Integrate EPA paper
This commit is contained in:
parent
a955f5fb7d
commit
28c42e928d
2 changed files with 269 additions and 39 deletions
|
|
@ -4,18 +4,51 @@
|
|||
entering the patient from the wrong end.
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
\chaptertitle{Hardware Security Modules in the Wild}
|
||||
\chaptertitle{Active Tamper Sensing in the Wild}
|
||||
|
||||
In this chapter we will take a look at how Hardware Security Modules are built and what they are used for. We will
|
||||
analyze the gaps left by the current state of the industry, and evaluate how Inertial HSMs could close these gaps to
|
||||
make secure hardware accessible to everyone. We will start with a brief history of secure hardware with a particular
|
||||
focus on tamper-sensing meshes since the tamper-sensing mesh is the primary line of defense that delineates a hardware
|
||||
security module from other, weaker secure hardware primitives such as Smart Cards or Trusted Platform Modules (TPMs).
|
||||
In this chapter we will take a look at how the tamper-sensing meshes that provide the core tamper response in Hardware
|
||||
Security Modules are built and what they are used for. We will analyze the gaps left by the current state of the
|
||||
industry, and evaluate how Inertial HSMs could close these gaps to make secure hardware accessible to everyone. We will
|
||||
start with a brief history of secure hardware with a particular focus on tamper-sensing meshes since the tamper-sensing
|
||||
mesh is the primary line of defense that delineates a hardware security module from other, weaker secure hardware
|
||||
primitives such as Smart Cards or Trusted Platform Modules (TPMs).
|
||||
|
||||
% FIXME include stuff from EPA paper
|
||||
|
||||
\section{The History of Tamper Sensing Meshes}
|
||||
|
||||
Tamper-sensing meshes can be implemented in many different ways. Their design offers various degrees of freedom from the
|
||||
precise conductor layout, through the manufacturing technology of the mesh and how it is wrapped around the payload
|
||||
during manufacturing up to its monitoring circuitry. As a result, manufacturers across application domains from
|
||||
datacenter appliance HSMs through card payment terminals have historically used patents on parts of their tamper-sensing
|
||||
mesh implementations as a means to prevent copying of their designs~\cite{
|
||||
razaghiCircuitBoardHold2019,
|
||||
heitmannTamperBarrierElectronic2005,
|
||||
clarkTamperDetectionSystem2005,
|
||||
heitmannMethodMakingTamper2009,
|
||||
perreaultSystemMethodInstalling2005,
|
||||
}. The basic principle of modern tamper-sensing meshes of preventing intrusion by force through embedding a looped
|
||||
conductor to cover a surface traces back as far as at least 1870~\cite{
|
||||
ImprovementProtectingSafes1870,
|
||||
ImprovementElectromagneticEnvelopes1870}, when it was applied to the protection of bank vaults from robbers
|
||||
attempting to dig, drill and saw through the vault's floor and walls. Even multi-layer, orthogonal tamper-sensing meshes
|
||||
are documented as far back as 1902~\cite{suttonElectricallyprotectedStructure1902}. Using printed circuits instead of
|
||||
wires for this purpose occurs in literature as soon as printed circuit technology finds widespread commercial adoption
|
||||
in the 1960ies~\cite{hamPrintedcircuitTypeSecurity1971}. The history of more HSM-like devices begins in the 1990ies with
|
||||
the widespread adoption of cryptography in commercial applications~\cite{
|
||||
kleijneSecurityDeviceSecure1986,
|
||||
joyceMethodDetectPenetration1996,
|
||||
droegeSicherheitsmodulMitEinteiliger1997,
|
||||
cesanaTamperResistantCard2001,
|
||||
cesanaSecurityClothDesign2006,
|
||||
elbertSecureCircuitAssembly2006,
|
||||
cookTamperDetectionCircuit2020,
|
||||
brodskyCircuitLayoutsTamperrespondent2018,
|
||||
cobianuLargeAreaDistributed2008,
|
||||
phamAntitamperMesh2011,
|
||||
} when instead of protecting an entire device it became feasible to create a protected cryptographic coprocessor.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Use by the US Military}
|
||||
|
||||
Electronic tamper sensing meshes are documented in literature beginning around World War \RN{2}. The earliest mention of
|
||||
|
|
@ -112,37 +145,6 @@ cloning. This device will also be analyzed later in this chapter.
