With these
simple examples, we see how much the trust that is imbued to the secure core of
a personal electronic device is dependent on security, which is the capability
of the secure core to not reveal its secrets. An example of a non-destructive
internal attack consists in disturbing the electric circuitry with an
appropriate laser beam. This creates perturbations in the functioning of the
secure core that affect how the flow of information inside the card is directed
toward providing an answer to specific data probes. To the careful eye, this
can provide telltale information that can help decode and find information
hidden in the card. This is not necessarily a sport for amateurs, but experts
know how to interpret virtually any form of information they can get from a
disturbed electronic circuit. If the circuitry inside is not designed with such
attacks in mind, it is not beyond possibility to see the card simply spew out
its most intimate secrets directly. However, with modern trusted cores, the
perturbations are typically much harder to decode and require considerable
expertise. Still, there are those who may want to spend the money for the
machinery and for hiring top experts if the information inside is of high
enough value. It is possible to protect against light-beam attacks with proper
coatings on the circuit chips, but it is much more difficult to defend against
another natural perturbation of electronic circuits, that caused by cosmic
rays. These can disturb the functioning of the trusted core either temporarily
or permanently. Certain defenses are themselves destructive, as the circuitry
can detect the malfunctioning and decide to just shut down. More sophisticated
defenses involve having enough redundancy in the circuitry to detect an anomaly
and attempt to remedy it. When trust depends on a response to cosmic rays, we
certainly reach a significant, if not ultimate boundary.
Let’s consider
an example of a destructive, external attack. It consists in imaging particular
elements of the circuitry inside after peeling the inner layers of electronics,
which is a destructive operation. If the hacker has for example, several secure
cores to experiment with so that damaged ones can be replaced, then it is
possible to use the information on those various secure cores to decrypt
internal information. That’s why trusted cores can be coated with protective
armor making it very difficult to peel them off without breaking at the same
time the circuitry so protected.
So we have
reviewed two kinds of attacks; one that relies on perturbing circuitry, the
other on imaging it. The defenses are of multiple kinds, from the design of the
circuitry to using special coatings with several properties of interest. This
illustrates that trust can come from multiple, reinforcing, sources, and we can
readily understand that the security of electronic components is a complex
field of technology.
We see that
destructive external attacks can be very treacherous, and obviously expensive to
counter. This allows us to illustrate an important aspect of trust derived from
causality through security. Before one engages in defending circuitry against
attacks, one must be well-aware of the value of the information being protected
because the cost of protection can easily exceed the value of that information.
Trust has a price. More trust is more expensive, and one needs to know where in
the trust spectrum one wants to be, depending on the costs and associated value
of the trust granted. Finally, let’s consider destructive internal attacks.
Those consist in dismantling the card but not its contained computer chip. The
secure core is now open, and it is possible to directly probe the circuitry.
One way to protect against such threats is to make it very likely that as the
card is dismantled, it is irreparable damaged, for example by causing the
component to burn or to shatter. However, it is easy to see that one who is
determined enough may be able to assemble (or disassemble) the puzzle anyway,
albeit at considerable effort. Here then, we see yet another principle of
security in action, that involving time. If we can make it hard enough to get
to the secret, it may take so much time that it is no longer relevant if and
when it is revealed. In this case, security is based on the consideration that
the secrets are temporarily safe, which brings a time component to the concept
of trust.
|