected secure baseline.

2.2 AMD Secure Encrypted Virtualization (SEV)

AMD Secure Encrypted Virtualization (SEV) is a hardware-based security feature that provides memory encryption and integrity protection for virtual machines (VMs). Unlike SGX, which focuses on protecting specific application code within an enclave, SEV aims to secure entire VMs from potential compromise of the hypervisor or host operating system. This makes it particularly suitable for ‘lift and shift’ scenarios where existing VM-based workloads can gain confidential computing benefits with minimal modification.

2.2.1 Architectural Overview

SEV leverages a dedicated security processor, the AMD Secure Processor (SP), embedded within the CPU die. The AMD SP is responsible for managing cryptographic keys and performing security-critical operations, ensuring it operates independently and securely from the main CPU and host software.

• VM-centric Encryption: With SEV, each VM can be configured to have its memory encrypted with a unique, guest-specific key. This key is generated and managed by the AMD SP. When the VM is active, its memory pages are automatically encrypted by the memory controller as they leave the CPU package and decrypted upon reentry. This ensures that even if a malicious hypervisor or an attacker with physical access to the memory bus attempts to read the VM’s memory, they will only see ciphertext.
• Isolation from Hypervisor: The hypervisor, while responsible for allocating memory and scheduling the VM, cannot access the VM’s plaintext data. This means that a compromised hypervisor cannot snoop on the VM’s sensitive computations or data.
• SEV-ES (Encrypted State): An enhancement to basic SEV, SEV-ES also encrypts the CPU register state of the guest VM. This protects against attacks where a malicious hypervisor might dump and analyze the VM’s registers, which could contain sensitive data, during context switches or interruptions.
• SEV-SNP (Secure Nested Paging): The latest iteration, SEV-SNP (Secure Nested Paging), significantly bolsters the security posture by adding integrity protection for guest memory and CPU state. SEV-SNP employs an authenticated encryption scheme and protects against various advanced attacks, including memory remapping, re-keying, and rollback attacks. It uses hardware-enforced cryptographic page table integrity to prevent a malicious hypervisor from altering the guest’s page tables or manipulating memory access rights. Furthermore, it protects against replay attacks by maintaining version numbers for encrypted pages.

2.2.2 Attestation

Similar to SGX, SEV offers a robust attestation mechanism. A guest VM can request a cryptographic attestation report from the AMD SP, which includes measurements of its loaded firmware, guest OS, and other relevant configurations. This report is signed by the AMD SP, allowing a remote party to verify that the VM is running on a genuine AMD processor with SEV enabled and that its initial state is as expected. SEV-SNP enhances this by allowing more granular attestation, including the integrity of the VM’s CPU state and page table structures, offering a stronger root of trust for the entire VM.

2.3 ARM TrustZone and Confidential Compute Architecture (CCA)

ARM, a dominant force in mobile and embedded systems, has evolved its security offerings from the foundational TrustZone to the more comprehensive Confidential Compute Architecture (CCA), extending its TEE capabilities to server-grade processors and cloud environments.

2.3.1 ARM TrustZone

ARM TrustZone is a system-wide approach to security, first introduced in 2004, that creates two separate, isolated execution environments: the ‘Normal World’ and the ‘Secure World’.

• Dual-World Paradigm: At its core, TrustZone partitions the hardware and software resources of an ARM-based system into two distinct realms. The Normal World runs the rich operating system (e.g., Linux, Android) and standard applications. The Secure World, managed by a Trusted OS (T-OS) and trusted applications (TAs), handles security-sensitive operations such as cryptographic key management, secure boot, and digital rights management (DRM). The CPU state includes a ‘Secure bit’ that determines which world the processor is currently operating in, ensuring strict separation.
• Hardware Isolation: TrustZone utilizes a hardware-enforced isolation boundary, ensuring that code and data in the Secure World are inaccessible to the Normal World. This includes secure memory regions, secure peripherals, and an isolated interrupt controller. Access to Secure World resources from the Normal World is only possible through well-defined, auditable interfaces (monitor calls).
• Limitations: While TrustZone provides strong isolation, it primarily protects against software attacks originating from the Normal World OS. It does not natively provide memory encryption for data in DRAM in the same way as SGX or SEV, nor does it typically offer remote attestation to establish trust for arbitrary applications in a cloud setting, making it more suited for embedded device security than general-purpose confidential computing in its original form.

2.3.2 ARM Confidential Compute Architecture (CCA)

Building upon the principles of TrustZone, ARM’s Confidential Compute Architecture (CCA) is a significant evolution designed specifically for cloud and server confidential computing workloads. CCA introduces a new execution environment called a ‘Realm’, which is more robust and suitable for multi-tenant cloud scenarios than TrustZone’s Secure World.

• Realms and Realm Management Extension (RME): CCA introduces Realms, which are isolated execution environments designed to protect code and data from the hypervisor, operating system, and even the Secure World components (like the Trusted OS). This is achieved through the Realm Management Extension (RME), a new set of architectural features that enhance memory isolation and control.
• Realm Management Monitor (RMM): Instead of a full Trusted OS, CCA uses a thin, highly privileged component called the Realm Management Monitor (RMM). The RMM is responsible for managing Realm creation, destruction, and memory allocation, mediating access to hardware resources, and performing cryptographic operations for attestation. The RMM is significantly smaller and has a reduced Trusted Computing Base (TCB) compared to a full T-OS, thereby minimizing potential attack surfaces.
• Hardware Memory Tagging and Encryption: CCA incorporates hardware-enforced memory tagging and encryption for Realms. Data belonging to a Realm is encrypted while in DRAM, providing protection against physical memory attacks and hypervisor snooping. Integrity protection is also a core feature, ensuring that Realm memory cannot be tampered with.
• Attestation: CCA supports remote attestation, allowing relying parties to verify the authenticity of a Realm, its underlying hardware, and the integrity of the code running within it. This is crucial for establishing trust in untrusted cloud environments. The RMM plays a key role in generating and signing attestation reports.
• Use Cases: CCA is designed to enable a wide range of confidential computing applications, from secure containers and VMs to privacy-preserving AI and data analytics, particularly in ARM-based cloud instances and edge devices.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

3. Programming Models and Frameworks for Secure Application Development

Developing applications that harness the power of TEEs is inherently more complex than traditional software development. It necessitates a careful understanding of trust boundaries, secure data flow, and specialized APIs. Developers must strategically partition their application logic, isolating sensitive operations within the TEE while leaving less critical components in the untrusted environment. This often involves specific SDKs, compilers, and runtimes that abstract some of the low-level hardware interactions.

3.1 Intel SGX SDK

The Intel SGX Software Development Kit (SDK) provides the essential tools and libraries for developers to create and manage SGX enclaves. The SDK is designed to facilitate the complex task of partitioning an application into trusted (enclave-resident) and untrusted (host application) components.

3.1.1 SDK Components and Development Process

• Enclave Definition Language (EDL): Developers define the interface between the untrusted application and the trusted enclave using an EDL file. This file specifies which functions can be called into the enclave (ECALLs) and which functions the enclave can call out to the untrusted host (OCALLs). An SGX toolchain processes the EDL to generate proxy functions (stubs) for both the host and the enclave.
• Enclave Creation and Loading: The SDK provides APIs to create an enclave, load its code and data, and initialize its execution environment. This includes allocating the necessary Enclave Page Cache (EPC) memory and configuring security attributes.
• Memory Management: Within an enclave, memory management is crucial. The SDK offers primitives for secure memory allocation and deallocation. Developers must be mindful of the limited EPC size and design their enclaves to be memory-efficient.
• Cryptographic Libraries: The SDK includes a set of cryptographic primitives and libraries that can be safely executed within the enclave. These are often used for data encryption, key generation, and secure hashing, ensuring that sensitive cryptographic operations remain protected from external observation.
• Secure Communication and Sealing: SGX SDKs facilitate the establishment of secure communication channels between enclaves (local attestation) or between an enclave and a remote entity (remote attestation). It also provides ‘sealing’ APIs, which allow an enclave to encrypt data such that only that specific enclave instance or a future instance with the same measurement can decrypt it, enabling secure persistent storage.

3.1.2 Development Challenges

Developing with SGX requires a mental shift to a ‘trust boundary’ model. Debugging enclaves is particularly challenging due to their isolation; standard debuggers cannot inspect enclave internals directly. Developers must carefully minimize the number of ECALLs/OCALLs, as each transition carries performance overhead, and ensure that any data passed across the boundary is properly validated and sanitized.

3.2 AMD SEV SDK and Ecosystem

For AMD SEV, the programming model is fundamentally different from SGX, largely because SEV protects entire VMs rather than specific application enclaves. This ‘lift and shift’ approach aims to minimize application-level modifications.

3.2.1 Hypervisor and Guest OS Integration

• Hypervisor-level APIs: The primary interaction with SEV capabilities occurs at the hypervisor level. Open-source hypervisors like QEMU and KVM have been extended to support SEV, SEV-ES, and SEV-SNP. These extensions provide APIs for hypervisors to launch VMs with memory encryption enabled, manage encryption keys, and initiate attestation requests to the AMD Secure Processor.
• Guest OS Transparency (mostly): For basic SEV, the guest operating system and applications typically run without modification, completely unaware that their memory is being encrypted. This is a significant advantage for migrating existing workloads.
• Guest OS with SEV-SNP: With SEV-SNP, for the guest OS to fully benefit from the enhanced integrity protections, it might require minimal modifications (e.g., specific drivers or kernel modules) to interact securely with the underlying hardware, especially for attestation purposes or managing guest memory integrity challenges. However, the goal remains to keep application-level changes to an absolute minimum.

3.2.2 Attestation Tools and Libraries

AMD provides tools and libraries (e.g., through its SEV-SNP ecosystem projects) that allow guest VMs or remote parties to interact with the AMD Secure Processor to request and verify attestation reports. These tools abstract the cryptographic protocols involved in establishing trust with an SEV-enabled platform. For example, a cloud tenant could use such a tool to cryptographically verify that their VM is indeed running on an authentic, SEV-SNP enabled AMD EPYC processor before deploying sensitive data.

3.3 ARM CCA SDK and Ecosystem

Developing for ARM’s Confidential Compute Architecture (CCA) and its Realms combines aspects of both SGX’s application-centric isolation and SEV’s hardware-based encryption, with a strong emphasis on providing a robust foundation for next-generation cloud and edge computing.

3.3.1 Realm Development and Management

• Realm Provisioning: The CCA SDK and associated tools facilitate the provisioning and management of Realms. This involves defining Realm properties, allocating dedicated memory regions, and establishing secure boot sequences for the Realm’s guest OS or application.
• RMM Interactions: Developers interact with the Realm Management Monitor (RMM) through well-defined interfaces. The RMM handles the low-level security primitives, such as memory encryption, integrity checks, and context switching between Realms and the host environment. Unlike SGX’s ECALL/OCALL model, Realm interactions are often at a higher level, dealing with secure services or entire guest OS instances within a Realm.
• Secure Memory Operations: The SDK provides APIs for applications within a Realm to manage their secure memory effectively. Hardware memory tagging and encryption ensure that sensitive data within the Realm is protected when residing in physical memory.
• Cryptographic Functions: Similar to other TEEs, CCA provides access to hardware-backed cryptographic functions, allowing applications to perform secure key generation, encryption, and hashing operations with confidence that the keys and operations are protected within the Realm.

3.3.2 Ecosystem Development

ARM is actively fostering an open-source ecosystem around CCA, including contributions to operating systems (like Linux kernel extensions for Realm management), hypervisors, and higher-level orchestration tools. The goal is to make CCA accessible for various workloads, from confidential containers to full confidential VMs, providing a flexible and scalable solution for ARM-based confidential computing platforms.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

4. Performance Implications and Overheads

While confidential computing offers unparalleled security benefits, its implementation invariably introduces performance overheads. These overheads stem from the additional security mechanisms, such as memory encryption/decryption, integrity checks, context switching between trusted and untrusted environments, and the inherent isolation enforced by hardware. Understanding these implications is crucial for designing efficient confidential applications and selecting the appropriate TEE technology for a given workload.

4.1 Intel SGX Performance

Intel SGX, by design, focuses on protecting small, critical portions of an application within enclaves. This fine-grained protection comes with several specific performance considerations:

• Enclave Entry/Exit Overhead (ECALLs/OCALLs): Each transition between the untrusted host and the trusted enclave (ECALL) or vice versa (OCALL) involves a context switch, cryptographic operations, and privilege level changes. These operations are computationally expensive. Applications with frequent, small ECALLs/OCALLs will experience significant overhead. Optimizations often involve batching operations to reduce the frequency of these transitions.
• Enclave Page Cache (EPC) Limitations: The EPC, the protected memory region for enclaves, is typically limited in size (e.g., 128 MB or 256 MB in earlier generations, expandable to multiple GB in newer ones). If an enclave’s working set exceeds the EPC capacity, page faults will occur, leading to data being swapped in and out of the EPC. This ‘paging’ involves encrypting and decrypting pages, which is a major performance bottleneck for memory-intensive workloads.
• Memory Encryption/Decryption: Although hardware-accelerated, the continuous encryption and decryption of data moving between the CPU and DRAM for enclave access adds a small but measurable latency to memory operations.
• Cache Utilization: SGX’s memory protection mechanisms can sometimes interfere with optimal CPU cache utilization, leading to cache misses and increased memory access times.
• Typical Overheads: Depending on the workload, SGX can introduce performance overheads ranging from a few percent for compute-bound tasks with minimal enclave interaction to over 50% for I/O-heavy or memory-intensive applications that frequently hit EPC limits or perform many ECALLs/OCALLs. Research studies indicate that typical overheads for well-designed SGX applications are often in the 10-20% range for CPU-bound computations.

4.2 AMD SEV Performance

AMD SEV, particularly its earlier versions, generally introduces lower performance overheads compared to SGX for VM-level protection. This is due to its architectural focus on transparently encrypting the entire VM’s memory.

• Hardware Transparency: SEV’s memory encryption is largely transparent to the guest VM and applications. The hardware memory controller performs encryption and decryption on-the-fly, with minimal intervention from the host software. This allows existing VMs and applications to run with near-native performance.
• Memory Access Latency: There is a slight increase in memory access latency due to the encryption and decryption cycles. However, this overhead is usually very small, often in the low single-digit percentages, and highly optimized by the hardware.
• I/O Performance: While SEV primarily focuses on memory, I/O operations (e.g., disk, network) are handled by the hypervisor. The data itself within the VM’s buffers is encrypted, but the I/O path interaction between the guest and hypervisor usually incurs minimal additional SEV-specific overhead. However, the integrity checks in SEV-SNP can introduce slightly higher overhead for memory-intensive I/O operations.
• SEV-SNP Overheads: SEV-SNP introduces integrity protection for guest memory and CPU state, which requires additional cryptographic computations and checks. While highly optimized, this can lead to a slightly higher overhead compared to basic SEV or SEV-ES, typically still within a manageable range (e.g., 5-15% for demanding workloads). The trade-off is significantly enhanced security against a broader range of attacks.

4.3 ARM CCA Performance

ARM’s Confidential Compute Architecture (CCA) is designed with performance efficiency as a core consideration, aiming to provide strong security guarantees without prohibitive performance penalties, particularly for server and cloud workloads.

• Hardware Acceleration: ARM processors supporting CCA are designed to offload cryptographic operations to specialized hardware accelerators, minimizing the performance impact of memory encryption and integrity checks. This is analogous to how modern CPUs handle other complex operations.
• Realm Transitions: Similar to SGX’s ECALLs/OCALLs, transitions between the Normal World (hypervisor/OS) and Realms, or between different Realms, will incur some context switching overhead. The efficiency of the Realm Management Monitor (RMM) in mediating these transitions is critical to overall performance.
• Memory Management: The RMM’s management of Realm memory, including encryption and integrity protection, is designed to be highly optimized. The performance impact will depend on the frequency of memory accesses, the size of the data being processed, and the specific workload characteristics.
• TCB Size: By striving for a minimal Trusted Computing Base (TCB) for the RMM, ARM aims to reduce the complexity and potential for performance bottlenecks inherent in larger secure OS components. A smaller TCB often translates to a more efficient and less intrusive security layer.
• Workload Dependency: As with any TEE, the actual performance impact of CCA will be highly dependent on the specific application, its access patterns, and its reliance on secure operations. However, ARM’s architectural decisions, leveraging its extensive experience in system-on-chip (SoC) design, aim to keep these overheads well within acceptable limits for typical cloud and edge workloads.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

5. Security Guarantees and Threat Models

Confidential computing offers a robust suite of security guarantees that extend data protection beyond traditional boundaries. However, it is imperative to understand these guarantees within the context of specific threat models, acknowledging both the problems TEEs solve and the residual vulnerabilities that require continuous mitigation.

5.1 Core Security Guarantees

Confidential computing, underpinned by TEEs, fundamentally provides three critical security assurances:

• Data Confidentiality: This is the paramount guarantee. Data residing within a TEE, whether in memory or in CPU registers, remains encrypted and inaccessible to any unauthorized entity. This includes the host operating system, hypervisor, other virtual machines, other applications, and even administrators with privileged access to the physical server. The data is only decrypted by the CPU when it is inside the TEE’s secure boundary for processing. This protects against snooping and unauthorized disclosure.
• Data Integrity: TEEs ensure that the data and code loaded into and processed within the secure environment cannot be tampered with or maliciously modified by external parties. Cryptographic hashes (measurements) of the enclave’s initial state (code, data, configuration) are taken at launch. Any deviation from these expected measurements would indicate a compromise, preventing the TEE from launching or invalidating its attestation. Furthermore, many TEEs (like SEV-SNP and CCA) provide continuous integrity protection for memory pages while in use.
• Code Integrity and Authenticity: This guarantee ensures that only legitimate and authorized code is executed within the TEE. Through attestation mechanisms, external parties can cryptographically verify the identity and configuration of the software running inside the TEE. This means a relying party can be assured that, for instance, a specific, audited analytics application, and not a malicious variant, is performing calculations on their confidential data. It prevents injection of rogue code or manipulation of the trusted application’s logic.

5.2 Comprehensive Threat Models Addressed by TEEs

Confidential computing primarily fortifies against threats originating from a compromised or malicious host environment, which traditionally represents a significant attack surface in cloud computing:

• Insider Attacks (Privileged Cloud Operators): A malicious cloud administrator or a compromised cloud provider infrastructure (e.g., hypervisor, OS, drivers) cannot access or tamper with the data or code running within a customer’s TEE.
• Malware and Rootkits: Even if the host OS is infected with sophisticated malware or rootkits, the TEE protects its contents from these threats, preventing data exfiltration or code injection.
• Hypervisor Compromise: A TEE safeguards guest VMs or applications even if the hypervisor, which typically has full control over guest resources, is compromised.
• Other VMs/Containers: In multi-tenant environments, TEEs provide strong isolation, preventing one tenant’s workload from compromising another’s, even if they share the same physical machine.
• Physical Memory Attacks: Hardware-based memory encryption largely mitigates attacks like cold boot attacks (where RAM contents are read after power loss) or direct memory access (DMA) attacks on the memory bus, as the data remains encrypted outside the CPU package.

5.3 Emerging Threat Models and Limitations

Despite their formidable security, TEEs are not a panacea and are subject to sophisticated attack vectors that fall outside their primary protection scope. Continuous research and development are essential to address these evolving threats:

• Side-Channel Attacks: These attacks do not directly breach the TEE’s cryptographic boundaries but rather infer sensitive information by observing indirect physical phenomena, such as cache access patterns, power consumption, memory access timings, or electromagnetic emissions. Examples include:
  • Cache-timing attacks: Observing when an enclave accesses memory and how long it takes can reveal information about the operations being performed, potentially leaking cryptographic keys or other secrets.
  • Spectre and Meltdown variants: These speculative execution vulnerabilities exploit processor features to leak information from protected memory regions. While hardware mitigations and software patches have been deployed, the threat landscape continues to evolve.
  • Branch prediction attacks: Similar to speculative execution, these can infer information based on CPU branch prediction behavior.
  • Rowhammer: A physical attack that can flip bits in DRAM by repeatedly accessing adjacent memory rows, potentially leading to privilege escalation or data corruption, even within TEEs.
• Software Vulnerabilities within the Trusted Code: TEEs protect against external attacks, but they cannot protect against flaws within the trusted application code itself. If the code running inside the enclave has bugs, logical flaws, or insecure cryptographic implementations, it remains vulnerable. The ‘Trusted Computing Base’ (TCB) still includes this trusted application.
• Hardware Vulnerabilities and Firmware Bugs: While TEEs rely on hardware roots of trust, the underlying hardware or its associated firmware (e.g., BIOS, microcode) can have vulnerabilities that could potentially compromise the TEE. Continuous security updates and patches are critical.
• Denial-of-Service (DoS) Attacks: TEEs may not fully protect against DoS attacks that target the availability of the system or the TEE resources, such as exhausting EPC memory in SGX or flooding a TEE with excessive ECALLs/OCALLs.
• Attestation Service Compromise: If the attestation service (e.g., Intel Attestation Service, AMD SP) is compromised, an attacker could potentially issue fraudulent attestation reports, allowing malicious enclaves to be falsely verified.

Mitigating these advanced threats requires a multi-layered approach, including secure coding practices, careful TEE application design, constant vigilance for new vulnerabilities, and timely hardware/software updates. The Confidential Computing Consortium and various academic and industry groups are actively researching and developing countermeasures to enhance the resilience of TEEs against these sophisticated attack vectors.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

6. Challenges and Limitations in Deploying Confidential Computing

Despite its transformative potential, the widespread adoption and deployment of confidential computing face a number of significant technical, operational, and ecosystem challenges. Addressing these limitations is crucial for accelerating its integration into mainstream enterprise and cloud environments.

6.1 Hardware Compatibility and Availability

• Fragmented Ecosystem: Not all existing hardware platforms support TEEs. For instance, Intel SGX is specific to certain generations of Intel CPUs (e.g., Skylake and newer, with specific SKUs), AMD SEV/SEV-SNP is specific to AMD EPYC processors, and ARM CCA requires newer ARMv9-A architectures. This fragmentation means organizations cannot simply enable confidential computing on all their existing infrastructure.
• Procurement and Upgrade Cycles: Organizations with significant on-premises infrastructure face substantial costs and lengthy upgrade cycles to procure and deploy TEE-enabled hardware. Cloud providers, while adopting these technologies, may not offer all TEE types in all regions or instance types, limiting choice.
• Feature Parity: Even among TEE-enabled hardware, there can be differences in feature sets, such as the maximum size of SGX enclaves (EPC memory), the specific SEV variants supported, or the availability of advanced CCA features. This necessitates careful planning and compatibility checks.

6.2 Software Integration and Development Complexity

• Application Refactoring: For application-centric TEEs like SGX, existing applications often require significant refactoring. Developers must identify sensitive code paths, move them into an enclave, and define explicit interfaces (ECALLs/OCALLs) for interaction with the untrusted host. This process is time-consuming, requires specialized expertise, and can introduce new bugs if not meticulously executed.
• Debugging Difficulties: Debugging code running within a TEE is notoriously challenging. Due to isolation, standard debugging tools cannot inspect enclave internals directly. Developers must rely on logging, careful design, and specialized, often limited, debugging tools provided by SDKs.
• Limited Tooling and Libraries: While SDKs are available, the ecosystem of robust, production-ready libraries, frameworks, and developer tools specifically optimized for TEEs is still maturing compared to traditional software development. This can slow down development and increase time-to-market.
• Expertise Gap: There is a scarcity of developers and security engineers with deep expertise in TEE programming, threat modeling for confidential computing, and secure enclave design. This knowledge gap can be a significant barrier to adoption.
• I/O and Persistent Storage: Handling I/O operations (e.g., file system access, network communication) from within a TEE is complex, as the TEE cannot directly trust the untrusted OS to perform these operations securely. Data must be encrypted before being sent out or decrypted upon entry, and secure channels must be established, often adding complexity and overhead.

6.3 Security Vulnerabilities and Evolving Threat Landscape

• Expanding Trusted Computing Base (TCB): While TEEs aim to minimize the TCB, it still includes the hardware, microcode, firmware, the TEE’s specific runtime (e.g., SGX’s Platform Software), and crucially, the trusted application code itself. Any vulnerability in these components can potentially compromise the security guarantees. As applications grow in complexity, so does the trusted application’s TCB.
• Continuous Discovery of Side-Channel Attacks: As discussed, TEEs remain susceptible to side-channel and speculative execution attacks. The discovery of new variants (e.g., Spectre, Meltdown, Foreshadow, MDS) necessitates continuous microcode updates, software patches, and redesigns, which can disrupt operations and erode user confidence.
• Attestation Complexity: Managing attestation in a large-scale, distributed confidential computing environment is complex. It involves establishing trust in attestation services, managing cryptographic keys, and verifying attestation reports at scale, all of which present potential points of failure or compromise if not handled correctly.
• Supply Chain Security: The integrity of the hardware, firmware, and software components throughout the supply chain is critical. A malicious component introduced at any stage could compromise the root of trust.

6.4 Interoperability and Standardization

• Vendor Lock-in: The current TEE landscape is characterized by vendor-specific implementations (Intel, AMD, ARM). While the Confidential Computing Consortium (CCC) aims for industry-wide collaboration, a common, standardized programming model or runtime that abstracts away hardware specifics is still nascent. This can lead to vendor lock-in and complicate multi-cloud or hybrid-cloud strategies.
• Portability: Porting confidential applications between different TEE technologies (e.g., from SGX to SEV-SNP or CCA) is not straightforward due to fundamental architectural differences in their protection models.

Overcoming these challenges requires a concerted effort from hardware vendors, cloud providers, software developers, and the broader security community to drive standardization, improve tooling, foster expertise, and continuously enhance the resilience of confidential computing technologies.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

7. Advanced Use Cases and Future Directions

Confidential computing is not merely an incremental security improvement; it is a foundational technology that unlocks entirely new paradigms for secure and privacy-preserving data processing. By guaranteeing data confidentiality during computation, TEEs enable collaboration and innovation across previously siloed datasets, particularly in highly regulated industries. This section explores several advanced use cases and glimpses into the future trajectory of confidential computing.

7.1 Secure Multi-Party Computation (SMPC)

Secure Multi-Party Computation (SMPC) is a cryptographic primitive that allows multiple parties to jointly compute a function over their private inputs without revealing any individual party’s input to the others. While powerful, pure cryptographic SMPC protocols can be computationally intensive, incurring significant performance overheads.

7.1.1 Enhancing SMPC with TEEs

Confidential computing, through TEEs, can significantly enhance SMPC in several ways:

• Performance Acceleration: TEEs can act as secure ‘executors’ for computationally intensive steps within an SMPC protocol. By offloading parts of the computation into a TEE, where data is protected by hardware encryption rather than purely cryptographic methods, the overall performance of the SMPC protocol can be dramatically improved. This creates a hybrid approach where TEEs provide a trusted environment for specific sub-computations, reducing the overhead of complex cryptographic operations.
• Reduced Trust Assumptions: For some SMPC protocols, parties might need to agree on a trusted third party. A TEE can serve as a ‘hardware-backed trusted third party,’ providing cryptographic assurances (via attestation) that it will execute the agreed-upon function correctly and not reveal intermediate inputs, thereby minimizing reliance on human trust.
• Simplified Protocol Design: By leveraging TEEs, some complex cryptographic primitives required in pure SMPC can be simplified or even replaced by trusted execution within the enclave, making SMPC more accessible and easier to implement.

7.1.2 Practical Applications

• Privacy-Preserving Data Analytics: Multiple hospitals can collaborate to analyze patient data for rare disease research or drug efficacy studies without sharing individual patient records. Each hospital’s data is processed within a TEE, and only the aggregated, anonymized results are revealed (ScienceDirect, 2024).
• Financial Fraud Detection: Banks can pool encrypted transaction data into an SMPC system running in TEEs to detect systemic fraud patterns without revealing individual customer transaction details to other banks.
• Secure Auctions and Bidding: Participants can submit encrypted bids to an auctioneer running within a TEE, which determines the winner and final price without revealing any losing bids.

7.2 Federated Learning

Federated Learning (FL) is a distributed machine learning paradigm where multiple clients collaboratively train a shared global model without exchanging their raw local data. Instead, clients train models locally and send only aggregated model updates to a central server.

7.2.1 Strengthening Federated Learning with TEEs

Confidential computing provides crucial security enhancements to federated learning:

• Secure Aggregation Server: The central aggregation server is a critical component in FL, responsible for combining model updates from various clients. A malicious or compromised server could potentially inspect individual model updates (which might inadvertently leak information about local data), inject malicious updates, or even tamper with the global model. By running the aggregation server (or its core aggregation logic) within a TEE, the confidentiality and integrity of model updates are guaranteed, preventing the server from snooping on client contributions or tampering with the model (Google Cloud, n.d.). Remote attestation ensures clients can verify the authenticity and integrity of the aggregation server’s TEE.
• Protection of Local Training: While FL aims to keep data local, the local training process itself might still be vulnerable to attacks from a compromised local environment. Using TEEs for local model training (e.g., training a smaller model within an enclave) can further strengthen privacy guarantees by isolating the training process and sensitive data from the local operating system or other applications.
• Defense Against Inference Attacks: Even aggregated model updates can sometimes be vulnerable to inference attacks that attempt to reconstruct training data or infer sensitive attributes. TEEs, especially when combined with differential privacy techniques, can provide a more robust defense against such attacks during the aggregation phase.

7.2.2 Practical Applications

• Collaborative Healthcare AI: Hospitals can collectively train powerful AI models for diagnosis or drug discovery without ever moving patient data from their premises. A TEE-protected aggregation server ensures privacy during model fusion.
• Personalized Recommendation Systems: Mobile device users can contribute to a global recommendation model without their personal browsing history or preferences ever leaving their device or being exposed to the service provider during aggregation.
• Financial Market Prediction: Multiple financial institutions can collaborate on building predictive models based on their proprietary data, with TEEs ensuring that competitive intelligence remains protected.

7.3 Other Advanced Applications and Future Directions

Confidential computing is rapidly expanding its influence across numerous other domains:

• Confidential AI/Machine Learning Inference and Training: Beyond federated learning, TEEs can protect the intellectual property of AI models during inference (preventing model theft) and secure sensitive training datasets, ensuring only authorized computations are performed on them. This is vital for deploying AI in sensitive sectors like defense or proprietary research.
• Confidential Databases and Analytics: Running entire database systems or analytics engines within TEEs allows organizations to process sensitive queries on encrypted data directly in the cloud, even from untrusted cloud providers. This ensures data remains protected throughout the entire query execution lifecycle.
• Confidential Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technologies: TEEs can enhance privacy on public blockchains by moving sensitive transaction details or smart contract logic into an enclave. This allows for verifiable, private computation while leveraging the decentralization and immutability of blockchain, addressing key scalability and privacy concerns for enterprise blockchain applications.
• Secure Cloud Edge Computing: As computation shifts to the edge, TEEs can provide a critical layer of security for processing sensitive data from IoT devices or industrial sensors in untrusted edge environments, ensuring data integrity and confidentiality before it leaves the edge.
• Standardization and Interoperability: Future efforts will focus on greater standardization (e.g., through the Confidential Computing Consortium) and the development of higher-level programming abstractions to simplify TEE application development, making confidential computing more accessible to a broader developer base and facilitating multi-cloud deployments.
• Integration with Other PETs: The synergy between confidential computing and other privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs) like homomorphic encryption and zero-knowledge proofs will be a significant area of research, potentially creating even more robust and flexible privacy solutions.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

8. Conclusion

Confidential computing represents a profound advancement in the ongoing quest for robust data security, inaugurating a new era where protection extends unequivocally to data during its most vulnerable phase: active processing. By leveraging sophisticated hardware-based Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) such as Intel SGX, AMD SEV, and ARM CCA, this innovative paradigm provides an unprecedented level of assurance that sensitive information remains both confidential and tamper-proof, even when deployed within inherently untrusted computational environments like public clouds. The architectural isolation, memory encryption, and cryptographic attestation mechanisms inherent in TEEs effectively neutralize a broad spectrum of threats, including insider attacks, hypervisor compromise, and sophisticated malware, thereby fundamentally reshaping the trust model for outsourced computation.

While the journey towards ubiquitous confidential computing is still underway, marked by challenges related to hardware compatibility, the complexity of software integration, the evolving nature of security vulnerabilities (particularly side-channel attacks), and the need for greater standardization, the trajectory is undeniably clear. Ongoing research and relentless development efforts are continuously enhancing the robustness, performance, and applicability of TEE technologies, pushing the boundaries of what is possible in secure computing. Its pivotal integration into advanced data processing methodologies, notably Secure Multi-Party Computation (SMPC) and Federated Learning, is already unlocking groundbreaking avenues for privacy-preserving data analysis, collaborative AI model training, and confidential cloud services across a diverse spectrum of industries, from healthcare and finance to government and defense. Confidential computing is not merely an optional security feature; it is rapidly becoming an indispensable cornerstone for building trusted, privacy-aware digital infrastructures that can securely harness the full potential of data in an increasingly interconnected and data-centric world.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

References

• Intel Community. (n.d.). Confidential Computing—the emerging paradigm for protecting data in-use. Retrieved from (community.intel.com)
• Wikipedia. (2025). Trusted execution environment. Retrieved from (en.wikipedia.org)
• Wikipedia. (2025). Confidential computing. Retrieved from (en.wikipedia.org)
• Wikipedia. (2025). Secure multi-party computation. Retrieved from (en.wikipedia.org)
• Wikipedia. (2025). Federated learning. Retrieved from (en.wikipedia.org)
• Google Cloud. (n.d.). Confidential computing for data analytics, AI, and federated learning. Retrieved from (cloud.google.com)
• ScienceDirect. (2024). Leveraging federated learning for privacy-preserving analysis of multi-institutional electronic health records in rare disease research. Retrieved from (sciencedirect.com)
• ACE Journal. (2024). Security-Focused Processor Isolation Strategies. Retrieved from (acejournal.org)
• TrustFoundry. (2024). A Practical Guide to Confidential Computing. Retrieved from (trustfoundry.net)
• RS Inc. (2025). Confidential Computing 2025. Retrieved from (rsinc.com)
• Grokipedia. (2025). Confidential computing. Retrieved from (grokipedia.com)