|
|||
|
||||
\section{The Principles of Tamper-Sensing Mesh Construction and Monitoring}
|
||||
|
||||
Tamper-sensing meshes can be implemented in many different ways. Their design offers various degrees of freedom from the
|
||||
precise conductor layout, through the manufacturing technology of the mesh and how it is wrapped around the payload
|
||||
during manufacturing up to its monitoring circuitry. As a result, manufacturers across application domains from
|
||||
datacenter appliance HSMs through card payment terminals have historically used patents on parts of their tamper-sensing
|
||||
mesh implementations as a means to prevent copying of their designs~\cite{
|
||||
razaghiCircuitBoardHold2019,
|
||||
heitmannTamperBarrierElectronic2005,
|
||||
clarkTamperDetectionSystem2005,
|
||||
heitmannMethodMakingTamper2009,
|
||||
perreaultSystemMethodInstalling2005,
|
||||
}. The basic principle of modern tamper-sensing meshes of preventing intrusion by force through embedding a looped
|
||||
conductor to cover a surface traces back as far as at least 1870~\cite{
|
||||
ImprovementProtectingSafes1870,
|
||||
ImprovementElectromagneticEnvelopes1870}, when it was applied to the protection of bank vaults from robbers
|
||||
attempting to dig, drill and saw through the vault's floor and walls. Even multi-layer, orthogonal tamper-sensing meshes
|
||||
are documented as far back as 1902~\cite{suttonElectricallyprotectedStructure1902}. Using printed circuits instead of
|
||||
wires for this purpose occurs in literature as soon as printed circuit technology finds widespread commercial adoption
|
||||
in the 1960ies~\cite{hamPrintedcircuitTypeSecurity1971}. The history of more HSM-like devices begins in the 1990ies with
|
||||
the widespread adoption of cryptography in commercial applications~\cite{
|
||||
kleijneSecurityDeviceSecure1986,
|
||||
joyceMethodDetectPenetration1996,
|
||||
droegeSicherheitsmodulMitEinteiliger1997,
|
||||
cesanaTamperResistantCard2001,
|
||||
cesanaSecurityClothDesign2006,
|
||||
elbertSecureCircuitAssembly2006,
|
||||
cookTamperDetectionCircuit2020,
|
||||
brodskyCircuitLayoutsTamperrespondent2018,
|
||||
cobianuLargeAreaDistributed2008,
|
||||
phamAntitamperMesh2011,
|
||||
} when instead of protecting an entire device it became feasible to create a protected cryptographic coprocessor.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Tamper-sensing Mesh Manufacturing}
|
||||
|
||||
The manufacturing technology of a tamper sensing mesh is a critical factor in its security. While in many applications,
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -5,8 +5,6 @@
|
|||
necessity is now obvious to everyone.
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
%FIXME work in rogawayMoralCharacterCryptographic?
|
||||
|
||||
\chaptertitle{Introduction}
|
||||
|
||||
All Cops Are Bastards, or ACAB is a slogan popular in far left and anarchist circles since the mid-twentieth century
|
||||
|
|
@ -295,3 +293,233 @@ to use in online searches, and when using Large Language Models (LLMs), it frequ
|
|||
% that's especially relevant in the age of ai
|
||||
|
||||
%\section{The Trust Perspective}
|
||||
|
||||
\section{A Motivating Counter-Example}
|
||||
|
||||
% EPA paper from ESORICS HS3 workshop
|
||||
|
||||
Looking at the landscape of computer security solutions, we are presented with a wide variety of vendors and products
|
||||
that may give the impression that hardware security is a solved problem. Vendors sell various claims rangning from
|
||||
\emph{You don't need hardware security, just do it in the cloud!} to \emph{Buy our HSM and you will be secure!}. In
|
||||
practice, things are not as easy and even well-intentioned projects still often go awry on the hardware security
|
||||
dimension. Concluding this chapter, we will now have a look at one such project that was done by capable people with the
|
||||
best intentions, yet it resulted in a hardware security design that is dangerously inadequate for the purpose.
|
||||
|
||||
Beginning May 2025, after several delays, Germany has started the nation-scale rollout of its new electronic medical
|
||||
record system. The system aims to create a national database accessible to all healthcare providers that holds the
|
||||
complete electronic medical records of all publically insured people living in Germany. The system aims to replace
|
||||
paper-based workflows that are error-prone and lead to healthcare providers often only having access to a subset of
|
||||
patient's medical records. Data in scope for the system includes medical letters, laboratory results, and medical
|
||||
imaging files.
|
||||
|
||||
Due to Germany's mandatory health insurance laws, the system's user base encompasses the majority of all German
|
||||
residents. People who have replaced their public health insurance with private insurance as of now are not subject to
|
||||
the system. In Germany, by law private health insurance is only available to people from the top 10th percentile of
|
||||
household income. This means that the system disproportionally affects people who have low income, creating an equity
|
||||
issue. While it is possible to opt out from the use of the system, the process of opting out is difficult. Additionally,
|
||||
the government and health insurance providers have publically depicted the system in a one-sidedly positive way, meaning
|
||||
that it is unlikely the majority of people subject to the system have a comprehensive understanding of the system's
|
||||
benefits and risks that would be necessary for an informed decision.
|
||||
|
||||
While there has been loud criticism of the system's security from civil society organizations such as digital rights
|
||||
nonprofit organization Chaos Computer Club (CCC) \cite{kochMoreMoreExperts2025} and several severe security flaws have
|
||||
been demonstrated practically, this criticism has largely been ignored by the political structures in charge. We observe
|
||||
that despite this civil society outrage and the system's large scale, it has received little attention from the academic
|
||||
cryptography and information security community.
|
||||
|
||||
In this section, we aim to point out some perplexing cryptographic engineering decisions in the system. In particular,
|
||||
we point out that the system's core per-user secrets are kept in a rudimentary key escrow system whose security is based
|
||||
on engineering assumptions, not on cryptographic principles. Furthermore, we observe that by specification, the
|
||||
individual user keys of the system are derived from a per-user cleartext salt based on a system-wide long-term secret
|
||||
with only 256 bits of entropy\footnote{
|
||||
In previous versions of the standard \cite{
|
||||
gematikSpezifikationSchluesselgenerierungsdienstEPA2023,
|
||||
gematikUebergreifendeSpezifikationVerwendung2025,
|
||||
}, there were two escrow services, with both keys used in layers to reduce the risk of a compromise of either one.
|
||||
The current standard only requires one escrow service, and drops the entropy requirement of the root keys from 512
|
||||
bits to 256 bits. The apparent reason for the long-term nature of these keys is that they are updated manually.
|
||||
}. Finally, we note that according to specification, the only physical security requirement for the protection of this
|
||||
highly sensitive secret is a ``hard, opaque potting material'', with no tamper detection and response required.
|
||||
|
||||
We base our analysis on the system's publicly available standards in their latest version as of the writing of the paper
|
||||
underlying this section in April 2025, describing version 3.0 of the healthcare record system \cite{
|
||||
gematikSpezifikationAktensystemEPA2025,
|
||||
gematikUbergreifendeSpezifikationVerwendung2024,
|
||||
}. We note that the implementation might well deviate from these standards and be more secure--however, with the
|
||||
system's history of flaws, we believe this is unlikely to be the case. The reference implementation provided by the
|
||||
specification authority \cite{GithubRepositoryERPFD} follows the specified minimum requirements closely. As of now,
|
||||
there is no meaningful way for either the public or for researchers such as us to ascertain the concrete implementation
|
||||
security of the system.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{The Design of ePA}
|
||||
|
||||
ePA (short for \emph{elektronische Patientenakte}, ``electronic patient record''), is embedded into Germany's national
|
||||
public healthcare backend system ``Telematikinfrastruktur'' (TI). TI is a highly complex system, and a detailed
|
||||
description would exceed the limits of this analysis. Briefly put, TI consists of a shared DMZ that parties like
|
||||
insurance providers and healthcare providers connect to through a VPN. At the client location, usually an individual
|
||||
doctor's office or a hospital, this VPN connection is terminated by a specialized VPN appliance named ``Konnektor'' that
|
||||
simultaneously acts as a trusted component inside the client network hosting some software for purposes such as
|
||||
authentication. The Konnektor contains several smart cards that store keys used for authentication. Konnektor devices
|
||||
are offered by several vendors and healthcare providers like doctor's offices are indivudally responsible for purchasing
|
||||
and maintaining a Konnektor.
|
||||
|
||||
% FIXME: Is there a threat/trust model of the system that you could summarise in a few sentences?
|
||||
|
||||
Every person enrolled in the system as well as every healthcare professional providing services under it is issued an ID
|
||||
card that contains a smart card that contains keys used to authenticate towards the central infrastructure. The primary
|
||||
use of these smart cards up to now is that when someone visits a healthcare provider, they will insert their ID card
|
||||
into a terminal so the healthcare provider can automatically fetch their personal information such as name, birth date,
|
||||
address and enrollment status from their insurance provider.
|
||||
|
||||
ePA is implemented inside the TI system. Its centralized services are accessed by healthcare providers through the TI's
|
||||
VPN. Patient records are encrypted and decrypted inside TI's backend systems. Smart cards authenticate parties and
|
||||
hardware devices to each other. Each insurance provider picks one of several implementations of ePA's server-side
|
||||
infrastructure to run for its clients. Currently, there are two approved implementations of this server-side
|
||||
infrastructure.
|
||||
|
||||
With the current version of the specificatoin, the overall architecture of ePA heavily relies on Trusted Execution
|
||||
Environments (TEEs). Data processing on the server side is done in plaintext inside TEEs, with some cryptographic key
|
||||
management delegated to a Hardware Security Module. While attacks on the TEEs are considered in the system, the HSMs are
|
||||
assumed to be perfectly secure, and the system does not include mitigations for a compromised HSM. The primary
|
||||
motivation for plaintext processing seems to be to enable large-scale data analysis for research purposes without
|
||||
requiring consent or cooperation of the people whose records are being processed.
|
||||
|
||||
The primary services offered by the server side are authentication services, key escrow, and a database storing the
|
||||
encrypted records themselves. Records are symmetrically encrypted with keys that are derived from system-wide secrets
|
||||
inside an HSM. The primary motivation behind the use of a key escrow service seems to be to enable the creation of a
|
||||
duplicate patient ID smartcard in case a person looses theirs. While the current version of the standard is unclear on
|
||||
the exact mechanism of key derivation, in previous versions of the standard, the escrow service's root key, a random
|
||||
salt, and the healthcare ID number of the person owning the record was used in SHA256-HKDF. The specification requires
|
||||
that a new root key is generated once a year, but as far as we can tell, record key rollover is not done automatically
|
||||
but is only meant to be done when the \emph{user} requests it, and old root keys must be retained forever to ensure old
|
||||
records can be accessed.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Related Work}
|
||||
|
||||
The state-owned company specifying the system commissioned several security assessments of the system relating to the
|
||||
key escrow service. \textcite{fischlinKryptographischeAnalyseSpezifikation2021} focuses on the cryptographic
|
||||
dimension of the key escrow service used in an older version of the standard, and is now obsolete.
|
||||
\textcite{slanySicherheitsanalyseZurSicherheit2020} approaches the system at a higher level, and focuses on the
|
||||
cryptography of the inner protocol layers spoken between the system's components. Industry research organization
|
||||
Fraunhofer SIT was comissioned for a structured, theoretical assessment of attack paths to the system
|
||||
\cite{fraunhofersitAbschlussberichtSicherheitsanalyseGesamtsystems2024}. We are not currently aware of
|
||||
independent academic security research on the system.
|
||||
|
||||
The design and operation of the system have been independently described in detail by civil society activists, who have
|
||||
demonstrated several successful attacks on the system. \textcite{tschirsichHackerHinOder0100} demonstrated how they
|
||||
could trivially acquire each of the smartcards as well as the Konnektor necessary for accessing the system.
|
||||
\textcite{tschirsichKonnteBisherNoch0100} summarize the history of attacks demonstrated on the system and show multiple
|
||||
practical attacks on various parts of the system's implementation.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Concerning Cryptographic Engineering Choices}
|
||||
|
||||
We wish to highlight some of the design choices in the system that we believe stray from current best practice. This is
|
||||
by no means an exhaustive list, and is only meant to underscore why we believe the system deserves more scrutiny.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsubsection{Use of Key Escrow}
|
||||
|
||||
First, the system's general approach of using a key escrow service instead of securely storing the keys inside the
|
||||
system's already existing smart card infrastructure is concerning, given that this key escrow service poses a
|
||||
centralized security risk. The system's designers made this decision since it was deemed important that access to an
|
||||
encrypted record can be restored quickly after an insurance ID card is lost, without requiring the cooperation of the
|
||||
healthcare providers holding the primary copies of the person's medical records.
|
||||
|
||||
While key escrow services have been a topic of political debate in decades past, in the cryptographic community,
|
||||
consensus generally is that they are a bad idea since they pose a centralized target for attack, and increase attack
|
||||
surface \cite{
|
||||
abelsonRisksKeyRecovery1997,
|
||||
abelsonKeysDoormats2015,
|
||||
andersonSecurityEngineeringGuide2020,
|
||||
}.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsubsection{Cryptographic Design}
|
||||
|
||||
The system's overall cryptographic design is intentionally kept simple. The standard explicitly mentions that symmetric
|
||||
primitives have been preferred over asymmetric primitives in the core key escrow functions due to the risk of an attack
|
||||
on asymmetric primitives in the long term. Notably, other advanced cryptographic techniques such as secret sharing
|
||||
schemes, oblivious pseudo-random functions, or multiparty computation that could help with the security and privacy of
|
||||
the key escrow service by reducing trust placed in any single component of the service are also absent while the system
|
||||
relies extensively on the engineering-based security guarantees of TEEs and HSMs. Given that the ePA system trusts its
|
||||
HSMs as unconditionally secure, it is unclear what purpose the manual yearly root key renewal serves, especially absent
|
||||
an automatic way to roll over the wrapped record keys.
|
||||
|
||||
A consequence of the systems' simple cryptographic design is that the system trusts its components to a large degree.
|
||||
For instance, the system leaks a person's insurance ID number to the key escrow HSM every time record keys are
|
||||
requested. Along with the timing and frequency of these requests, this leaks information on the person's condition to
|
||||
the key escrow service in an identifiable way.
|
||||
|
||||
% TODO I feel that this section is a mix-up of critique on the cryptographic design and the approach to privacy
|
||||
% protection and data minimisation. How are they linked? I'm missing some discussion here.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsubsection{A Realistic Attacker Model}
|
||||
|
||||
We observe that the system as a whole does not appear to be designed to defend against well-resourced adversaries. The
|
||||
series of practical attacks that have been demonstrated on the system confirm this impression. In
|
||||
\textcite{tschirsichKonnteBisherNoch0100} summarize a series of successful attacks. Attacks include social engineering
|
||||
resulting in access to copies of smartcards enabling accessing patient records, using misconfigured Konnektor VPN
|
||||
appliances with their LAN DMZ and authentication interface exposed on the public internet, circumventing video-based
|
||||
authentication processes resulting in duplicate file keys being provided, classis SQL injection on a backend service
|
||||
maintaining an authentication database, accessing all national patient records through brute-force enumeration of weak
|
||||
identifiers, and several more.
|
||||
|
||||
We believe that a system like this must be designed to withstand well-resourced adversaries such as enemy secret
|
||||
services, since the medical data stored in such as information on chronic illness, sexually transmittable disease or
|
||||
severe food allergies has intelligence value. Repeated breaches of national digital infrastructure such as the 2015
|
||||
breach of the US Office of Personnel Management \cite{barrettUSSuspectsHackers2015} or the 2024 compromise of US
|
||||
telecommunications wiretapping systems \cite{mennChineseGovernmentHackers2024} demonstrate that such state-sponsored
|
||||
attacks on national digital infrastructure are a realistic concern. A possible scenario in the ePA system would be an
|
||||
enemy secret service gaining access to one of the HSMs storing the systems' root secrets, extracting the root secret by
|
||||
an advanced physical attack, then being able to decrypt captured encrypted health records at will. Similarly, a
|
||||
nation-state adversary might have access to an exploit allowing the compromise of the system's TEEs, which would enable
|
||||
the extraction of any patient records being processed in plaintext inside these TEEs.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsubsection{Physical Security}
|
||||
|
||||
Physical security has received some consideration in the system's specification. First, smart cards are used extensively
|
||||
for authentication. Second, Hardware Security Modules are used in key locations of the system to process some
|
||||
cryptographic secrets. The core of the system's key escrow service is implemented inside an HSM. However, it is notable
|
||||
that the actual security level required for this HSM is only FIPS 140-2 level
|
||||
3 \cite{usnationalinstituteofstandardsandtechnologySecurityRequirementsCryptographic2002}. Not only has FIPS 140-2
|
||||
been superseded by FIPS 140-3 since
|
||||
2019 \cite{usnationalinstituteofstandardsandtechnologySecurityRequirementsCryptographic2019}, its security level 3
|
||||
mostly provides logical separation of cryptographic functions from other logic and is not very meaningful in the context
|
||||
of physical attacks. The only physical requirement of FIPS 140-2 level 3 is that the HSM has a hard, opaque coating.
|
||||
This coating is specified to be tamper-evident, but notably no active tamper detection or response features are required
|
||||
by this standard. In contrast to the newer FIPS 140-3 standard and the related ISO/IEC 19790 \cite{ISOIEC19790} as well
|
||||
as ISO/IEC 24759 \cite{ISOIEC24759} standards, FIPS 140-2 does not make any particular requirements regarding resistance
|
||||
to side-channel attacks. The lack of tamper response, unspecified resistance to side-channel attacks and the fact that
|
||||
the ePA specification only requires the long-lived key escrow root key inside the HSM to have 256 bits of entropy lead
|
||||
to an unsatisfactory overall constellation.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Conclusion}
|
||||
|
||||
In conclusion, we observe that in Germany's ePA national medical record database, despite the decade-long
|
||||
standardization and implementation process, several cryptographic compromises ended up in the system's final deployment.
|
||||
Even assuming that nation-scale key escrow is a good idea, the implementation of this key escrow system seems to stray
|
||||
from current best practice. The system uses a secret key with only 256 bits of entropy to derive highly sensitive secret
|
||||
keys for potentially tens of millions of people sharing an insurance provider. The cryptographic design of this escrow
|
||||
system is unsophisticated, ignoring the past three decades in cryptographic developments particularly in multiparty
|
||||
computation (MPC) and other secret sharing techniques in favor of an engineering approach. In the engineering dimension,
|
||||
the system's physical security is only held to the basic level 3 of the obsolete FIPS 140-2 standard, which is
|
||||
considerably less secure than an average credit card payment terminal. The system's root keys are only protected by a
|
||||
``hard, opaque potting material'' and no tamper detection and response is required. We estimate that the system poses an
|
||||
attractive and soft target to nation-state adversaries. The system's shortcomings are made more severe by the fact that
|
||||
the system disproportionally affects the lives of people with low income.
|
||||
|
||||
%FIXME work in rogawayMoralCharacterCryptographic?
|
||||
% FIXME "draw an arc" does that work as an idiom here?
|
||||
Drawing a wider arc, we observe that despite ample availability of commercial solutions promising easy hardware
|
||||
security, clearly there is still a lack of solutions that provide the adaptability necessary for some real use cases at
|
||||
low enough cost. By publishing the tamper-sensing technology we developed during the making of this thesis as open
|
||||
source hardware designs, we wish to provide this missing building block to provide high-level hardware security in
|
||||
real-world applications. Our hardware designs can be adapted to a devices ranging from Single-Board Computers (SBCs) to
|
||||
servers, they are compatible with non-computing applications like Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) and their design
|
||||
approaches can even be integrated into existing HSM designs to provide better security at little additional cost.
|
||||
|
||||
% FIXME FIXME FIXME chapter overview
|
||||
|
||||
\printbibliography[heading=bibintoc]
|
||||
|
||||
\end{document}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue