DOCSLIB.ORG

Is Hardware More Secure Than Software?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Is Hardware More Secure Than Software? Is Hardware More Secure than Software? Lianying Zhao Carleton University David Lie University of Toronto Abstract—Computer hardware is usually perceived as more secure than software. However, recent trends lead us to reexamine this belief. We draw attention to the “firmwarization” of hardware and argue for revisiting the role of hardware and software in systems security. TRADITIONALLY, computer systems can be quick search on Google Scholar returns at least thought of as composed of two types of compo- 1,750 academic papers with the title containing nents: hardware and software. Hardware refers to both “hardware” and “security” as of the time the physical components that perform a fixed set of writing. While this is a conservative under- of operations. Software on the other hand, defines approximation of the actual number of such pa- logical components, instantiated as data and in- pers (as it only checks the title), and regardless structions, which can specify arbitrary sequences of whether these papers propose a larger role of hardware operations, as well as inputs to those of hardware in security, or seek to examine the operations. A function can be implemented using vulnerability of hardware to security attacks, the a various mixes of hardware and software compo- sheer number informally illustrates that the se- nents (or even entirely in hardware). The mix of curity community has a strong interest in the hardware and software can have implications on relationship between computer hardware and se- certain properties of the function implementation curity. Another recent trend is the implementation (e.g., performance or security). of hardware mechanisms to address well-known Hardware Security. Hardware has been deemed security problems. For instance, a survey [8] lists to be the safeguard for security-sensitive op- 21 hardware-based architectures to ensure control erations for decades. This is reflected in the flow integrity (CFI, the correct flow of execution longstanding use of hardware security modules of a program). This implies that there is an (HSMs, such as the tamper-evident/resistant IBM underlying belief that hardware implementations Cryptocards) for cryptoprocessing, as well as the correlate well with better security properties in more recent interest in securing sensitive tasks computing computing systems. with trusted computing technologies like Intel SGX and ARM TrustZone. The Perceived Security Benefits of In academia, hardware security has also at- Hardware tracted significant attention from researchers. A We begin by examining where this belief in the security benefits of hardware may have The final version of this article will appear in the special originated. Intuitively, one may assume that the issue Hardware-Assisted Security of IEEE Security & Privacy. This is the author’s copy created on June 27th, 2020. DOI: feeling of security may naturally stem from the 10.1109/MSEC.2020.2994827 c 2020 IEEE. possession and physical existence of hardware. IEEE Security & Privacy, to appear (accepted: May 2020) Special Issue: Hardware-Assisted Security 1 Hardware switches provide visible assurance of done if hardware is compromised or defective—a operation integrity, e.g., a state is set and its state hardware switch in a circuit may be maliciously remains unambiguously obvious. Similarly, users changed from off to on, but not reprogrammed can be confident that they possess and are in to be something else substantially different. By control of information and capabilities inherent in contrast, software generally runs on a Turing- detachable devices like USB dongles and drives. complete execution engine (e.g., the CPU), which Hardware components on first examination, ap- can be programmed to do something far from the pear simpler and more restricted in function intended functionality of the original software. than many software components. Components, So if compromised or defective, software may like hard drives store data and little else, while intrinsically give an attacker access to the Turing- keyboards provide a means to input information complete environment where arbitrary functions and commands. Indeed, the physical nature of can be performed. hardware means that defects in hardware are not We define privilege as the ability to observe as easily fixed after they are shipped to customers, and control the operations of another component. driving hardware designers to be more conser- This definition has a subtle difference from the vative and thoughtful in their designs. All these software definition of privilege (i.e. kernel vs properties contribute to an overall feeling of better user) as higher-privilege software generally is security and assurance in hardware over software. capable of a super-set of operations over lower- However, if we set aside assumptions about privilege software. However, the privilege of the conscientiousness of hardware and software hardware over software is different in that hard- designers, as well as possible mental biases to- ware and software are not capable of the same set wards physical versus logical components, and of operations. Yet, where it is comparable is that instead focus on the functional properties that dis- the additional operations that privileged software tinguish hardware and software implementations has usually include the ability to control (i.e. from a security perspective, we can contemplate start, stop and interrupt), as well as observe (read two that appear to stand out: 1) immutability and and write) the execution state of unprivileged 2) privilege. software. In the same way, hardware making up We define immutability as the ability of a the execution engine of software, has the same function’s properties to resist being changed from ability to control and observe the state of any those in their original intended design. Being software it runs. physically implemented in circuits and transistors, Modern computers all share the layered con- hardware has an “intrinsic” immutability, to it— struction starting from the hardware/firmware, the functions implemented in hardware cannot be VM hypervisor, operating system (OS), to ap- simply changed by altering some bits in memory. plications (see Figure1). A hypervisor is secure If an attacker wants to modify the function of against the OS kernel, which in turn is secure hardware, they must physically change it, imply- against applications. Hardware sits at the most ing the need for physical access to the victim. privileged position in this stack, and as such is This is comforting, as physical changes have a naturally secured against vulnerabilities in and at- higher chance of being tamper-evident. tacks coming from the lower-privileged software Such immutability can also be considered a layers. benefit of the fact that hardware does not need to implement a “Turing machine”. Hardware has Hardware, Firmware, and Software an inherent bias towards the “Economy of Mech- So far we have discussed a high-level ab- anism” [10]—because hardware has a physical stract model of computing system implementa- existence, there is a penalty for extra or unused tion where all components are all either entirely functionality, so there is a strong incentive to hardware or software. However, as the reader may avoid it. Therefore, hardware logic often imple- have guessed, the view of computing systems pro- ments just enough functionality to execute pre- moted by this article is not so simple. There actu- scribed tasks without enabling arbitrary opera- ally, exists a third, hybrid, type of implementation tions. This naturally limits the damage that can be for computational functions called “firmware”. 2 IEEE Security & Privacy, to appear (accepted: May 2020) applies. Even in that case, the compromised hard- ware remains immutable, e.g., hardware Trojans APP1 APP2 APP3 ... APPn inserted by the designer or manufacturer usually cannot be removed by firmware/software. Privilege: Also previously defined, privilege Operating System indicates the ability of a higher-privileged com- Hypervisor ponent to observe and control the execution of a lower-privileged component. Because all software Firmware must execute on hardware, hardware inherently Microcode has higher-privilege than firmware or software. However, it is often the case that firmware exists . on the hardware side of the hardware-software Immutable hardware interface, and as such has privileges over software such as the OS kernel or applications. Thus, we order privileges with hardware at the top, “Code” Perceived hardware firmware in the middle, and, finally, software at the bottom. Figure 1. The layered construction of a computing Efficiency: Efficiency defines how much per- device, and what is commonly considered as hard- formance an implementation provides as a func- ware. tion of some resource (electrical power for ex- ample). Hardware implementations are generally The term firmware has existed almost as long as more power efficient than software, and provide computer hardware has, first coined by Ascher better performance for similar power consump- Opler [4] in the 1960s. Firmware shares some tion. While both firmware and software are less properties with software, in that it is implemented efficient than pure hardware blocks, firmware of- as software instructions that execute on a general ten executes closer to the hardware, and may have purpose, Turing-complete hardware processor. access to special hardware functions or facilities To better understand hardware, firmware and that may make it more efficient than software.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Thesis Entitled Design of a Hardware Security PUF Immune To
    A Thesis Entitled Design of a Hardware Security PUF Immune to Machine Learning Attacks By Nitin K. Pundir Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering ________________________________________ Dr. Mohammed Niamat, Committee Chair ________________________________________ Dr. Mansoor Alam, Committee Member ________________________________________ Dr. Hong Wang, Committee Member ________________________________________ Dr. Amanda Bryant-Friedrich, Dean College of Graduate Studies The University of Toledo December 2017 Copyright 2017, Nitin K. Pundir This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright law, no parts of this document may be reproduced without the expressed permission of the author. An Abstract of Design of a Hardware Security PUF Immune to Machine Learning Attacks By Nitin K. Pundir Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering The University of Toledo December 2017 The technology and cyberspace sector is losing billions each year to hardware security threats. The incidents of usage of counterfeiting chips are doubling each year. The Electronic Resellers Association International (ERAI) reported that in the year 2011 more than 1300 counterfeits were reported. The incidents were double of what were reported in 2008. The report from Federal Contracts acknowledges the threats emanating from counterfeit chips and says it threatens the successful operations of US Weapon Systems. Meanwhile, electronic counterfeiting of chips continues to be a very profitable business on the dark web by crooked operatives. Physical Unclonable Functions (PUFs) are emerging as hardware security primitives to deal with security issues such as cloning, hacking, copying, and detection of Trojans.
