Second proofreading
This commit is contained in:
parent
69fd5c21a2
commit
2bed326dca
2 changed files with 90 additions and 67 deletions
|
|
@ -136,6 +136,7 @@
|
|||
date = {2018-05-31},
|
||||
title = {Pack Safe: Batteries, lithium},
|
||||
url = {https://www.faa.gov/hazmat/packsafe/more_info/?hazmat=7},
|
||||
urldate = {2021-07-12},
|
||||
publisher = {US Federal Aviation Administration},
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -153,6 +154,7 @@
|
|||
date = {2019-12-19},
|
||||
title = {Technology Preview for secure value recovery},
|
||||
url = {https://signal.org/blog/secure-value-recovery/},
|
||||
urldate = {2021-07-12},
|
||||
organization = {signal.org},
|
||||
publisher = {signal.org},
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -173,6 +175,7 @@
|
|||
@WWW{thales2015hsmha,
|
||||
author = {Gemalto NV},
|
||||
date = {2015-12-18},
|
||||
urldate = {2021-07-12},
|
||||
title = {SafeNet PCI-E HSM 6.2 Product Documentation: High Availability (HA) Overview},
|
||||
url = {https://thalesdocs.com/gphsm/luna/6.2/docs/pci/Content/administration/ha/ha_overview.htm},
|
||||
publisher = {Gemalto NV},
|
||||
|
|
@ -388,7 +391,7 @@
|
|||
author = {Johannes Obermaier},
|
||||
title = {Physical Unclonable Functions: The Future Technology for Physical Security Enclosures?},
|
||||
doi = {https://doi.org/10.5446/43265},
|
||||
publisher = {Chaos Computer Club e.V.},
|
||||
organization = {Chaos Computer Club e.V.},
|
||||
date = {2019-08-24},
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -409,4 +412,15 @@
|
|||
date = {2021},
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@InProceedings{german2007,
|
||||
title = {Event Data Recorders in the Analysis of Frontal Impacts},
|
||||
author = {A. German and J-L. Comeau and K.J. McClafferty, M.J. Shkrum, and P.F. Tiessen},
|
||||
date = {2007},
|
||||
booktitle = {Annual Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine},
|
||||
issue = {51},
|
||||
pages = {225-243},
|
||||
url = {https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3217513/},
|
||||
urldate = {2021-07-12},
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@Comment{jabref-meta: databaseType:biblatex;}
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -222,7 +222,8 @@ The core questions in the design of an inertial HSM are the following:
|
|||
\item The \textbf{mechanical layout} of the system.
|
||||
\end{enumerate}
|
||||
|
||||
We will approach these questions one by one in the following subsections.
|
||||
We will approach these questions one by one in the following subsections and conclude this section with an exploration
|
||||
of the practical implications that these aspects of IHSM construction have on IHSM operation.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Inertial HSM motion}
|
||||
\label{sec_ihsm_motion}
|
||||
|
|
@ -364,10 +365,10 @@ heatsink with its fan running has a thermal resistance from CPU junction to air
|
|||
$\SI{0.1}{\kelvin\per\watt}$~\cite{anandtech2015}.
|
||||
If one were to make an HSM's security mesh out of an average thermally conductive epoxy with thermal conductivity
|
||||
$k\approx\SI{1}{\watt\per\meter\kelvin}$~\cite{kordyban1998,shabany2009,mgchemicals2017}, the resulting thermal
|
||||
resistance for a 5-by-5 centimeter, $\SI{5}{\milli\meter}$ thermal interface alone would $\SI{2}{\kelvin\per\watt}$, a
|
||||
more than 10-fold increase. For an acceptable temperature delta from junction to air of $\SI{60}{\kelvin}$ this yields a
|
||||
maximum power dissipation of only $\SI{30}{\watt}$ compared to a theoretical $\SI{600}{\watt}$ for a conventional CPU
|
||||
cooler. Given that for modern high core-count CPUs, both multithreaded performance and power dissipation are mostly
|
||||
resistance for a 5-by-5 centimeter, $\SI{5}{\milli\meter}$ thermal interface alone would be $\SI{2}{\kelvin\per\watt}$,
|
||||
a more than 10-fold increase. For an acceptable temperature delta from junction to air of $\SI{60}{\kelvin}$ this yields
|
||||
a maximum power dissipation of only $\SI{30}{\watt}$ compared to a theoretical $\SI{600}{\watt}$ for a conventional CPU
|
||||
cooler. Given that for modern high core-count CPUs both multithreaded performance and power dissipation are mostly
|
||||
linear in core count, this severely limits the achievable performance.
|
||||
|
||||
This estimated performance discrepancy matches up with our observation. Thales, a manufacturer of conventional HSMs
|
||||
|
|
@ -379,17 +380,20 @@ to two orders of magnitude in computing power to be feasible in an IHSM compared
|
|||
|
||||
\subsection{Long-term Operation}
|
||||
|
||||
Like with other HSMs, in a practical application an IHSM may have to run continuously for a decade or even longer. As
|
||||
with any networked system, a setup including IHSMs must be designed in a way that the failure of a small number of IHSMs
|
||||
does not compromise the system's security or reliability. Neither IHSMs nor traditional HSMs can withstand fire or
|
||||
flooding, so while a breach of security can be ruled out, a catastrophic failure of the device and erasure of data
|
||||
cannot~\cite{heise2021ovh}. Traditionally, this problem is solved by storing all secrets in multiple, geographically
|
||||
redundant HSMs~\cite{thales2015hsmha}. On IHSMs this task is aided on the software layer since they are based on
|
||||
general-purpose computer hardware and for state-of-the-art database replication techniques to be applied without first
|
||||
porting them to an embedded operating system or foreign CPU architecture. A practical example of this approach is a 2019
|
||||
technology demonstration~\cite{signal2019} created by the signal.org, the organization running the signal secure
|
||||
messenger app. In this demonstration, signal.org have implemented the Raft consensus algorithm~\cite{ongaro2019} inside
|
||||
Intel SGX to replicate state between redundant instances.
|
||||
Without settling on a particular design for an IHSM yet, from the previous sections we have already gained an
|
||||
understanding of what an IHSM would look like in practice. In the following paragraphs we will draw some conclusions on
|
||||
how its design will affect the day-to-day operation of an IHSM.
|
||||
Like other HSMs, in a practical application an IHSM may have to run continuously for a decade or even longer. As with
|
||||
any networked system, a setup including IHSMs must be designed in a way that prevents the failure of one or several
|
||||
IHSMs on the network from compromising the whole system's security or reliability. Neither IHSMs nor traditional HSMs
|
||||
can withstand fire or flooding, so while a breach of security can be ruled out, a catastrophic failure of the device and
|
||||
erasure of data cannot~\cite{heise2021ovh}. Traditionally, this problem is solved by storing all secrets in multiple,
|
||||
geographically redundant HSMs~\cite{thales2015hsmha}. On IHSMs this task is aided on the software layer since they are
|
||||
based on general-purpose computer hardware and allow for state-of-the-art database replication techniques to be applied
|
||||
without first porting them to an embedded operating system or foreign CPU architecture. A practical example of this
|
||||
approach is a 2019 technology demonstration~\cite{signal2019} created by the signal.org, the organization running the
|
||||
signal secure messenger app. In this demonstration, signal.org have implemented the Raft consensus
|
||||
algorithm~\cite{ongaro2019} inside Intel SGX to replicate state between redundant instances.
|
||||
|
||||
Excluding natural disasters there are three main categories of challenges to an IHSM's longevity: Failure of components
|
||||
of the IHSM due to age and wear, failure of the external power supply and spurious triggering of the intrusion alarm by
|
||||
|
|
@ -400,11 +404,11 @@ practical impact.
|
|||
The failure mode of an IHSM's components is the same as in any other computer system and the same generic mitigation
|
||||
techniques apply. The expected lifetime of electronic components can be increased by using higher-spec components and by
|
||||
reducing thermal, mechanical and electrical stress. To reduce vibration stress on both rotor and stator, the rotor must
|
||||
be balanced. The main mechanical failure mode of an IHSM's is failure of the shaft bearings. By incorporating knowledge
|
||||
from other rotating devices that have a long lifetime such as cooling fans, this failure mode can be mitigated. A final
|
||||
noteworthy mechanical failure mode of an IHSM is dust buildup on the optical components of the communication link. This
|
||||
failure mode can be mitigated by routing cooling airflow such that it does not go past the communication link's optical
|
||||
components, as well as by filtering cooling air at the device's intakes.
|
||||
be balanced. The main mechanical failure mode of an IHSM's is likely to be failure of the shaft bearings. By
|
||||
incorporating knowledge from other rotating devices that have a long lifetime such as cooling fans, this failure mode
|
||||
can be mitigated. Another noteworthy mechanical failure mode of an IHSM is dust buildup on the optical components of the
|
||||
communication link. This failure mode can be mitigated by routing cooling airflow such that it does not go past the
|
||||
communication link's optical components, as well as by filtering cooling air at the device's intakes.
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Power failure.}
|
||||
\label{sec-power-failure}
|
||||
|
|
@ -418,7 +422,7 @@ integrated into its case. Conservatively assuming an average operating power con
|
|||
IHSM's motor, a single large laptop battery with a capacity of $\SI{100}{\watt\hour}$~\cite{faa2018} could already power
|
||||
an IHSM for 10 hours continuously. If a built-in battery is undesirable, or if power outages of more than a few seconds
|
||||
at a time are unlikely (e.g.\ because the IHSM is connected to an external UPS or generator), the IHSM's rotor itself
|
||||
can be used as a flywheel for energy storage up to several seconds.
|
||||
can be used as a flywheel for energy storage.
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Spurious alarms.}
|
||||
Even with all components working to their specification, an IHSM could still catastrophically fail if for some reason
|
||||
|
|
@ -436,32 +440,35 @@ amplitude. This means that to reach a certain instantaneous acceleration, much m
|
|||
vibrating motion compared to lower frequencies. This observation interacts the second key point we want to note here:
|
||||
An ideal vibration damper works better with higher frequencies, and has a lower bound below which it does no longer
|
||||
damp vibration transmission~\cite{kelly1993,beards1996,dixon2007}. From these two observations it follows that if we
|
||||
wish to reduce the likelihood of false detections by our IHSM tamper alarm, we can achieve this goal effectively by
|
||||
wish to reduce the likelihood of false detections by our IHSM tamper alarm, we can achieve this goal efficiently by
|
||||
damping high-frequency shock and vibration, as low-frequency shock or vibration components will not reach accelerations
|
||||
large enough to cause a false alarm.
|
||||
|
||||
To put this into perspective, consider that at an angular frequency of $\SI{1000}{rpm}$, we can expect an IHSM's tamper
|
||||
sensor to measure an acceleration of about $\SI{100}{g}$. Even the strongest earthquakes rarely reach a Peak Ground
|
||||
Acceleration (PGA) of $\SI{0.1}{g}$~\cite{yoshimitsu1990}. The highest PGA measured during the 2011 Tohoku earthquake
|
||||
was approximately $\SI{0.3}{g}$. Since earthquake vibrations are low-frequency and happen across a large geographic
|
||||
area, they dissipate a tremendous amound of mechanical power despite this at first glance seemingly low absolute
|
||||
acceleration. For the purposes of our tamper detection system, we can ignore them. As another point of reference,
|
||||
consider a car crash. An acceleration above $\SI{10}{g}$ corresponds to a crash at roughly
|
||||
$\SI{30}{\kilo\meter\per\hour}$~\cite{ika2002}. Thus, an IHSM's tamper detection subsystem will be able to clearly
|
||||
distinguish attempts to stop the IHSM's rotation, producing approximately $\SI{100}{g}$ at $\SI{1000}{rpm}$. External
|
||||
acceleration that would come close in order of magnitude to the operating centrifugal acceleration at the periphery of
|
||||
an IHSM's rotor would likely destroy the IHSM.
|
||||
To put this into perspective, consider an IHSM running at an angular frequency of $\SI{1000}{rpm}$. If the IHSM's tamper
|
||||
sensor is mounted at a radius of $\SI{100}{\milli\meter}$ from the axis of rotation, it will measure a constant
|
||||
acceleration of approximately $\SI{100}{g}$. Let us first compare this in magnitude to the effects of a car crash.
|
||||
According to literature, accelerations above $\SI{10}{g}$ correspond to the acceleration a car's structural components
|
||||
experience in a car crash at $\SI{30}{\kilo\meter\per\hour}$ and above~\cite{ika2002,german2007}. As another point of
|
||||
reference, take the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) of a severe earthquake. Even the strongest earthquakes rarely reach a
|
||||
PGA of $\SI{0.1}{g}$~\cite{yoshimitsu1990}. The highest PGA measured during the 2011 Tohoku earthquake was approximately
|
||||
$\SI{0.3}{g}$. As they happen across a large geographic area, an earthquake's low-frequency vibrations dissipate a
|
||||
tremendous amount of mechanical power despite their at first glance low absolute acceleration. However, we can ignore
|
||||
them for the purposes of our tamper detection system.
|
||||
|
||||
From these comparisons we can conclude that an IHSM's tamper detection subsystem will be able to clearly distinguish
|
||||
attempts to stop the IHSM's rotation. Any external acceleration that would come close in order of magnitude to the
|
||||
operating centrifugal acceleration at the periphery of an IHSM's rotor would likely destroy the IHSM.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Transportation}
|
||||
|
||||
While unintentional acceleration is unlikely to cause false alarms in an IHSM when simple vibration damping is employed,
|
||||
there is an issue with intentionally moving an IHSM: The IHSM's rotor stores significant rotational energy and will
|
||||
there is an issue when intentionally moving an IHSM: The IHSM's rotor stores significant rotational energy and will
|
||||
respond to tipping with a precession force. This could become an issue when a larger IHSM is transported between e.g.\
|
||||
the manufacturer's premises and its destination data center. One solution to this problem is to transport the IHSM
|
||||
elastically mounted inside a shipping box that is weighted to resist precession forces. To reduce the amount of
|
||||
precession, the IHSM should be transported with its axis of rotation pointing upwards and its speed of rotation set to
|
||||
the lower end of the range permitted by the application's security requirements. The IHSM's software could allow for a
|
||||
temporary ``shipping mode'' to be entered that could slow down the IHSM and increase the tamper sensing accelerometer's
|
||||
temporary ``shipping mode'' to be entered that would slow down the IHSM and increase the tamper sensing accelerometer's
|
||||
thresholds.
|
||||
|
||||
During shipping, the IHSM will require a continuous power supply. The most practical solution to this challenge is to
|
||||
|
|
@ -474,12 +481,13 @@ manufacturer after the IHSM has been installed.
|
|||
\section{Attacks}
|
||||
\label{sec_attacks}
|
||||
|
||||
After outlining the basic mechanical design of an inertial HSM above, in this section we will detail possible ways to
|
||||
attack it. At the core of an IHSM's defenses is the same security mesh or other technology as it is used in traditional
|
||||
HSMs. This means that ultimately an attacker will have to perform the same steps they would have to perform to attack a
|
||||
traditional HSM. However, they will either need to perform these attack steps with a tool that follows the HSM's
|
||||
rotation at high speed or they will first need to defeat the braking sensor. Attacking the IHSM in motion requires
|
||||
specialized mechanical tools such as CNC actuators or for contactless attack a laser.
|
||||
After outlining the basic mechanical design of an inertial HSM as well as the fundamentals of its long-term operation
|
||||
above, in this section we will detail possible ways to attack it. At the core of an IHSM's defenses is the same security
|
||||
mesh or other technology as it is used in traditional HSMs. This means that ultimately an attacker will have to perform
|
||||
the same steps they would have to perform to attack a traditional HSM. However, they will either need to perform these
|
||||
attack steps with a tool that follows the HSM's rotation at high speed or they will first need to defeat the braking
|
||||
sensor. Attacking the IHSM in motion requires specialized mechanical tools such as CNC actuators or for contactless
|
||||
attack a laser.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Attacks that don't work}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -501,16 +509,16 @@ Detecting this change would require a resistance measurement of at least $\SI{9}
|
|||
temperature stability of the mesh material.
|
||||
|
||||
The second way to attack a HSM is to go \emph{around} the mesh. Many commercial HSMs sandwich the payload PCB between
|
||||
two mesh-equipped enclosure halves. This design in particular is vulnerable to attempts to stick a fine needle through
|
||||
the interface between mesh lid and PCB. Conventional HSMs mitigate this weak spot by wrapping a patterned conductive
|
||||
foil around the HSM that forms the security mesh, leaving only the corners and the payload's power and data
|
||||
two halves of an enclosure~\cite{obermaier2019}. This design is vulnerable to attempts to stick a fine needle through
|
||||
the interface between lid and PCB~\cite{dexter2015}. Conventional HSMs mitigate this weak spot by wrapping a patterned
|
||||
conductive foil around the HSM that forms the security mesh, leaving only the corners and the payload's power and data
|
||||
feed-through as potential weak spots.
|
||||
|
||||
The third and last way to attack a conventional HSM is to disable the mesh monitoring circuit~\cite{dexter2015}. An
|
||||
attacker may need to insert several probes to wiretap the payload processor's secrets, but depending on its
|
||||
implementation they may be able to disable the mesh alarm circuit with only one. To harden a conventional HSM against
|
||||
this type of attack, the mesh monitoring circuit must be carefully designed to avoid single points of failure as well as
|
||||
any fail-open failure modes.
|
||||
attacker may need to insert several probes or modify the circuit to wiretap the payload processor's secrets, but
|
||||
depending on its implementation they may be able to disable the mesh alarm circuit with only one or two probes. To
|
||||
harden a conventional HSM against this type of attack, the mesh monitoring circuit must be carefully designed to avoid
|
||||
single points of failure as well as any fail-open failure modes.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Attacks that work on any HSM}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -527,12 +535,12 @@ surface to the outside world, and by carefully vetting this remaining attack sur
|
|||
|
||||
IHSMs do not provide an inherent benefit against such contactless attacks. However, there are two mitigating factors in
|
||||
play that still give IHSMs an advantage over conventional HSMs in this scenario. Because IHSM meshes can be made using
|
||||
more primitive technology than conventional HSM meshes at the same level of security, IHSMs can use larger meshes and
|
||||
are less space-constrained. This larger volume allows for a greater physical distance between security-critical
|
||||
components from places accessible to an attacker using an electromagnetic side channel probe. By allowing the use of
|
||||
simpler technology than conventional HSM meshes at the same level of security, IHSMs can use larger meshes and are less
|
||||
space-constrained. This larger volume allows for a greater physical distance between security-critical components and
|
||||
places accessible to an attacker using an electromagnetic probe for EM side channel attacks. By allowing the use of
|
||||
conventional server hardware, IHSMs additionally enable the use of modern security techniques such as MMUs and
|
||||
well-audited open source software such as OpenSSL that may be unavailable on the embedded processors found in
|
||||
conventional HSMs.
|
||||
well-audited open source software such as OpenSSL both of which may not be available on the smaller embedded processors
|
||||
found in conventional HSMs.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{The Swivel Chair Attack}
|
||||
\label{sec_swivel_chair_attack}
|
||||
|
|
@ -588,17 +596,18 @@ attack a security mesh is infeasible given the degree of manual skill necessary
|
|||
|
||||
\subsection{Mechanical weak spots}
|
||||
|
||||
The tamper defense of an IHSM rests on the security mesh moving too fast to tamper. Depending on the type of motion
|
||||
used, the mesh's speed may vary by location and over time. Our example configuration of a rotating mesh can keep moving
|
||||
continuously, so it does not have any time-dependent weak spots. It does, however, have a weak spot along its axis of
|
||||
rotation, at the point where the shaft penetrates the mesh. The mesh's tangential velocity decreases close to the shaft,
|
||||
and the shaft itself may allow an attacker to insert tools such as probes into the device through the opening it
|
||||
creates. This issue is related to the issue conventional HSMs also face with their power and data connections. In
|
||||
conventional HSMs, power and data are routed into the enclosure through the PCB or flat flex cables sandwiched in
|
||||
between security mesh foil layers~\cite{smith1998}. In conventional HSMs this interface rarely is a mechanical weak
|
||||
spot since they use a thin mesh substrate and create a meandering path by folding the interconnect substrate/security
|
||||
mesh layers several times. In inertial HSMs, careful engineering is necessary to achieve the same effect.
|
||||
Figure~\ref{shaft_cm} shows variations of the shaft interface with increasing complexity.
|
||||
As we elaborated in the previous paragraphs, we consider a fast-moving mesh to offer a strong tamper detection
|
||||
capability. This evaluation is based on the notion that the security mesh is moving too fast to tamper. However,
|
||||
depending on the type of motion used, the mesh's actual speed may vary by location and over time. Our example
|
||||
configuration of a rotating mesh can keep moving continuously, so it does not have any time-dependent weak spots. It
|
||||
does, however, have a weak spot along its axis of rotation, at the point where the shaft penetrates the mesh. The mesh's
|
||||
tangential velocity decreases close to the shaft, and the shaft itself may allow an attacker to insert tools such as
|
||||
probes into the device through the opening it creates. This issue is related to the issue conventional HSMs also face
|
||||
with their power and data connections. In conventional HSMs, power and data are routed into the enclosure through the
|
||||
PCB or flat flex cables sandwiched in between security mesh foil layers~\cite{smith1998}. In conventional HSMs this
|
||||
interface rarely is a mechanical weak spot since they use a thin mesh substrate and create a meandering path by folding
|
||||
the interconnect substrate/security mesh layers several times. In inertial HSMs, careful engineering is necessary to
|
||||
achieve the same effect. Figure~\ref{shaft_cm} shows variations of the shaft interface with increasing complexity.
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{figure}
|
||||
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.3\textwidth}
|
||||
|
|
@ -934,7 +943,7 @@ secure hardware. We have published all design artifacts of our PoC online, pleas
|
|||
details. The next steps towards a practical application of our design will be to design a manufacturable stator/rotor
|
||||
interface with inductive power and data transfer integrated into the motor's magnetics and a custom motor driver tuned
|
||||
for the application that is able to precisely measure both angular velocity and winding current for an added degree of
|
||||
tamper detection.
|
||||
tamper detection through the measurement of external forces acting on the rotor.
|
||||
|
||||
\printbibliography[heading=bibintoc]
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue