The seL4 guys have been creating tools and techniques to do this and they're utilised in the seL4 formally proved micro-kernel. Proof Engineering Considered Essential

I found Gal Beniamini work with Project Zero quite informative on the issues with these TEEs, especially how they handle memory which appears to be directly related to this exploit with the QSEE ECDSA implementation?

I can't believe more people on Slashdot aren't recommending HSMs, it's somewhat sad.

What is this shit? Minitel? Private selling on Usenet? The summary even has an earlier example...

Improved privacy and reduced attack surface, sadly enough.

Actual jetpack tested from JetPack Aviation. Endurance of currently 10 minutes.

There are no such thing as "burner phones" in Australia, you must have 100 points of ID in order to activate a mobile phone service.

This is probably the dumbest thing I've seen published by Slashdot.... isn't this simply some sort of redefinition of "libraries" or "modules"?

Then use the word "Credentials"?

The Curse of Competency.

My point is, it's not black and white like you were saying.

Yes you can. There are many types of cryptographic weakness (Eg: an attack that reduces the effective key space) but specifically regarding RC4, there are weaknesses which make it difficult to use properly in common scenarios.

Just like the Leaning Tower of Pisa has never fallen down!

This summary is complete misrepresentation, from the very start of the article.

Whoever wrote that summary clearly has an agenda.

With the rise of deniability features in data-at-rest encryption products, I'm not sure how this is going to work in the real world. Wouldn't be hard to use these technologies for communications too.