techrepor: Update paper. I think this is as far as I'll go before the prototype.
This commit is contained in:
parent
e31d7a98d0
commit
ac6fbd9e8e
2 changed files with 152 additions and 128 deletions
|
|
@ -20,7 +20,9 @@
|
|||
date = {2019},
|
||||
doi = {10.13154/tches.v2019.i1.51-96},
|
||||
issn = {2569-2925},
|
||||
journal = {IACR transactions on cryptographic hardware and embedded systems.},
|
||||
journaltitle = {IACR Transactions on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems},
|
||||
publisher = {IACR},
|
||||
title = {Secure Physical Enclosures from Covers with Tamper-Resistance},
|
||||
url = {https://tches.iacr.org/index.php/TCHES/article/view/7334/6506},
|
||||
urldate = {2020-09-16}
|
||||
|
|
@ -123,3 +125,38 @@
|
|||
year = {2018}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@inproceedings{johnson2018,
|
||||
author = {Scott Johnson and Dominic Rizzo and Parthasarathy Ranganathan and Jon McCune and Richard Ho},
|
||||
booktitle = {Hot Chips: A Symposium on High Performance Chips},
|
||||
title = {Titan: enabling a transparent silicon root of trust for Cloud},
|
||||
x-fetchedfrom = {Google Scholar},
|
||||
year = {2018}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@inproceedings{isaacs2013,
|
||||
author = {Phil Isaacs and Thomas {Morris Jr} and Michael J Fisher and Keith Cuthbert},
|
||||
booktitle = {Pan Pacific Symposium},
|
||||
title = {Tamper proof, tamper evident encryption technology},
|
||||
x-fetchedfrom = {Google Scholar},
|
||||
year = {2013}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@inproceedings{drimer2008,
|
||||
author = {Saar Drimer and Steven J Murdoch and Ross Anderson},
|
||||
booktitle = {2008 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (sp 2008)},
|
||||
organization = {IEEE},
|
||||
pages = {281–295},
|
||||
title = {Thinking inside the box: system-level failures of tamper proofing},
|
||||
x-fetchedfrom = {Google Scholar},
|
||||
year = {2008}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@misc{terdiman2013,
|
||||
author = {Daniel Terdiman},
|
||||
month = jul,
|
||||
publisher = {CNET},
|
||||
title = {Aboard America's Doomsday command and control plane},
|
||||
url = {https://www.cnet.com/news/aboard-americas-doomsday-command-and-control-plane},
|
||||
year = {2013}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -93,63 +93,64 @@ offers a level of security that is comparable to even the best commercial offeri
|
|||
\section{Introduction}
|
||||
|
||||
While information security technology has matured a great deal in the last half century, physical security has barely
|
||||
changed. Given the right skills, physical access to a computer still usually equates full compromise. The physical
|
||||
security of modern server hardware hinges on what lock you put on the room it is in. Systems such as Trusted Platform
|
||||
Modules attempt to alleviate this problem, but they are hard to use and even with them a system still offers
|
||||
considerable attack surface\cite{heise2020t2jailbreak}.
|
||||
changed. Given the right skills, physical access to a computer still often equates full compromise. The physical
|
||||
security of modern server hardware hinges on what lock you put on the room it is in.
|
||||
|
||||
In modern systems, high-level physical security is usually limited to small physical dimensions. Secure enclaves and
|
||||
smartcards provide security on the scale of a single chip. Commercial HSMs have a small circuit
|
||||
board\cite{anderson2020,immler2019}. Security systems such as TPMs effectively allow tying a larger system's physical
|
||||
security to that of a small TPM chip embedded inside. The protection that exists at the level of a single server
|
||||
enclosure is usually limited to a lid switch and some tamper-evident seals.
|
||||
Currently, servers and other computers are rarely physically secured as a whole. Servers sometimes have a simple lid
|
||||
switch and are put in locked ``cages'' inside guarded facilities. This usually provides a good compromise between
|
||||
physical security and ease of maintenance. To handle highly sensitive data in applications such as banking or public key
|
||||
infrastructure, general-purpose and low-security servers are augmented with dedicated, physically secure cryptographic
|
||||
co-processors in form of smartcards or hardware security modules (HSMs). Smartcards and HSMs protect a physically small
|
||||
volume of a single chip or circuit board, respectively. In lower-security applications\cite{heise2020t2jailbreak},
|
||||
smartcard-like trusted platform modules (TPMs) and other types of security platform controllers allow an administrator
|
||||
to tie a whole computer's security to that of the small security chip inside\cite{frazelle2019,johnson2018}.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Technical approaches to physical security}
|
||||
|
||||
Shrinking things to the nanoscopic level to secure them against tampering is increasing in popularity. Apple today uses
|
||||
a secure enclave IC in their line of laptops. Likewise, Google has developed its own security IC with a similar
|
||||
application\cite{frazelle2019}. These chips are an engineering solution to problems that cannot be solved with
|
||||
cryptographic security. The security of these chips rests on the assumption that due to their fine structure, they are
|
||||
hard to reverse engineer or modify. As of now, this property holds and in the authors' opinion it will likely be a
|
||||
reasonable assumption for some years to come. However, in its essence this is a type of security by obscurity:
|
||||
Obscurity here meaning the rarity of the equipment necessary to attack these chips\cite{albartus2020,anderson2020}.
|
||||
Shrinking things to the nanoscopic level to secure them against tampering is an engineering solution to problems that
|
||||
cannot be solved (yet) with cryptographic security. The security of these chips rests on the assumption that their fine
|
||||
structures are hard to reverse engineer and modify. As of now, this property holds and in the authors' opinion it will
|
||||
likely be a reasonable assumption for some years to come. However, in essence this is a type of security by obscurity:
|
||||
Obscurity here referring to the rarity of the equipment necessary to attack these chips\cite{albartus2020,anderson2020}.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Hardware Security Modules}
|
||||
|
||||
Right now, Hardware security modules (HSMs) are the commercial devices offering the highest ``physical
|
||||
security-volume-product''. Whereas smartcards secure a single chip, HSMs secure a small circuit board. In contrast to a
|
||||
security-to-volume-product''. Where smartcards secure a single chip, HSMs secure a small circuit board. In contrast to a
|
||||
smartcard, the HSM actively deletes its secrets when it detects a manipulation. Commercial HSMs commonly employ what we
|
||||
call \emph{boundary monitoring}. They have a physical security barrier that they continuously monitor for holes.
|
||||
Usually, this barrier is a thin foil that is patterned with at least two electrical traces that are folded many times to
|
||||
cover the entire area of the foil. The HSM monitors these traces for shorts or breaks. This simple construction
|
||||
transforms the security problem into a manufacturing challenge.
|
||||
transforms the security problem into a manufacturing challenge\cite{isaacs2013,immler2019,anderson2020}.
|
||||
|
||||
In our classification the other type of HSMs are \emph{volumetric} HSMs. They monitor their entire internal volume for
|
||||
changes using e.g.\ electromagnetic radiation\cite{tobisch2020,kreft2012} or ultrasound. Their security is limited by
|
||||
the analog sensitivity of their transceivers. Their practicality is limited by their complex transceiver and signal
|
||||
processing circuitry. They promise to secure larger volumes than boundary monitoring at higher parts cost.
|
||||
processing circuitry. They promise to secure larger volumes than boundary monitoring at higher parts cost. A problem
|
||||
with volumetric designs is their security analysis, which is hard to do without significant guesswork. In e.g.\ a
|
||||
device that use electromagnetic radiation to monitor its volume, one has to numerically solve the electromagnetic field
|
||||
equations inside the HSM to validate its impenetrability.
|
||||
|
||||
A problem with volumetric designs is their security analysis, which is hard to do without significant guesswork. In
|
||||
e.g.\ a device that use electromagnetic radiation to monitor its volume, one has to numerically solve the
|
||||
electromagnetic field equations inside the HSM to validate its impenetrability.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Inertial HSMs: A new approach to physical security} We are certain that there is still much work to be done
|
||||
and many insights to be gained in both HSM and in smartcard technology\footnote{For example, consider a box with
|
||||
mirrored walls that contains a smaller box suspended on thin wires that has cameras looking outward in all directions at
|
||||
the mirrored walls. Given that the defender can control lighting conditions inside this kaleidoscopic box in this
|
||||
application modern cameras perform better than the human eye. Thus, a successful physical attack on this system would
|
||||
likely an ``invisibility cloak''--and the system would remain secure as long as no such thing exists. This example is a
|
||||
useful point of reference. To be viable, an HSM technology must be either cheaper, smaller or more sensitive than this
|
||||
strawman setup\cite{kim2018}.}. % TODO perhaps misplaced citation and/or poor source?
|
||||
\subsection{Inertial HSMs: A new approach to physical security}
|
||||
|
||||
We are certain that there is still much work to be done and many insights to be gained in both HSM and in smartcard
|
||||
technology\footnote{
|
||||
As a baseline, consider a box with mirrored walls that contains a smaller box suspended on thin wires that has
|
||||
cameras looking outward in all directions at the mirrored walls. Given that the defender can control lighting
|
||||
conditions inside this kaleidoscopic box in this application modern cameras perform better than the human eye.
|
||||
Thus, a successful physical attack on this system would likely an ``invisibility cloak''--and the system would
|
||||
remain secure as long as no such thing exists. To be viable, an HSM technology must be either cheaper, smaller or
|
||||
more sensitive than this strawman setup\cite{kim2018}.
|
||||
}. % TODO perhaps misplaced citation and/or poor source?
|
||||
Still, we wish to introduce a novel approach to sidestep the issues of conventional HSMs and provide radically better
|
||||
security against physical attacks. Our core observation is that any cheap but coarse HSM technology can be made much
|
||||
more difficult to attack by moving it very quickly. As a trivial example, consider an HSM as it is used in
|
||||
ecommerce applications for credit card payments. Its physical security level is set by the structure size of its
|
||||
security mesh. An attack on its mesh might involve fine drill bits, needles, wires, glue, solder and lasers.
|
||||
security mesh. An attack on its mesh might involve fine drill bits, needles, wires, glue, solder and
|
||||
lasers\cite{drimer2008}.
|
||||
|
||||
Now consider the same HSM mounted on a large flywheel. In addition to its usual defenses the HSM is now equipped with an
|
||||
accelerometer that it uses to verify that it is rotating at high speed. How would an attacker approach this HSM? They
|
||||
accelerometer that it uses to verify that it is spinning at high speed. How would an attacker approach this HSM? They
|
||||
would have to either slow down the rotation, triggering the accelerometer, or they would have to attack the HSM in
|
||||
motion. The HSM literally becomes a moving target. At slow speeds, rotating the entire attack workbench might be
|
||||
possible but rotating frames of reference quickly become inhospitable to human life\footnote{See Appendix
|
||||
|
|
@ -178,7 +179,7 @@ evolved much in the last two decades. Apart from some auxiliary temperature and
|
|||
attacks on the built-in SRAM memory, the module's main security barrier uses the traditional construction of a flexible
|
||||
mesh wrapped around the module's core. In \cite{smith1998}, the authors claim the module monitors this mesh for short
|
||||
circuits, open circuits and conductivity. The fundamental approach to tamper detection and construction is similar to
|
||||
other commercial offerings\cite{obermaier2018}.
|
||||
other commercial offerings\cite{obermaier2018,drimer2008,anderson2020,isaacs2013}.
|
||||
|
||||
In \cite{immler2019}, Immler et al. describe a HSM based on precise capacitance measurements of a mesh. In contrast to
|
||||
traditional meshes, the mesh they use consists of a large number of individual traces (more than 32 in their example).
|
||||
|
|
@ -205,59 +206,60 @@ transceivers is shaped by the precise three-dimensional distribution of RF-refle
|
|||
compound.
|
||||
|
||||
Our concept is novel in that mechanical motion has not been proposed before as part of a hardware security module. Most
|
||||
academic research concentrates on the issue of creating new, more sensitive security barriers for HSMs while commercial
|
||||
vendors concentrate on means to cheaply manufacture these security barriers. Our concept instead focuses on the issue of
|
||||
taking any existing, cheap low-performance security barrier and transforming it into a marginally more expensive but
|
||||
very high-performance one. The closes to a mechanical HSM that we were able to find during our research is an 1988
|
||||
patent \cite{rahman1988} that describes an mechanism to detect tampering along a communication cable by enclosing the
|
||||
cable inside a conduit filled with pressurized gas.
|
||||
academic research concentrates on the issue of creating new, more sensitive security barriers for HSMs\cite{immler2019}
|
||||
while commercial vendors concentrate on means to cheaply manufacture and certify these security
|
||||
barriers\cite{drimer2008}. Our concept instead focuses on the issue of taking any existing, cheap low-performance
|
||||
security barrier and transforming it into a marginally more expensive but very high-performance one. The closes to a
|
||||
mechanical HSM that we were able to find during our research is an 1988 patent \cite{rahman1988} that describes an
|
||||
mechanism to detect tampering along a communication cable by enclosing the cable inside a conduit filled with
|
||||
pressurized gas.
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Inertial HSM construction and operation}
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Using motion for tamper detection}
|
||||
Mechanical motion has been proposed as a means of making things harder to see with the human eye\cite{haines2006} but we
|
||||
seem to be the first to use it in tamper detection. Let us think about the constraints of our approach.
|
||||
|
||||
Mechanical motion has been proposed as a means of making things harder to see with the human eye\cite{haines2006} and is
|
||||
routinely used in military applications to make things harder to hit\cite{terdiman2013} but we seem to be the first to
|
||||
use it in tamper detection. Let us think about the constraints of our approach.
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{enumerate}
|
||||
\item We need the sensor's motion to be fairly fast. If any point of the sensor moves slow enough for a human to
|
||||
follow, it becomes a weak spot.
|
||||
\item We need to keep the sensor's motion inside a reasonable space. Otherwise we could just load our HSM on an
|
||||
airplane and assume that mid-flight, airplanes are hard to stop non-destructively.
|
||||
\item We need the tamper sensor's motion to be fairly fast. If any point of the sensor moves slow enough for a human
|
||||
to follow, it becomes a weak spot.
|
||||
\item We need to keep the entire apparatus compact.
|
||||
\item We need the sensor's motion to be very predictable so that we can detect an attacker trying to stop it.
|
||||
\end{enumerate}
|
||||
|
||||
From this, we can make a few observations.
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{enumerate}
|
||||
\item Non-periodic linear motion is likely to be a poor choice since it requires a large amount of space, and it is
|
||||
comparatively easy to follow something moving linearly.
|
||||
\item Oscillatory motion such as linear vibration or a pendulum motion might be a good candidate but for the
|
||||
instant at its apex when the vibration reverses direction the object is stationary, which is a weak spot.
|
||||
\item Rotation is a very good choice. Not only does it not require much space to execute, but also if the axis of
|
||||
\item Non-periodic linear motion (like a train on wheels) is likely to be a poor choice since it requires a large
|
||||
amount of space, and it is comparatively easy to follow something moving linearly.
|
||||
\item Oscillatory motion such as linear vibration or a pendulum motion might be a good candidate would there not be
|
||||
the moment at its apex when the vibration reverses direction the object is stationary. This is a weak spot.
|
||||
\item Rotation is a very good choice. It does not require much space to execute. Additionally, if the axis of
|
||||
rotation is within the HSM itself, an attacker trying to follow the motion would have to rotate around the same
|
||||
axis. Since their tangential linear velocity would rise linearly with the radius from the axis of rotation, an
|
||||
assumption on tolerable centrifugal force allows one to limit the approximate maximum size and mass of an
|
||||
attacker. For an HSM measuring at most a few tens of centimeters across, it is easy to build something that
|
||||
rotates too fast for a human to be able to follow it. The axis of rotation is a weak spot, but this can be
|
||||
alleviated by placing additional internal sensors around it and locating all sensitive parts of the sensing
|
||||
circuit radially away from it.
|
||||
attacker (see Appendix \ref{sec_minimum_angular_velocity}). The axis of rotation is a weak spot, but we can
|
||||
simply nest multiple layers of protection at an angle to each other.
|
||||
\item We do not have to move the entire contents of the HSM. It suffices if we move the tamper detection barrier
|
||||
around a stationary payload. This reduces the inertial mass of the moving part and eases data communication and
|
||||
power supply of the payload.
|
||||
around a stationary payload. This reduces the moment of inertia of the moving part and it means we can use
|
||||
cables for payload power and data.
|
||||
\end{enumerate}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{figure}
|
||||
\center
|
||||
\includegraphics{concept_vis_one_axis.pdf}
|
||||
\caption{Concept of a simple rotating inertial HSM. 1 - Axis of rotation. 2 - Security mesh. 3 - Payload. 4 -
|
||||
\caption{Concept of a simple spinning inertial HSM. 1 - Shaft. 2 - Security mesh. 3 - Payload. 4 -
|
||||
Accelerometer. 5 - Shaft penetrating security mesh.}
|
||||
\label{fig_schema_one_axis}
|
||||
\end{figure}
|
||||
|
||||
In a rotating reference frame centrifugal force is proportional to the square of angular velocity and proportional to
|
||||
distance from the axis of rotation. We can exploit this fact to create a sensor that detects any disturbance of the
|
||||
rotation by simply placing a linear accelerometer at some distance from the axis of rotation. During constant rotation,
|
||||
both acceleration tangential to the rotation and along the axis of rotation will be zero. Centrifugal acceleration will
|
||||
be constant. At high speeds, this acceleration may become very large. This poses the engineering challenge of preventing
|
||||
rotation by placing a linear accelerometer at some distance from the axis of rotation. During constant rotation, both
|
||||
acceleration tangential to the rotation and along the axis of rotation will be zero. Centrifugal acceleration will be
|
||||
constant. At high speeds, this acceleration may become very large. This poses the engineering challenge of preventing
|
||||
the whole thing from flying apart, but also creates an obstacle to any attacker trying to manipulate the sensor.
|
||||
|
||||
In Appendix \ref{sec_minimum_angular_velocity} we present some back-of-the-envelope calculations on minimum angular
|
||||
|
|
@ -269,14 +271,14 @@ disturbances if we over-determine the system of equation determining its motion
|
|||
|
||||
\subsection{Payload mounting mechanisms}
|
||||
|
||||
The simplest way to mount a stationary payload in a rotating security mesh is to drive the rotor using a hollow shaft.
|
||||
The simplest way to mount a stationary payload in a spinning security mesh is to drive the rotor using a hollow shaft.
|
||||
This allows the payload to be mounted on a fixed rod threaded through this hollow shaft along with wires for power and
|
||||
data. The stationary rod and cables on the axis of rotation inside the hollow shaft are a weak spot of the system, but
|
||||
this weak spot can be alleviated through either careful construction or a second layer of rotating meshes with a
|
||||
different axis of rotation. Configurations that do not use a hollow-shaft motor are possible, but may require more
|
||||
bearings to keep the stator from vibrating.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Rotating mesh power supply}
|
||||
\subsection{Spinning mesh power supply}
|
||||
|
||||
There are several options to transfer power to the rotor from its stationary frame.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -296,70 +298,25 @@ There are several options to transfer power to the rotor from its stationary fra
|
|||
|
||||
\subsection{Payload cooling}
|
||||
|
||||
In boundary-sensing HSMs, cooling of the processor inside is a serious issue since any air
|
||||
duct or heat pipe would have to penetrate the HSM's sensitive boundary. This problem can be solve by complex and costly
|
||||
siphon-style constructions, but in commercial systems heat conduction is used exclusively. This severely limiting the
|
||||
maximum power dissipation of the payload and thus its processing power. In our rotating HSM concept, the rotating mesh
|
||||
can have longitudindal gaps in the mesh without impeding its function. This allows air to pass through the mesh during
|
||||
rotation, and one could even integrate a fan into the rotor. This greatly increases the maximum possible power
|
||||
dissipation of the payload and unlocks much more powerful processing capabilities.
|
||||
In boundary-sensing HSMs, cooling of the processor inside is a serious issue since any air duct or heat pipe would have
|
||||
to penetrate the HSM's security boundary. This problem can be solve by complex and costly siphon-style constructions,
|
||||
but in commercial systems heat conduction is used exclusively\cite{isaacs2013}. This limits the maximum power
|
||||
dissipation of the payload and thus its processing power. In our spinning HSM concept, the spinning mesh can have
|
||||
longitudindal gaps in the mesh without impeding its function. This allows air to pass through the mesh during rotation,
|
||||
and one could even integrate an actual fan into the rotor. This greatly increases the maximum possible power dissipation
|
||||
of the payload and unlocks much more powerful processing capabilities.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Rotating mesh data communication}
|
||||
\subsection{Spinning mesh data communication}
|
||||
|
||||
As we discussed above, while slip rings are the obvious choice to couple electrical signals through a rotating joint,
|
||||
they are likely to be too expensive and have too short a life span for our application. Since the only information that
|
||||
needs to pass between payload and rotor are the occassional status report and a high-frequency heartbeat signal that
|
||||
acts as the alarm trigger, a simple optocoupler close to the axis of rotation is a good solution.
|
||||
As for power, slip rings are the obvious choice to couple data signals through the rotating joint. Like for power, for
|
||||
data, too they are too expensive for our application.
