499 lines
33 KiB
TeX
499 lines
33 KiB
TeX
\documentclass[10pt,journal,a4paper]{IEEEtran}
|
|
\usepackage[english]{babel}
|
|
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
|
|
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
|
|
\usepackage[
|
|
backend=biber,
|
|
style=numeric,
|
|
natbib=true,
|
|
url=false,
|
|
doi=true,
|
|
eprint=false
|
|
]{biblatex}
|
|
\addbibresource{rotohsm.bib}
|
|
\usepackage{amssymb,amsmath}
|
|
\usepackage{listings}
|
|
\usepackage{eurosym}
|
|
\usepackage{wasysym}
|
|
\usepackage{amsthm}
|
|
\usepackage{tabularx}
|
|
\usepackage{multirow}
|
|
\usepackage{multicol}
|
|
\usepackage{tikz}
|
|
\usepackage{mathtools}
|
|
\DeclarePairedDelimiter{\ceil}{\lceil}{\rceil}
|
|
\DeclarePairedDelimiter{\paren}{(}{)}
|
|
|
|
\usetikzlibrary{arrows}
|
|
\usetikzlibrary{chains}
|
|
\usetikzlibrary{backgrounds}
|
|
\usetikzlibrary{calc}
|
|
\usetikzlibrary{decorations.markings}
|
|
\usetikzlibrary{decorations.pathreplacing}
|
|
\usetikzlibrary{fit}
|
|
\usetikzlibrary{patterns}
|
|
\usetikzlibrary{positioning}
|
|
\usetikzlibrary{shapes}
|
|
|
|
\usepackage[binary-units]{siunitx}
|
|
\DeclareSIUnit{\baud}{Bd}
|
|
\DeclareSIUnit{\year}{a}
|
|
\usepackage{hyperref}
|
|
\usepackage{tabularx}
|
|
\usepackage{commath}
|
|
\usepackage{graphicx,color}
|
|
\usepackage{ccicons}
|
|
\usepackage{subcaption}
|
|
\usepackage{float}
|
|
\usepackage{footmisc}
|
|
\usepackage{array}
|
|
\usepackage[underline=false]{pgf-umlsd}
|
|
\usetikzlibrary{calc}
|
|
%\usepackage[pdftex]{graphicx,color}
|
|
\usepackage{epstopdf}
|
|
\usepackage{pdfpages}
|
|
\usepackage{minted} % pygmentized source code
|
|
|
|
\renewcommand{\floatpagefraction}{.8}
|
|
\newcommand{\degree}{\ensuremath{^\circ}}
|
|
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{>{\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
|
|
|
|
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
|
|
\fancyhf{}
|
|
\fancyfoot[C]{\thepage}
|
|
\newcommand{\includenotebook}[2]{
|
|
\fancyhead[C]{Included Jupyter notebook: #1}
|
|
\includepdf[pages=1,
|
|
pagecommand={\thispagestyle{fancy}\section{#1}\label{#2_notebook}}
|
|
]{resources/#2.pdf}
|
|
\includepdf[pages=2-,
|
|
pagecommand={\thispagestyle{fancy}}
|
|
]{resources/#2.pdf}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
\begin{document}
|
|
|
|
\title{A High-Security Physical Security Primitive Based On Mechanical Movement}
|
|
\author{Jan Götte}
|
|
\date{2020-09-15}
|
|
\maketitle
|
|
|
|
\section*{Abstract}
|
|
|
|
In this paper, we introduce a novel, highly effective countermeasure against physical attacks: Inertial hardware
|
|
security modules. Whereas conventional technology can be categorized into systems monitoring a thin boundary (such as
|
|
security meshes) and systems monitoring the interior volume (such as the ``enclosure PUF'' of Tobisch et
|
|
al.\cite{tobisch2020}). All of these systems have in common that they try to detect attacks by crafting sensors
|
|
responding to increasingly minute manipulations of the monitored medium. Our approach is novel in that we reduce the
|
|
sensitivity requirement of security meshes and other sensors and increase the complexity of any manipulations by fastly
|
|
rotating the security mesh or sensor--presenting a moving target to an attacker. Attempts to tamper with the rotation
|
|
itself are easily monitored with commercial MEMS accelerometers and gyroscopes.
|
|
|
|
Our approach leads to a HSM that can easily be built from off-the-shelf parts by any university electronics lab, yet
|
|
offers a level of security that is comparable to even the best commercial offerings.
|
|
|
|
\section{Introduction}
|
|
|
|
Long before passwords, access control lists, role-based authentication and other modern concepts of information security
|
|
were developed, information was secured by physically locking away the computers that held it. Nowadays, physical
|
|
security concerns have are mostly receded into specialty applications such as credit card processing and medical data
|
|
processing. In most other commercial data processing applications, the physical security provided by the average
|
|
datacenter is considered to be appropriate.
|
|
|
|
In modern systems, it is generally considered infeasible to physically secure a whole computer beyond putting a lock on
|
|
it. High-level physical security is usually limited to a small physical sizes. Secure enclaves and smartcards provide
|
|
security on the scale of a single-chip. Commercial HSMs provide the functions of a cryptographic co-processor from a
|
|
physically secure small circuit board\cite{anderson2020,immler2019}.
|
|
|
|
\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}. Any such security IC provides physical security but does not provide any cryptographic
|
|
security. The real-world security of such chips solely 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 assumptions 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}.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Hardware Security Modules}
|
|
|
|
Hardware security modules (HSMs) approach the problem in a different angle: In conformity with Kerckhoff's principle,
|
|
instead of hiding the system's structure, the HSM has monitors that wipes all secrets when the slightest manipulation is
|
|
detected. Commercial HSMs commonly employ what we call \emph{boundary monitoring}. They have a physical security barrier
|
|
that they continuously monitor for holes. Usually, this is a thin foil patterned with two electrical traces that are
|
|
folded many times to cover the entire area of the foil--and that are monitored for shorts or breaks. The security
|
|
problem thus gets transformed into a manufacturing challenge: How fine can these traces be made so that they break from
|
|
even the most gentle attempts at e.g.\ mechanical or chemical manipulation.
|
|
|
|
In our classification the other type of HSMs are \emph{volumetric} HSMs. Here, the entire interior volume is monitored
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
A problem with volumetric designs is their security analysis, which is hard to do without significant guesswork. To
|
|
ensure full volumetric coverage one has to numerically solve the electromagnetic field equations inside the HSM
|
|
according to a model of its sensing transceivers.
|
|
|
|
\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 from further explorations of the
|
|
two concepts described above. 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 can be considered equivalent to or
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
The candidate we wish to introduce in this paper uses a novel approach to sidestep the issues of conventional HSM
|
|
concepts and provides radically better security against physical attacks both in theory and in practice.
|
|
|
|
Our core observation is that any cheap but coarse HSM technology can be made radically more difficult to attack by
|
|
introducing fast mechanical motion. 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. If an attacker can
|
|
tap the mesh's electrical traces in a way the HSM cannot detect, they have circumvented the device's protections. Such
|
|
attacks might involve fine drill bits, needles, wires, glue, solder and lasers.
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
would have to either slow down the rotation, which would quickly be sensed by 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 and at some point
|
|
the technical means to rotate a CNC attack robot will become inconvenient as well. Electromagnetic or optical attacks
|
|
that do not require mechanical contact are more limited in the first place and can be shielded effectively.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Contributions}
|
|
This work contains the following contributions:
|
|
\begin{enumerate}
|
|
\item We present the \emph{Inertial HSM} concept. Inertial HSMs enable cost-effective small-scale production of
|
|
highly secure HSMs.
|
|
\item We discuss possible boundary sensing modes for inertial HSMs.
|
|
\item We explore the design space our inertial HSM concept.
|
|
\item We present a prototype of an inertial HSM.
|
|
% FIXME \item Measurement of the prototype HSM's susceptibility to various types of attack.
|
|
\end{enumerate}
|
|
|
|
\section{Related work}
|
|
% summaries of research papers on HSMs. I have not found any actual prior art on anything involving mechanical motion
|
|
% beyond ultrasound.
|
|
In \cite{anderson2020}, Anderson gives a comprehensive overview on physical security. An example they cite is the IBM
|
|
4758 HSM whose details are laid out in depth in \cite{smith1998}. This HSM is an example of an industry-standard
|
|
construction. Though it is now a bit dated, the construction techniques of the physical security mechanisms have not
|
|
evolved much in the last two decades. Apart from some auxiliary temperature and radiation sensors to guard against
|
|
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}.
|
|
|
|
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).
|
|
Their concept promises a very high degree of protection. The main disadvantages of their concept are a limitation in
|
|
both covered area and component height, as well as the high cost of the advanced analog circuitry required for
|
|
monitoring. A core component of their design is that they propose its use as a PUF to allow for protection even when
|
|
powered off, similar to a smart card--but the design is not limited to this use.
|
|
|
|
In \cite{tobisch2020}, Tobisch et al.\ describe a construction technique for a hardware security module that is based
|
|
around commodity Wifi hardware inside a conductive enclosure. In their design, an RF transmitter transmits a reference
|
|
signal into the RF cavity formed by the conductive enclosure. One or more receivers listen for the signal's reflections
|
|
and use them to characterize the RF cavity w.r.t.\ phase and frequency response. Their fundamental assumption is that
|
|
the RF behavior of the cavity is inscrutable from the outside, and that even a small disturbance anywhere within the
|
|
volume of the cavity will cause a significant change in its RF response. The core idea in \cite{tobisch2020} is to use
|
|
commodity Wifi hardware to reduce the cost of the HSM's sensing circuitry. The resulting system is likely both much
|
|
cheaper and capable of protecting a much larger security envelope than e.g. the design from \cite{immler2019}, at the
|
|
cost of worse and less predictable security guarantees.
|
|
|
|
While \cite{tobisch2020} approach the sensing frontend cost as their only optimization target, the prior work of Kreft
|
|
and Adi \cite{kreft2012} considers sensing quality. Their target is an HSM that envelopes a volume barely larger than a
|
|
single chip. They theorize how an array of distributed RF transceivers can measure the physical properties of a potting
|
|
compound that has been loaded with RF-reflective grains. In their concept, the RF response characterized by these
|
|
transceivers is shaped by the precise three-dimensional distribution of RF-reflective grains within the potting
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
\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.
|
|
|
|
\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 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
|
|
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.
|
|
\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.
|
|
\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 -
|
|
Accelerometer. 5 - Shaft penetrating security mesh.}
|
|
\label{fig_schema_one_axis}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
In a rotating reference frame, at any point the centrifugal force is proportional to the square of the angular frequency
|
|
and linearly proportional to the 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 to the axis of
|
|
rotation. During constant rotation, the linear acceleration tangential to the rotation will be zero. The centrifugal
|
|
force is orthogonal to this, and will be constant as long as the angular velocity remains constant (assuming a fixed
|
|
axis of rotation). At high angular velocities, considerable forces can be created this way. 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.
|
|
|
|
\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.
|
|
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
|
|
differnt axis of rotation.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Rotating mesh power supply}
|
|
|
|
There are several options to transfer power to the rotor from its stationary frame.
|
|
|
|
\begin{enumerate}
|
|
\item Slip ring contacts are a poor candidate as they are limited in their maximum speed and lifetime, and as
|
|
precision mechanical components are expensive.
|
|
\item Inductive power transfer as used in inductive charging systems can be used without modification.
|
|
\item A second brushless motor on the axis of rotation can be used as a generator, with its axis connected to the
|
|
fixed frame and its stator mounted and connected to the rotor.
|
|
\item A bright LED along with some small solar cells may be a practical approach for small amounts of
|
|
energy\footnote{See Appendix \ref{sec_energy_calculations} for a back-of-the-envelope calculation}.
|
|
\item For a very low-power security mesh, a battery specified to last for the lifetime of the device may be
|
|
practical\footnote{See Appendix \ref{sec_energy_calculations}}.
|
|
\end{enumerate}
|
|
|
|
\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.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Rotating 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.
|
|
|
|
\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}
|
|
We are currently working on a hardware prototype that demonstrates the fundamental components of our concept. The
|
|
prototype will be based on a security mesh made with a commercial printed circuit board manufacturing process. In our
|
|
prototype we intend to use two commercially available hollow-shaft brushless DC (BLDC) motors originally intended for
|
|
quadcopter-mounted camera gimbals, one for driving and one for power transfer. The prototype will have a usable internal
|
|
volume sufficient to house a small form factor PC ($\approx\SI{2}{\liter}$).
|
|
|
|
\section{Attacks}
|
|
\subsection{Attacks on the mesh}
|
|
There are two locations where one can attack a tamper-detection mesh. Either, the mesh itself can be tampered with. This
|
|
includes bridging its traces to allow for a hole to be cut. The other option is to tamper with the monitoring circuit
|
|
itself, to prevent a damaged mesh from triggering an alarm and causing the HSM to erase its contents. Attacks in both
|
|
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
|
|
consider them to be practically infeasible outside of a well-funded, special-purpose laboratory.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Attacks on the alarm circuitry}
|
|
An electronic attack could also target the alarm circuitry inside the stationary payload, or the communication link
|
|
between rotor and payload. The link can easily be proofed by using a cryptographically secured protocol along with a
|
|
high-frequency heartbeat message. The alarm circuitry has to be designed such that it is entirely contained within the
|
|
HSM's security envelope and has to tolerate environmental attacks such as through temperature, ionizing radiation,
|
|
lasers, supply voltage variations, ultrasound or other vibration and gases or liquids. The easiest way to proof an alarm
|
|
system against these is to employ adequate filtering of the incoming power supply and use sensors for the others,
|
|
triggering an alarm in case extraordinary environmental variations are detected.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Fast and violent attacks}
|
|
A variation of the above attacks on the alarm circuitry would be an attack that attempts to simply destroy this
|
|
circuitry before the alarm can be acted upon. This type of attack might involve things such as a large hammer, or a gun.
|
|
Mitigations for this type of attack include putting the entire payload and monitoring circuit in a mechanically robust
|
|
enclosure and potting them, and linking all components of the alarm chain in such a way cryptographically and on a
|
|
protocol level that the destruction of any of its parts leads to the secrets being destroyed before an attack would be
|
|
able to probe them. An implication of this is that the electrical realization of the alarm signal up to its eventual
|
|
destination cannot be a simple active-high or active-low line, since neither can be considered fail-safe in this
|
|
scenario.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Attacks on the rotation sensor}
|
|
An attacker trying to stop the rotor to tamper with the mesh may first try to deceive the rotation monitoring circuit
|
|
such that it misses the rotor being stopped. In a realization based on a commercial MEMS accelerometer, this attack
|
|
could take two forms: An electronic attack on the MEMS sensor, the monitoring microcontroller or the link in between,
|
|
and a physical attack on the MEMS sensor itself. The former would be no easier than an electronic attack that attempts
|
|
to bridge the mesh traces at the monitoring microcontroller. Thus, we consider it not to be practically feasible outside
|
|
of a laboratory built especially for this purpose.
|
|
|
|
There are several options for the latter attack. A recent paper %FIXME
|
|
has shown that accelerometers respond to certain ultrasonic stimuli with bogus measurements. Since this primitive does
|
|
not, however, yield accurate control over these bogus measurements, we deem it to be impractical for our scenario.
|
|
Another possible attack scenario would be to somehow stop the rotating motion while subjecting the HSM to an external
|
|
linear motion. Given the low error margins in the measurements of commercial accelerometers we consider this attack
|
|
infeasible. A last type of attack might be to try to physically tamper with the accelerometer's sensing mechanism. MEMS
|
|
accelerometers usually use a simple cantilever design, where a proof mass moves a cantilever whose precise position can
|
|
be measured electronically. A possible way to attack such a device might be to first decapsulate it using laser ablation
|
|
synchronized with the device's rotation. Then, a fast-setting glue such as a cyanoacrylate could be deposited on the
|
|
moving MEMS parts in either liquid or gaseous form, locking them in place after hardening. This attack would require
|
|
direct access to the accelerometer from the outside and can be prevented by mounting the accelerometer inside the
|
|
security envelope. This attack only works if the rate of rotation is constant and is trivially detectable if the rate of
|
|
rotation is set to change on a schedule.
|
|
|
|
\section{Prototype implementation}
|
|
|
|
%FIXME
|
|
FIXME
|
|
|
|
\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.
|
|
|
|
\printbibliography[heading=bibintoc]
|
|
\appendix
|
|
\subsection{Rotating 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
|
|
$T_\text{tx} = \SI{10}{\milli\second}$. 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
|
|
$\SI{100}{\micro\ampere}$. Reserving another $\SI{100}{\micro\ampere}$ for the monitoring circuit itself we arrive at an
|
|
energy consumption of $\SI{1.7}{\ampere\hour\per\year}$.
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Battery power}
|
|
\label{sec_energy_calculations_battery}
|
|
The annual energy consumption we calculated above is about equivalent to the capacity of a single CR123A
|
|
lithium primary cell. Using several such cells or optimizing power consumption would thus easily yield several years of
|
|
battery life.
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{LED and solar cell}
|
|
\label{sec_energy_calculations_led}
|
|
Let us assume an LED with a light output of $\SI{1}{W}$ illuminating a small solar cell. Let us pessimistically assume a
|
|
$\SI{5}{\percent}$ conversion efficiency in the solar cell. Let us assume that when the rotor is at its optimal
|
|
rotational angle, $\SI{20}{\percent}$ of the LED's light output couple into the solar cell. Let us assume that we loose
|
|
another $\SI{90}{\percent}$ of light output on average during one rotation when the rotor is in motion. This results in
|
|
an energy output from the solar cell of $\SI{1}{\milli\watt}$. Assuming a $\SI{3.3}{\volt}$ supply this yields
|
|
$\SI{300}{\micro\ampere}$ for our monitoring circuit. This is enough even with some conversion losses in the step-up
|
|
converter boosing the solar cell's $\SI{0.6}{\volt}$ working voltage to the monitoring circuit's supply voltage.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Minimum angular velocity}
|
|
|
|
Let us determine a good target value for our rotating HSM's angular velocity. For simplicity, let us consider two types
|
|
of attacker.
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Rotating human attacker}
|
|
|
|
An attacker might try to rotate along with the HSM to attack the security mesh without triggering the accelerometer. Let
|
|
us pessimistically assume that the attacker has the axis of rotation running through their center of mass. The
|
|
attacker's body is probably at least $\SI{200}{\milli\meter}$ wide along its shortest back-to-chest axis, resulting in a
|
|
minimum radius from axis of rotation to surface of about $\SI{100}{\milli\meter}$. We choose
|
|
$\SI{250}{\meter\per\second^2}$ as an arbitrary acceleration well past the range tolerable by humans according to
|
|
Wikipedia. Centrifugal acceleration is $a=\omega^2 r$. In our example this results in a minimum angular velocity of
|
|
$\omega_\text{min} = \sqrt{\frac{a}{r}} = \sqrt{\frac{\SI{250}{\meter\per\second^2}}{\SI{100}{\milli\meter}}} \approx
|
|
16\frac{\pi}{\si{\second}} \approx 500 \text{rpm}$.
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Rotating robot attacker}
|
|
|
|
An attacker might try to use a robot to attack the rotating mesh.
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Fooling the accelerometer}
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Patents and licensing}
|
|
During devlopment, we performed several hours of research on prior art for the inertial HSM concept. Yet, we could not
|
|
find any mentions of similar concepts either in academic literature or in patents. Thus, we deem ourselves to be the
|
|
inventors of this idea and we are fairly sure it is not covered by any patents or other restrictions at this point in
|
|
time.
|
|
|
|
Since the concept is primarily attractive for small-scale production and since cheaper mass-production alternatives are
|
|
already commercially available, we have decided against applying for a patent and we wish to make it available to the
|
|
general public without any restrictions on its use. This paper itself is licensed CC-BY-SA (see below). As for the
|
|
inertial HSM concept, we invite you to use it as you wish and to base your own work on our publications without any fees
|
|
or commercial restrictions. Where possible, we ask you to cite this paper and attribute the inertial HSM concept to its
|
|
authors.
|
|
|
|
\center{
|
|
\center{\ccbysa}
|
|
|
|
\center{This work is licensed under a Creative-Commons ``Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International'' license. The
|
|
full text of the license can be found at:}
|
|
|
|
\center{\url{https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/}}
|
|
|
|
\center{For alternative licensing options, source files, questions or comments please contact the authors.}
|
|
|
|
\center{This is version \texttt{\input{version.tex}\unskip} generated on \today. The git repository can be found at:}
|
|
|
|
\center{\url{https://git.jaseg.de/rotohsm.git}}
|
|
}
|
|
\end{document}
|