    [Show full text]
  • Infrastructure and Primitives for Hardware Security in Integrated Circuits
    INFRASTRUCTURE AND PRIMITIVES FOR HARDWARE SECURITY IN INTEGRATED CIRCUITS by ABHISHEK BASAK Submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY May 2016 CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES We hereby approve the dissertation of ABHSIHEK BASAK Candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Committee Chair Swarup Bhunia Committee Member Frank Merat Committee Member Soumyajit Mandal Committee Member Ming-Chun Huang Committee Member Sandip Ray Date of Defense 03/15/2016 We also certify that any written approval has been obtained for any proprietary material contained therein. To my Family and Friends i Contents List of Tables vi List of Figures viii Abbreviations xii Acknowledgements xiv Abstract xvi 1 Introduction 1 1.1 What are Counterfeit ICs? . 3 1.2 Related Work on Countermeasures against Counterfeit ICs . 6 1.3 Major Contributions of Research (Part I) . 8 1.4 System-on-Chip (SoC) Security . 11 1.4.1 Background on SoC Security Policies . 13 1.4.2 Issues with Current SoC Design Trends . 15 1.4.3 Related Work . 17 1.5 Major Contributions of Research (Part II) . 18 1.6 Organization of Thesis . 21 2 Antifuse based Active Protection against Counterfeit ICs 22 2.1 C-Lock Methodology . 23 2.1.1 Business Model . 25 2.1.2 Pin Lock Structure . 26 2.1.3 Lock Insertion in I/O Port Circuitry . 27 2.1.4 Programming the Key . 28 2.1.5 Design Circuitry for Chip Unlocking . 29 2.1.5.1 Lock/Unlock Controller State Transitions .
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Hardware Security
    Electronics 2015, 4, 763-784; doi:10.3390/electronics4040763 OPEN ACCESS electronics ISSN 2079-9292 www.mdpi.com/journal/electronics Review Introduction to Hardware Security Yier Jin Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32765, USA; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-407-823-5321; Fax: +1-407-823-5835 Academic Editor: Dhananjay S. Phatak Received: 3 August 2015 / Accepted: 5 October 2015 / Published: 13 October 2015 Abstract: Hardware security has become a hot topic recently with more and more researchers from related research domains joining this area. However, the understanding of hardware security is often mixed with cybersecurity and cryptography, especially cryptographic hardware. For the same reason, the research scope of hardware security has never been clearly defined. To help researchers who have recently joined in this area better understand the challenges and tasks within the hardware security domain and to help both academia and industry investigate countermeasures and solutions to solve hardware security problems, we will introduce the key concepts of hardware security as well as its relations to related research topics in this survey paper. Emerging hardware security topics will also be clearly depicted through which the future trend will be elaborated, making this survey paper a good reference for the continuing research efforts in this area. Keywords: hardware security; hardware trojan; proof-carrying hardware; trusted hardware platform 1. Introduction Hardware has long been viewed as a trusted party supporting the whole computer system and is often treated as an abstract layer running instructions passed from the software layer.
    [Show full text]
  • Design and Implementation of the Ascend Secure Processor
    204 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON DEPENDABLE AND SECURE COMPUTING, VOL. 16, NO. 2, MARCH/APRIL 2019 Design and Implementation of the Ascend Secure Processor Ling Ren , Christopher W. Fletcher, Albert Kwon, Marten van Dijk, and Srinivas Devadas Abstract—This paper presents post-silicon results for the Ascend secure processor, taped out in a 32 nm SOI process. Ascend prevents information leakage over a processor’s digital I/O pins—in particular, the processor’s requests to external memory—and certifies the program’s execution by verifying the integrity of the external memory. In secure processor design, encrypting main memory is not sufficient for security because where and when memory is accessed reveals secret information. To this end, Ascend is equipped with a hardware Oblivious RAM (ORAM) controller, which obfuscates the address bus by reshuffling memory as it is accessed. To our knowledge, Ascend is the first prototyping of ORAM in custom silicon. Ascend has also been carefully engineered to ensure its timing behaviors are independent of user private data. In 32 nm silicon, all security components combined (the ORAM controller, which includes 12 AES rounds and one SHA-3 hash unit) impose a moderate area overhead of 0.51 mm2. Post tape-out, the security components of the Ascend chip have been successfully tested at 857 MHz and 1.1 V,at which point they consume 299 mW of power. Index Terms—Computation outsourcing, secure processors, oblivious RAM, integrity verification, ASIC design Ç 1INTRODUCTION S embedded and mobile devices become ubiquitous, protects the user’s private data while it is being computed Ausers have become more computationally limited and upon.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Emerging Technologies for Hardware Security Beyond Pufs an Chen1, X
    Using Emerging Technologies for Hardware Security Beyond PUFs An Chen1, X. Sharon Hu2, Yier Jin3, Michael Niemier2, Xunzhao Yin2 (1) ITRS ERD, (2) University of Notre Dame, (3) University of Central Florida Abstract—We discuss how the unique I-V characteristics The first category of I-V characteristics of interest (Sec. offered by emerging, post-CMOS transistors can be used to III) are those exhibiting tunable polarity, which appear in enhance hardware security. Different from most existing work devices such as carbon nanotube [5], graphene [6], silicon that exploits emerging technologies for hardware security, we (i) focus on transistor characteristics that either do not exist nanowire (SiNW) transistors [7], and most recently transition in, or are difficult to duplicate with MOSFETs, and (ii) aim to metal dichalcogenide (TMD) tunnel FETs (TFETs) [8], all of move beyond hardware implementations of physically unclonable which have already been fabricated experimentally. Tunable functions (PUFs) and random number generators (RNGs). polarity could be exploited for IP protection and hence would help prevent the counterfeiting of IC components. I. INTRODUCTION The second category of I-V characteristics (Sec. IV) can be Like performance, power, and reliability, hardware security broadly classified as devices with atypical switching behaviors. is becoming a critical design consideration. Hardware security We consider I-V curves that either have tunable hysteresis threats in the IC supply chain, include counterfeiting of semi- or are bell shaped. Devices such as the negative capacitance conductor components, side-channel attacks, invasive/semi- FETs (NCFETs) [9] and ionic FETs [10] display tunable invasive reverse engineering, and IP piracy.
    [Show full text]
  • HARDWARE SECURITY KNOWLEDGE AREA Issue 1.0
    HARDWARE SECURITY KNOWLEDGE AREA Issue 1.0 AUTHOR: Ingrid Verbauwhede – KU Leuven EDITOR: Andrew Martin – Oxford University George Danezis – University College London REVIEWERS: Srinivas Devadas – Massachusetts Institute of Technology Paul England – Microsoft Elisabeth Oswald – University of Bristol Mark Ryan – University of Birmingham © Crown Copyright, The National Cyber Security Centre 2019. This information is licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ When you use this information under the Open Government Licence, you should include the following attribution: CyBOK Hardware Security Knowledge Area Issue 1.0 © Crown Copyright, The National Cyber Security Centre 2019, licensed under the Open Government Licence http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/. The CyBOK project would like to understand how the CyBOK is being used and its uptake. The project would like organisations using, or intending to use, CyBOK for the purposes of education, training, course development, professional development etc. to contact it at [email protected] to let the project know how they are using CyBOK. Issue 1.0 is a stable public release of the Hardware Security Knowledge Area. However, it should be noted that a fully collated CyBOK document which includes all the Knowledge Areas is anticipated to be released in October 2019. This will likely include updated page layout and formatting of the individual Knowledge Areas. Hardware Security Ingrid Verbauwhede October 2019 INTRODUCTION Hardware security covers a broad range of topics from trusted computing to Trojan circuits. To classify these topics we follow the different hardware abstraction layers as introduced by the Y-chart of Gajski & Kuhn.
    [Show full text]
  • Iotcp: a Novel Trusted Computing Protocol for Iot
    Journal of The Colloquium for Information System Security Education (CISSE) Edition 6, Issue 1 - September 2018 IoTCP: A Novel Trusted Computing Protocol for IoT Shuangbao (Paul) Wang, Amjad Ali, Ujjwal Guin, Anthony (Tony) Skjellum Abstract - The ability to understand, predict, secure and exploit the vast array of heterogeneous network of things is phenomenal. With the ever-increasing threats to cyber physical systems and Internet of Things, security on those networks of data-gathering sensors and systems has become a unique challenge to industries as well as to military in the battlefield. To address those problems, we propose a trusted computing protocol that employs discrete Trusted Platform Modules and Hardware Security Modules for key management, a blockchain-based package verification algorithm for over-the-air security, and a secure authentication mechanism for data communication. The IoT-based Trusted Computing Protocol implements integrated hardware security, strong cryptographic hash functions, and peer-based blockchain trust management. We have tested the protocol under various circumstances where devices have built-in securities while others do not. We apply the new protocol to a SCADA system that contains more than 3,000 edge devices. The preliminary results show that proposed protocol establishes trust, improves security, integrity, and privacy. Keywords Trusted Computing, IoT, IoBT, Blockchain, TPM 1 Journal of The Colloquium for Information System Security Education (CISSE) Edition 6, Issue 1 - September 2018 1 INTRODUCTION The Internet of Things (IoT) is fed with billions of devices and trillions of sensors. IoT networks undergird critical infrastructure, such as electric grids, transportation hubs, and nuclear power plants. They also link to systems containing valuable and sensitive personal information, such as hospitals, schools, and government institutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Hardware Security, Vulnerabilities, and Attacks: a Comprehensive Taxonomy∗
    Hardware Security, Vulnerabilities, and Attacks: A Comprehensive Taxonomy∗ Paolo Prinetto and Gianluca Roascio Cybersecurity National Laboratory, Consorzio Interuniversitario Nazionale per l'Informatica Dipartimento di Automatica e Informatica, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy [email protected] [email protected] Abstract Information Systems, increasingly present in a world that goes towards complete dig- italisation, can be seen as complex systems at the base of which is the hardware. When dealing with the security of these systems to stop possible intrusions and malicious uses, the analysis must necessarily include the possible vulnerabilities that can be found at the hardware level, since their exploitation can make all defences implemented at web or soft- ware level ineffective. In this paper, we propose a meaningful and comprehensive taxonomy for the vulnerabilities affecting the hardware and the attacks that exploit them to compro- mise the system, also giving a definition of Hardware Security, in order to clarify a concept often confused with other domains, even in the literature. 1 Introduction Every process and even every object that surrounds us is today managed by computing systems, and every day an endless amount of data is produced by these devices and exchanged with the external world, thanks to advanced connection capabilities. Yet, right because of this deep digitisation of our lives, this information sea is full of sensitive data that reveal our most private aspects. Innovation, at least initially, has not taken into account security and privacy issues, which instead must be seriously addressed. According to US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)1, information security is defined as \the protection of information and information systems from unauthorised access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction"[3], i.e., the protection against any misuse of Information Systems assets, which can be information itself or properties of the system.
    [Show full text]
  • Hardware Security Knowledge Area Issue 1.0
    Hardware Security Knowledge Area Issue 1.0 Ingrid Verbauwhede KU Leuven EDITOR Andrew Martin Oxford University George Danezis University College London REVIEWERS Srinivas Devadas Massachusetts Intitute of Technology Paul England Microsoft Elisabeth Oswald University of Bristol Mark Ryan University of Birmingham The Cyber Security Body Of Knowledge www.cybok.org COPYRIGHT © Crown Copyright, The National Cyber Security Centre 2019. This information is licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. To view this licence, visit: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ When you use this information under the Open Government Licence, you should include the following attribution: CyBOK © Crown Copyright, The National Cyber Security Centre 2018, li- censed under the Open Government Licence: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open- government-licence/. The CyBOK project would like to understand how the CyBOK is being used and its uptake. The project would like organisations using, or intending to use, CyBOK for the purposes of education, training, course development, professional development etc. to contact it at con- [email protected] to let the project know how they are using CyBOK. Issue 1.0 is a stable public release of the Hardware Security Knowledge Area. However, it should be noted that a fully-collated CyBOK document which includes all of the Knowledge Areas is anticipated to be released by the end of July 2019. This will likely include updated page layout and formatting of the individual Knowledge Areas KA Hardware Security j October 2019 Page 1 The Cyber Security Body Of Knowledge www.cybok.org INTRODUCTION Hardware security covers a broad range of topics from trusted computing to Trojan circuits.
    [Show full text]
  • A Security Assessment of Trusted Platform Modules
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Dartmouth Digital Commons (Dartmouth College) Dartmouth College Dartmouth Digital Commons Dartmouth College Undergraduate Theses Theses and Dissertations 6-28-2007 A Security Assessment of Trusted Platform Modules Evan R. Sparks Dartmouth College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.dartmouth.edu/senior_theses Part of the Computer Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Sparks, Evan R., "A Security Assessment of Trusted Platform Modules" (2007). Dartmouth College Undergraduate Theses. 53. https://digitalcommons.dartmouth.edu/senior_theses/53 This Thesis (Undergraduate) is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Dartmouth Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dartmouth College Undergraduate Theses by an authorized administrator of Dartmouth Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Security Assessment of Trusted Platform Modules Computer Science Technical Report TR2007-597 Evan R. Sparks [email protected] Senior Honors Thesis http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/∼pkilab/sparks/ Department of Computer Science Dartmouth College Advisor: Dr. Sean W. Smith June 28, 2007 1 Contents 1 Introduction 4 2 Motivation 6 3 Background 7 3.1 The TCG Architecture . 7 3.2 Trusted Platform Modules . 7 3.3 The Low Pin Count Bus . 9 4 Experimental setup 9 4.1 Software attack . 10 4.2 Reset attack . 10 4.3 Timing attack . 11 5 Discussion of attacks 11 5.1 Software attack . 12 5.2 Reset attack . 16 5.3 Timing attack . 19 6 Countermeasures 21 6.1 Software defenses .
    [Show full text]
  • Security of Cloud Fpgas: a Survey
    Security of Cloud FPGAs: A Survey CHENGLU JIN, New York University VASUDEV GOHIL, Texas A&M University RAMESH KARRI, New York University JEYAVIJAYAN RAJENDRAN, Texas A&M University Integrating Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) with cloud computing instances is a rapidly emerging trend on commercial cloud computing platforms such as Amazon Web Services (AWS), Huawei cloud, and Alibaba cloud. Cloud FPGAs allow cloud users to build hardware accelerators to speed up the computation in the cloud. However, since the cloud FPGA technology is still in its infancy, the security implications of this integration of FPGAs in the cloud are not clear. In this paper, we survey the emerging field of cloud FPGA security, providing a comprehensive overview of the security issues related to cloud FPGAs, and highlighting future challenges in this research area. CCS Concepts: • Computer systems organization ! Cloud computing; • Hardware ! Reconfigurable logic and FPGAs; • Security and privacy ! Systems security. Additional Key Words and Phrases: Cloud FPGAs, FPGAs in Data Centers, Cloud FPGA Security ACM Reference Format: Chenglu Jin, Vasudev Gohil, Ramesh Karri, and Jeyavijayan Rajendran. 2020. Security of Cloud FPGAs: A Survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 0, 0, Article 0 ( 2020), 32 pages. 1 INTRODUCTION The last few decades have witnessed tremendous growth in the need for high-speed computation in the clouds. Solely using CPUs and GPUs can no longer meet the increasing performance demand, in terms of latency, throughput, and efficiency. Due to this, FPGAs have been integrated into cloud computation platforms to allow users to customize their hardware accelerators (to accelerate computationally intensive tasks) in the clouds.
    [Show full text]
  • Securing the Distribution and Storage of Secrets with Trusted Platform Modules
    Securing the Distribution and Storage of Secrets with Trusted Platform Modules Paul E. Sevin¸c1, Mario Strasser2,andDavidBasin1 1 Department of Computer Science, ETH Zurich, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland {paul.sevinc, basin}@inf.ethz.ch 2 Department of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, ETH Zurich, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland [email protected] Abstract. We present a protocol that allows servers to securely distrib- ute secrets to trusted platforms. The protocol maintains the confiden- tiality of secrets in the face of eavesdroppers and careless users. Given an ideal (tamper-proof) trusted platform, the protocol can even with- stand attacks by dishonest users. As an example of its use, we present an application to secure document processing. 1 Introduction Trusted computing is about embedding a trusted computing base (TCB) [1] in a computing platform that allows a third party to determine the trustworthiness of the platform, i.e., whether or not the platform is a trusted platform from the point of view of a third party. The Trusted Computing Group (TCG), an indus- try standards organization, has specified a TCB for trusted computing in the form of three so-called roots of trust [2]: the root of trust for storage (RTS), the root of trust for reporting (RTR), and the root of trust for measurement (RTM). In particular, the TCG has specified a Trusted Platform Module (TPM) [3] that can act as both roots of trust for storage and measurement.1 These specifica- tions are clearly gaining momentum as witnessed by large-scale R&D projects such as EMSCB and OpenTC 2, open-source projects such as TPM Emulator [6] and TrouSerS 3, the inclusion of TPM services in Windows Vista [7], and the increasing number of personal computers with a TPM and a basic input/output system (BIOS) that can act as the RTM [8].
    [Show full text]