There's a lot of overextensions of the concept of IP that of course make sense to lawyers, judges, and people who have high net worth derived from leveraging this artifice, but the whole thing probably should be reformed at some point if anyone cares about things other than extending the concept of ownership to ideas.
For example, I'm still not clear how I can simultaneously own a media product, like a VCR tape or CD, and not have a "license" from the studio (a non-governmental entity) to publicly exhibit it.
But I don't really see how you can compare this to an attack, unless you actually prove some measurable harm today. What exactly are they doing with your computer that harms you in any direct way?
I absolutely agree on your last point though. It is quite a tragedy when we think about the amount of human intelligence and hard work that has been thrown away on protecting systems from their own owners.
Remember the Sony root kit[1]?
So we agree that the measures were harmful in the past. Of course you wouldn’t ask if we were widely aware of current issues. I think we also agree that a lot of interesting things can be hidden from the user if you have access to the keys to the secured enclaves (or if you manage to break in). If this was ever exploited, we may know in a few years or never.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_roo...
Call me an extremist if you want, but few manufactured goods have seen the level of anti-end user engineering effort put into them than computers. And that's a sad thing to see.