|
||||
|
||||
In our design with a stationary payload where only the security mesh and sensors are spinning, only occassional status
|
||||
reports and a high-frequency alarm trigger heartbeat signal have to pass from rotor to stator. For this, a simple
|
||||
optocoupler close to the axis of rotation is a good solution.
|
||||
|
||||
% FIXME note prototype implementation here
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Design space exploration}
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Other modes of movement}
|
||||
|
||||
Though we decided to use rotation as an easy-to-implement yet secure option, other modes of movement bear promise as
|
||||
well. Particularly for less high-security applications without strict space constraints, a variant based on a pendulum
|
||||
motion may be worth investigating as it would simplify the mechanical construction. Power and data transfer to the
|
||||
moving part could simply be done with very flexible cables.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Multiple axes of rotation}
|
||||
|
||||
One option to alleviate the weak spot a rotating mesh has at its axis of rotation, a system with two or more axes of
|
||||
rotation could be used. A single mesh would still suffice in this case, but when evaluating accelerometer readings, the
|
||||
braking detection algorithm would have to superimpose both.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Means of power transmission}
|
||||
|
||||
Power transmission from payload to rotor is another point worth investigating. It may be possible to use some statically
|
||||
mounted permanent magnets with a coil integrated into the rotor's PCB as a low-power generator. While likely
|
||||
inefficient, this setup would be low-cost and would still suffice for the meager power requirements of the rotor's
|
||||
monitoring circuitry.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Other sensing modes}
|
||||
|
||||
Since the security requirement the primary tamper-detection barrier needs to measure up to are much more lenient in the
|
||||
rotating HSM concept than in traditional HSMs, other coarse sensing modes besides low-tech meshes may be attractive. One
|
||||
possibility that would also eliminate the need of any active circuitry on the rotor would be to print the inside of the
|
||||
rotor with a pattern, then have a linear array of reflective optical sensors located close to the rotor along a
|
||||
longitudinal line. These sensors would observe the printed pattern passing by at high speed, and could compare their
|
||||
measurements against a model of the rotor. Tampering by drilling holes or slots would show up as adding an offset to
|
||||
part or all of the pattern. Likewise, the speed of rotation can be deducted directly from a sequence of measurements.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Longevity}
|
||||
|
||||
A core issue with a mechanical HSM is component longevity. Save for dust and debris clogging up the system's mechanics
|
||||
the primary failure point are the bearings. A good partner for further development or even commercialization might be a
|
||||
manufacturer of industrial ducted fans as they are used e.g.\ in servers for cooling. Small industrial fans usually use
|
||||
BLDC motors and bearings specially optimized for longevity.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Transportation of an active device}
|
||||
|
||||
A rotating mass responds to torque not co-linear with its axis of rotation with a gyroscopic precession force. In
|
||||
practice, this means that moving a device containing a spun-up rotating HSM on its inside might induce significant
|
||||
forces on both the HSM (posing the danger of false alarms) and on the carrier of the device (potentially making handling
|
||||
challenging). This effect would have to be taken into account in a real-world deployment, especially if the finished
|
||||
device is to be shipped by post or courier services after spin-up.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Hardware prototype}
|
||||
|
||||
% FIXME expand & update below w/ hw proto findings
|
||||
|
|
@ -379,7 +336,7 @@ itself, to prevent a damaged mesh from triggering an alarm and causing the HSM t
|
|||
locations are electronic attacks, i.e. they require electrical contact to parts of the circuit. Traditionally, this
|
||||
contact is made by soldering, or by placing a probe such as a thin needle. Any kind of electrical contact that does not
|
||||
involve an electron or ion beam or a liquid requires mechanical contact. We consider none of these forms feasible to be
|
||||
performed on an object rotating at high speed without a complex setup that rotates along with the object. Thus, we
|
||||
performed on an object spinning at high speed without a complex setup that rotates along with the object. Thus, we
|
||||
consider them to be practically infeasible outside of a well-funded, special-purpose laboratory.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Attacks on the alarm circuitry}
|
||||
|
|
@ -407,7 +364,7 @@ MEMS accelerometer. An electronic attack on the sensor or the monitoring microco
|
|||
directly bridging the mesh traces and would not make sense. Physical attacks on the accelerometer are
|
||||
possible\cite{trippel2017}, but in the authors' estimate are too hard to control to be practically useful.
|
||||
|
||||
A possible attack scenario would be to instantly stop the rotating motion and accelerate the HSM linearly such that the
|
||||
A possible attack scenario would be to instantly stop the spinning motion and accelerate the HSM linearly such that the
|
||||
linear acceleration as measured equals the previous centrifugal acceleration. Since commercial accelerometers are very
|
||||
precise we do not consider this type of attack feasible.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -427,18 +384,47 @@ If the rate of rotation is set to change on a schedule, it is trivially detectab
|
|||
%FIXME
|
||||
FIXME
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Future Work}
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Other modes of movement}
|
||||
We decided to build a spinning HSM because it is the easiest option. Still, other modes of movement are also promising.
|
||||
Particularly an oscillating HSM may be easier to construct at the expense of security. In it, power and data transfer to
|
||||
the moving part could simply be done with cables.
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Multiple axes of rotation}
|
||||
The baseline single-axis spining HSM we propose has a weak spot at its shaft. This weak spot can be alleviated using a
|
||||
gyroscoping mount, allowing the HSM to continuously change its axis of rotation.
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Other sensing modes}
|
||||
Beyond traditional security meshes, other sensing modes might be interesting in our unique setting. One possible option
|
||||
without any moving electronics would be to print the inside of the rotor with a pattern, then have a linear CCD look at
|
||||
the rotor. The CCD would see the printed pattern passing by at high speed, and one could compare its measurement
|
||||
against a model of the rotor to check both speed of rotation and rotor integrity at once.
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Longevity}
|
||||
A core issue with a mechanical HSM is component longevity. Save for dust and debris clogging up the HSM's mechanics,
|
||||
the primary failure point are the bearings. Industrial ducted fans such as servers fans may be a good source for
|
||||
inspiration.
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Transportation of an active device}
|
||||
A rotating mass responds to torque that is not co-linear with its axis of rotation with a gyroscopic precession force.
|
||||
In practice, this means that moving a device containing a spun-up rotating HSM on its inside might induce significant
|
||||
forces on both the HSM (and cause false alarms) and on the carrier of the device (making handling challenging). A
|
||||
real-world deployment would have to take this into account, especially if the finished device is to be shipped by post
|
||||
or courier services after spin-up.
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Conclusion}
|
||||
In this paper, we have presented inertial hardware security modules, a novel concept for the construction of highly
|
||||
secure hardware security modules from inexpensive, commonly available parts. We have elaborated the engineering
|
||||
considerations underlying a practical implementation of this concept. We have analyzed the concept for its security
|
||||
properties and highlighted its ability to significantly strengthen otherwise weak tamper detection barriers. We have
|
||||
laid out some ideas for future research on the concept, and we will continue our own research on the topic.
|
||||
laid out some ideas for future research on the concept.
|
||||
|
||||
\printbibliography[heading=bibintoc]
|
||||
\appendix
|
||||
\subsection{Rotating mesh energy calculations}
|
||||
\subsection{Spinning mesh energy calculations}
|
||||
\label{sec_energy_calculations}
|
||||
Assume that the rotating mesh sensor should send its tamper status to the static monitoring circuit at least once every
|
||||
Assume that the spinning mesh sensor should send its tamper status to the static monitoring circuit at least once every
|
||||
$T_\text{tx} = \SI{10}{\milli\second}$. At $\SI{100}{\kilo\baud}$ a transmission of a single byte in standard UART
|
||||
framing would take $\SI{100}{\micro\second}$ and yield an $\SI{1}{\percent}$ duty cycle. If we assume an optical or RF
|
||||
transmitter that requires $\SI{10}{\milli\ampere}$ of active current, this yields an average operating current of
|
||||
|
|
@ -484,7 +470,8 @@ already have to circumvent the rotor's security mesh.
|
|||
Assuming the HSM is stationary, a sensor on the rotating part will experience two significant accelerations:
|
||||
\begin{enumerate}
|
||||
\item Gravity $g = 9.8\frac{m}{s^2}$
|
||||
\item Centrifugal force $a_C=\omega^2 r$, in the order of $\SI{1000}{\meter\per\second^2}$ or $100 g$
|
||||
\item Centrifugal force $a_C=\omega^2 r$, in the order of $\SI{1000}{\meter\per\second^2}$ or $100 g$ at
|
||||
$r=\SI{100}{\milli\meter}$ and $\SI{1000}{rpm}$
|
||||
\end{enumerate}
|
||||
|
||||
Due to the vast differences in both radius and angular velocity, we can neglegt any influence of the earth's rotation on
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue