DOCSLIB.ORG

Securing Telemetry Post Processing Applications with Hardware Based Security

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Securing Telemetry Post Processing Applications with Hardware Based Security Securing Telemetry Post Processing Applications with Hardware Based Security Item Type text; Proceedings Authors Kalibjian, Jeff Publisher International Foundation for Telemetering Journal International Telemetering Conference Proceedings Rights Copyright © International Foundation for Telemetering Download date 29/09/2021 00:04:49 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/605052 Securing Telemetry Post Processing Applications with Hardware Based Security Jeff Kalibjian Hewlett Packard Corporation ABSTRACT The use of hardware security for telemetry in satellites utilized for intelligence and defense applications is well known. Less common is the use of hardware security in ground-based computers hosting applications that post process telemetry data. Analysis reveals vulnerabilities in software only security solutions that can result in the compromise of telemetry data housed on ground-based computer systems. Such systems maybe made less susceptible to compromise with the use of hardware based security. KEY WORDS Hardware Security Modules (HSM), Hardware Security Module Hybrids (HSMH), Federal Processing Information Standard 140-2 (FIPS 140-2), Common Criteria (CC), security boundary, key management. INTRODUCTION Today most security features on computer systems are implemented as software only solutions. Examples of such security functions include authentication, privacy, and security protocol utilization (e.g. SSL). After reviewing pertinent security standards and discussing the fundamental threats in software-based security implementations; important hardware based security principles will be reviewed that are most applicable to support telemetry post processing. An example will be given illustrating how FIPS 140-2 Level 4 Hardware Security Modules (HSM) and Hardware Security Module Hybrids (HSMH) maybe utilized to better secure the telemetry post-processing activity by allowing policy evaluation, key management and data manipulation activities to be done inside a hardware security boundary. SECURITY STANDARDS The two most important security standards in the industry are FIPS 140-2 and Common Criteria. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has established a Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) that specifies the security requirements within a system protecting sensitive information pertaining to cryptographic operations [1]. The standard defines four increasing levels of security: • Level 1 defines the lowest level—no specific physical security mechanisms are required however one “approved” NIST cryptographic algorithm (e.g. DES) or security function must be utilized. The software and/or firmware components of the cryptographic module maybe executed on a general purpose processor that has an un-rated operating system. • Level 2 adds a requirement of physical tamper evidence (e.g. tamper evident coatings or seals on containers housing the electronics). It also specifies role-based authentication for security officer interaction with the cryptographic module (e.g. for key loading, etc.). If software and/or firmware components implement the cryptographic capabilities, they maybe executed on a general purpose processor, but the OS on the processor must be rated at CC EAL-2 or its equivalent. •Level 3 requirements include all Level 2 requirements, but add constraints to minimize threat of data compromise. This usually takes the form of data zeroization circuitry. It also requires identity-based authentication for security officers needing to access the processor system. Any software/firmware cryptographic functionality provided by a general purpose processor, requires an OS on that processor rated at CC EAL-3. •Level 4 is the highest standard and requires physical security that detects and responds to all unauthorized attempts at access. In addition to Level 3 features, Level 4 provides for zeroization even when environmental conditions such as temperature, voltage, are exceeded. Level 4 also requires an operating system rated at CC EAL-4 or higher if software or firmware is utilized to implement cryptographic functionality. Table 1 summarizes the FIPS 140-2 four assurance levels: FIPS 140-2 Rating Comments Level 1 Not meaningful Level 2 Not meaningful Level 3 Secure Level 4 Very Secure Table 1: Implications of the FIPS 140-2 ratings. The security worthiness of software is usually evaluated with the Common Criteria metric [2]. In Common Criteria evaluation a set of security requirements and specifications, otherwise known as a Protection Profiles (PP) and Security Targets (ST), are developed for a software system referred to as the Target of Evaluation (TOE). Common Criteria is an ISO standard (15408) and has seven Evaluation Assurance Levels (EALs): • EAL - 1: Functionally tested. Evaluation of TOE is done with respect to the customer documentation. Used when threats to security are not considered serious and only some confidence of correct operation is desired. • EAL - 2: Structurally tested. Evaluation of TOE is done with respect to developer design information and test results. Used when developers or users require a low to moderate level of independently assured security. • EAL – 3: Methodically tested and checked. Evaluation of TOE is done at design stage. Used when developers or users require a moderate level of independently assured security. • EAL – 4: Methodically designed, tested, and reviewed. Used when developers or users require a moderate to high level of independently assured security. • EAL – 5: Semi--formally designed and tested. Rigorous commercial development tools and specialty security design techniques to design and implement TOE. Used when developers or users require a high level of independently assured security. • EAL – 6: Semi-formally verified design and tested. Security engineering techniques applied to an advanced development environment. Used when developers or users are developing applications deployed in high risk situations pro- tecting valuable assets. • EAL – 7: Formally verified design and tested. Advanced security engineering and development techniques that can be rigorously mathematically modeled and analyzed. Used for applications deployed in extremely high risk environments protecting large value assets. Table 2 summarizes the seven CC evaluation service levels: CC EAL Rating Comments EAL-1 Not meaningful EAL-2 Not meaningful EAL-3 Not meaningful EAL-4 Some Security EAL-5 Pretty Secure EAL-6 Secure EAL-7 Very Secure Table 2: Implications of Common Criteria EAL ratings. A process of PP and ST definition feed into the development, evaluation, and operation of the TOE. This represents a continual process of feedback and evaluation that eventually leads to the implementation and evaluation of the secure software system utilizing varying levels of sophistication in software security design and development. While ideally this occurs starting at the requirements phase, it is economically feasible to retrofit existing designs with Common Criteria methodology and achieve up to EAL-4 ratings. COMPUTER SECURITY The threat model for all computer systems has four elements: • External threats introduced into the computer system. Examples of this would be viruses or malicious scripts. • Internal threats: misplaced trust. This includes overloading privileges onto the Adminis- trator role and allowing the Administrator to exercise their privileges without dual control. • Attacks against the operating system or applications running on the operating system. This can include replacing known operating system resources with compromised ones, or attacking the memory partition an application is running in. • Internal and external data snooping. This might involve access to sensitive data residing in CPU registers or main memory via fault dumps or Logic State Analyzer (LSA) access to system bus activity. Securing a computing system involves introducing cryptographic technology, preferably in secure hardware boundaries, that provides privacy, authentication, and authorization services. It is assumed the reader has familiarity with how cryptography is utilized to deliver such capabilities. The reader is encouraged to consult [3] for a rigorous discussion of cryptography. A primary concern in cryptography is protecting the keying material that helps to deliver services like privacy and authentication. An example illustrates the difficulty in protecting such key material using software only techniques: Consider a telemetry data product that has been reduced. That is, certain post processing activities have been performed on the data, and because of the data sensitivity, it has also been encrypted for privacy concerns. A fundamental question arises: how is the key (Kt) that encrypted the reduced data products being protected? In the most common scenario, the key itself has been encrypted using a methodology known as password based encryption. That is, a user generated password is hashed and the result is utilized as a cryptographic key (Kp) that in turn is used in a cryptographic algorithm to encrypt the key (Kt). The encrypted key (EKt) is then typically stored on disk for later access. When the encrypted telemetry data needs to be accessed, the following steps need to take place. First the password utilized to derive the key (Kp) that encrypted Kt must be col- lected and temporarily stored in computer memory. After the password is hashed to derive Kp, the password maybe deleted, but then Kp must be stored temporarily in computer memory while it is being used to decrypt Kt.. Once
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Solution Briefs A10 and Ncipher Strengthen the Security Of
    SOLUTION BRIEF A10 AND nCIPHER STRENGTHEN THE SECURITY OF APPLICATION DELIVERY PLATFORMS A10 THUNDER INTEGRATES WITH nCIPHER nSHIELD TO DELIVER FIPS 140-2 LEVEL 3 PROTECTION OF TLS/SSL KEYS Organizations increasingly depend on application networking CHALLENGE solutions to run critical business processes that involve Protecting and managing the private and sensitive information. To fulfill demands of increasing numbers of TLS/SSL keys—without impacting application businesses, data centers, networks and applications must delivery, performance or compliance not only be available 24-7 and run at optimum speeds, but requirements—is critically important in today’s business environment. must also protect against attacks that could compromise the confidentiality and integrity of the data they process. SOLUTION A10 Thunder ADC integrates with With the reliance on web application services, sensitive nCipher nShield hardware security modules (HSMs) to protect and information exchanged online and in the cloud is at risk manage the TLS/SSL keys. As part of interception and exploitation. Transport layer security/ of this integration, keys are stored in the hardware of nShield HSMs, and secure sockets layer (TLS/SSL) is used to protect sensitive encryption- and signature-processing information by encrypting the data. However, a compromise (involving private keys) are executed within its protected boundary. This of the encryption keys can lead to a breach of the data flowing provides robust protection and between end-user devices and Web servers. With growing management of the cryptographic keys and encryption process. use of TLS/SSL, protecting and managing the underpinning cryptographic keys is a vital function. BENEFITS • Delivers secure application availability and acceleration THE CHALLENGE • Strengthens TLS/SSL cryptographic As organizations and businesses increasingly deliver services key management through Web and cloud-based applications, more sensitive data • Enables robust FIPS 140-2 Level is transacted over TLS/SSL tunnels to protect confidentiality.
    [Show full text]
  • Hardware Security Module for E-Payments
    Hardware Security Module for e-Payments Payment Security in FIPS 140-2 Level 3 Hardware Today's payments industry has increasingly become a target for fraud. To address rising levels of disputed transactions, the card associations have introduced advanced security controls, including improved authentication techniques that demand sophisticated hardware-based cryptographic processing. The nCipher hardware security module (HSM) INDUSTRY APPLICATION payShield option is designed to meet the stringent security requirements of the payments The payShield Option Pack for nCipher HSM industry, strengthening the security of card and provides payments functionality to secure and PIN authentication systems by securing accelerate payments industry applications. transaction processes in a FIPS 140-2 Level 3* ePayments validated tamper-resistant environment. In The 3-D Secure specification mandates the use addition to providing increased security, of FIPS certified hardware for storage and PRODUCT SHEET DATA payShield enabled HSM can dramatically management of cryptographic keys. payShield increase transaction throughput by processing provides a single HSM solution that supports high volumes of symmetric and asymmetric Visa's 3-D Secure Cardholder Authentication cryptographic operations, an important Verification Value (CAVV) using the Visa Card requirement of payments initiatives such as Verification Value (CVV) method, as well as 3-D Secure, Visa DPA, MasterCard CAP. MasterCard’s SPA Account Authentication Value *Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 140-2 Level 3 is (AAV) and Card Authentication Program (CAP). the international security standard for cryptographic modules EMV smart card support CARDHOLDER EMV is a smart card standard developed by AUTHENTICATION Europay, MasterCard and Visa to address the universal aspects of chip card issuance and Supported by the major card associations, acceptance.
    [Show full text]
  • A Hardware Security Module Is Found Not Immune to Hacking
    Memo 12/06/2019 - TLP:WHITE A Hardware Security Module is found not immune to hacking Reference: Memo [190612-1] Date: 12/06/2019 - Version: 1.1 Keywords: HSM, cryptography, PKCS#11, digital services Sources: publicly available information Key Points Security researchers released a paper revealing how they managed to hack a Hardware Security Module (HSM). HSM-s are used to generate, manipulate and store sensitive cryptographic secrets (SIM cards, credit cards, secure boot hardware, disk and database encryption, PKI...). HSM-s are also used by cloud service providers, such as Google or Amazon, allowing clients to centrally create, manage and use their cryptographic secrets. Summary Researchers from a French technology company, specialising in blockchain and cryptocurrency ecosystems, published and presented a paper detailing how they managed to dump the whole content of a Hardware Security Module (HSM), manufactured by an undisclosed company. In order to achieve this, they proceeded as follows: 1. They started by using legitimate software development kit (SDK) access to their test HSM to upload a firmware module that would give them a shell inside the HSM. Note: A SDK is typically a set of software development tools that allows for the creation of applications for a certain software package, software framework, hardware platform, or computer system. Note that this SDK access was used to discover the vulnerabilities, but is not necessary to exploit them. 2. They then used the shell to run a fuzzer on the internal implementation of PKCS#11 commands to find reliable, exploitable buffer overflows. Note: PKCS#11 refers to public-key cryptography standards or to a programming interface used to create and manipulate cryptographic tokens.
    [Show full text]
  • Key Management Guide CIO IT Security
    IT Security Procedural Guide: Key Management CIO-IT Security-09-43 Revision 4 April 13, 2020 Office of the Chief Information Security Officer CIO-IT Security-09-43, Revision 4 Key Management VERSION HISTORY/CHANGE RECORD Person Page Change Posting Change Reason for Change Number of Number Change Change Revision 1 – November 19, 2008 1 Eric Additional References to x.509 Response to comments 1,6,16 Hummel Common Framework Revision 2 – February 25, 2016 1 Salamon Updated Policy and NIST references Updated to current versions of Throughout CIO 2100.1, NIST SP 800-53, and NIST SP 800-57 2 Wilson, Updated GSA Logo, formatting, Updated GSA Logo, formatting Throughout Klemens style changes and style. Revision 3 – March 6, 2018 1 Salamon Removed NIST SP 800-21 and NIST SP 800-21 withdrawn, 2, 7, 17 updated Policy references updated to current CIO 2100.1 2 Salamon Updated Procedural Guide links Updated Procedural Guides 8 3 Dean Changes throughout the document Updated to current guide Throughout to correspond with current guide structure, style, and formatting structure and formatting. Revision 4 – April 13, 2020 1 Richards Updated references and minor Scheduled update Throughout language clarifications 2 Salamon Updated Section 2 to include Operational feedback 7 specific requirements for key management 3 Salamon Scope updated in Section 1.2 Operational feedback 3 U.S. General Services Administration CIO-IT Security-09-43, Revision 4 Key Management Approval IT Security Procedural Guide: Key Management, CIO-IT Security-09-43, Revision 4 is hereby approved for distribution. X Bo Berlas Chief Information Security Officer Contact: GSA Office of the Chief Information Security Officer (OCISO), Security Engineering Division (ISE) at [email protected] U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Spoofing a Hardware Security Module
    DEVELOPING AND CONNECTING ISSA CYBERSECURITY LEADERS GLOBALLY Spoofing a Hardware Security Module By Jeff Stapleton – ISSA member, St. Louis Chapter This article compares valid key management techniques using a cryptographic hardware security module (HSM) with commonly used untrustworthy software-based crypto methods that basically spoof the HSM. Two hardware-based techniques are contrasted with three hybrid-based methods. Security issues for the software-based methods are discussed, and an alternative standards- based scheme is introduced. Abstract This article compares valid key management tech- niques using a cryptographic hardware security module (HSM) with commonly used untrustworthy software-based crypto methods that basically spoof the HSM. Software-based cryptography is generally Figure 1 – Hardware cheaper and easier to implement but at higher risk data encryption of key compromise whereas hardware-based cryp- tography has vastly lower risks but at greater costs and com- key encryption. The HSM spoofing problem arises when the plexity. Attempts at combining software-based crypto with data encryption is performed in software but the key man- hardware-based key management often introduces poor key agement is attempted in cryptographic hardware. Three un- management solutions. Two hardware-based techniques are trustworthy key management methods are contrasted with contrasted with three hybrid-based methods. Security issues the valid techniques: faux key, KMIP unwrapped keys, and for the software-based methods are discussed, and an alter- PKCS#12 password based key derivation functions [2]. The se- native standards-based scheme is introduced. curity weaknesses are explained and an alternate method is in- troduced: database encryption key management (DBEKM) [3]. his article compares valid key management tech- Hardware data encryption niques using a cryptographic hardware security mod- ule (HSM) [1] with commonly used untrustworthy The first HSM key management method discussed is cryp- Tmethods that essentially spoof an HSM.
    [Show full text]
  • Trescca D3.2
    Project acronym: TRESCCA Project title: TRustworthy Embedded systems for Secure Cloud Computing Project number: European Commission – 318036 Call identifier: FP7-ICT-2011.1.4 Start date of project: 01 Oct. 2012 Duration: 36 months Document reference number: D3.2 Document title: Secure Hypervisor Version: 1.3 Due date of document: April 2015 Actual submission date: May 2015 Lead beneficiary: VOSYS Participants: Michele PAOLINO, Alvise RIGO, Daniel RAHO, Maria SOLER (VOSYS), Miltos GRAMMATIKAKIS (TEI), Renaud PACALET (TP) Reviewers: Bernhard Katzmarski (OFFIS) Project co-funded by the European Commission within the 7th Framework Programme DISSEMINATION LEVEL PU Public X PCA Public with confidential annex CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including Commission Services) Project: TRESCCA Document ref.: D3.2 EC contract: 318036 Document title: Secure Hypervisor Document version: 1.3 Date: May 2015 CONTENTS 1 Introduction 5 1.1 Purpose of the Document . .5 2 The Trusted Compartment 6 2.1 Trusted Compartment Implementation . .6 2.1.1 TrustZone . .6 2.1.2 HSM-NoC . .7 2.2 Security HW accelerators . .7 3 The Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) 9 3.1 Introduction to the Trusted Execution Environment(TEE) . .9 3.2 The GlobalPlatform Standard . 10 3.2.1 The GlobalPlatform TEE API . 11 3.3 The TEE state of the art . 13 3.3.1 Closed Solutions . 13 3.3.2 Open Source Solutions . 14 4 The KVM TEE 16 4.1 The KVM hypervisor . 16 4.2 TEE Implementation and virtualization . 16 4.2.1 Secure World . 17 4.2.2 TEE virtualization . 20 4.3 Features . 20 4.3.1 Isolated Execution .
    [Show full text]
  • Comptia Security+ SY0-301 Authorized Exam Cram, Third Edition
    ptg999 CompTIA® Security+™ SY0-301 ptg999 Third Edition Diane Barrett, Kalani K. Hausman, and Martin Weiss CompTIA Security+™ SY0-301 Authorized Exam Cram, Third Edition Associate Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. Publisher All rights reserved. No part of this book shall be reproduced, stored in a David Dusthimer retrieval system, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, pho- Acquisitions tocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the pub- Editor lisher. No patent liability is assumed with respect to the use of the informa- tion contained herein. Although every precaution has been taken in the Betsy Brown preparation of this book, the publisher and author assume no responsibility Development for errors or omissions. Nor is any liability assumed for damages resulting Editor from the use of the information contained herein. Andrew Cupp ISBN-13: 978-0-7897-4829-4 ISBN-10: 0-7897-4829-0 Managing Editor Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data is on file. Sandra Schroeder Project Editor Printed in the United States of America Mandie Frank First Printing: December 2011 Copy Editor 14 13 12 11 4 3 2 1 Charlotte Kughen, Trademarks The Wordsmithery All terms mentioned in this book that are known to be trademarks or service LLC marks have been appropriately capitalized. Que Publishing All terms men- tioned in this book that are known to be trademarks or service marks have Indexer been appropriately capitalized. Pearson IT Certification cannot attest to the Tim Wright accuracy of this information. Use of a term in this book should not be regarded as affecting the validity of any trademark or service mark.
    [Show full text]
  • HARDWARE INNOVATION REVEAL Openpower Foundation Summit
    HARDWARE INNOVATION REVEAL OpenPOWER Foundation Summit 2018 87 Solutions BPS-8201 Server The BPS-8201 is a High Density/Storage with IBM POWER8 Turismo SCM processor Platform , 2U/ (16) 3.5" SAS/SATA HDDs. System ADM-PCIE-9V3 - FPGA Accelerator Board—Latest FPGA accelerator board, is CAPI 2.0 and OpenCAPI enabled featuring a powerful Xilinx® Virtex® UltraScale+ ™ FPGA. The ADM-PCIE-9V3 is ideal for a variety of acceleration applications (Compute, Networking, Storage) packed Card into a small HHHL server friendly PCIe add-in card size. OpenCAPI FPGA Loop Back cable and OpenCAPI cable. These enable testing and OpenCAPI accelerators to be connected to standard PCIe while signaling to the host processor through sockets attached to the main system board. Cable Parallware Trainer aims to democratize access to HPC by providing sim- ple-to-use assistance in developing software for shared memory and accelerator technologies. Developed specifically to help software pro- grammers learn how to parallelise software, quickly and efficiently aids Software users in developing OpenMP and OpenACC enabled software. Escala E3-OP90 is an Open Power based server optimized for Deep Learning. The L3-OP90 features 2 Power9 sockets which are intercon- nected with up to 4 Nvidia Volta GPUs through NVlink 2.0. The architec- ture is designed for the implementation of large deep learning models System enabling highest levels of resolution / accuracy. HBA 9405W-16i Adapter—The x16 low-profile HBA9405W-16i is ide- al for high-performing, bandwidth-intense applications. The HBA enables internal communication to PCIe JBOFs and delivers the per- formance and scalability needed by critical applications such as video Card streaming, medical imaging and big data analytics.
    [Show full text]
  • Hardware-Enabled Security: 3 Enabling a Layered Approach to Platform Security for Cloud 4 and Edge Computing Use Cases
    1 Draft NISTIR 8320 2 Hardware-Enabled Security: 3 Enabling a Layered Approach to Platform Security for Cloud 4 and Edge Computing Use Cases 5 6 Michael Bartock 7 Murugiah Souppaya 8 Ryan Savino 9 Tim Knoll 10 Uttam Shetty 11 Mourad Cherfaoui 12 Raghu Yeluri 13 Akash Malhotra 14 Karen Scarfone 15 16 17 18 This publication is available free of charge from: 19 https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8320-draft 20 21 22 23 Draft NISTIR 8320 24 Hardware-Enabled Security: 25 Enabling a Layered Approach to Platform Security for Cloud 26 and Edge Computing Use Cases 27 Michael Bartock 28 Murugiah Souppaya 29 Computer Security Division 30 Information Technology Laboratory 31 32 Ryan Savino 33 Tim Knoll 34 Uttam Shetty 35 Mourad Cherfaoui 36 Raghu Yeluri 37 Intel Data Platforms Group 38 Santa Clara, CA 39 40 Akash Malhotra 41 AMD Product Security and Strategy Group 42 Austin, TX 43 44 Karen Scarfone 45 Scarfone Cybersecurity 46 Clifton, VA 47 48 49 50 May 2021 51 52 53 54 U.S. Department of Commerce 55 Gina Raimondo, Secretary 56 57 National Institute of Standards and Technology 58 James K. Olthoff, Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce 59 for Standards and Technology & Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology 60 National Institute of Standards and Technology Interagency or Internal Report 8320 61 58 pages (May 2021) 62 This publication is available free of charge from: 63 https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8320-draft 64 Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this document in order to describe an 65 experimental procedure or concept adequately.
    [Show full text]
  • IT Security Guidelines for Transport Layer Security (TLS)
    IT Security Guidelines for Transport Layer Security (TLS) National Cyber Security Centre The National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), in collaboration with The following organizations and individuals have provided the business community, government bodies and academics, is valuable contributions: working to increase the ability of Dutch society to defend itself in - Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens the digital domain. - Belastingdienst - Centric The NCSC supports the central government and organisations in - Dienst Publiek en Communicatie the critical infrastructure sectors by providing them with expertise - Forum Standaardisatie and advice, incident response and with actions to strengthen crisis - IBD management. In addition, the NCSC provides information and - KPN advice to citizens, the government and the business community - NLnet Labs relating to awareness and prevention. The NCSC thus constitutes - Northwave the central reporting and information point for IT threats and - Platform Internetstandaarden security incidents. - RDW - SURFnet These IT Security Guidelines for Transport Layer Security were frst - de Volksbank published by the NCSC in 2014. This update (v2.1) was published in - Z-CERT 2021. See the appendix Changes to these guidelines for more details. - Daniel Kahn Gillmor, ACLU This publication was produced in collaboration with the following - Tanja Lange, Eindhoven University of Technology partners: - Kenny Paterson, ETH Zurich - the national communication security agency (NBV), part of the - Rich Salz, Akamai Technologies general
    [Show full text]
  • Moduleot: a Hardware Security Module for Operational Technology
    ModuleOT: A Hardware Security Module for Operational Technology Preprint William Hupp, Adarsh Hasandka, Ricardo Siqueria de Carvalho, and Danish Saleem National Renewable Energy Laboratory Presented at the IEEE Texas Power and Energy Conference (TPEC) College Station, Texas February 6−7, 2020 NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Conference Paper Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy NREL/CP-5R00-74697 Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC February 2020 This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications. Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 ModuleOT: A Hardware Security Module for Operational Technology Preprint William Hupp, Adarsh Hasandka, Ricardo Siqueria de Carvalho, and Danish Saleem National Renewable Energy Laboratory Suggested Citation Hupp, William, Adarsh Hasandka, Ricardo Siqueria de Carvalho, and Danish Saleem. 2020. ModuleOT: A Hardware Security Module for Operational Technology: Preprint. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/CP-5R00-74697. nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/74697.pdf. © 2020 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, in any current or future media, including reprinting/republishing this material for advertising or promotional purposes, creating new collective works, for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted component of this work in other works. NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Conference Paper Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy NREL/CP-5R00-74697 Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC February 2020 This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
    [Show full text]
  • Acala Benefits Acala Emulates a Hardware Security Module to Protect X.509 Certificates and Private Keys. It Provides a Secure En
    Acala emulates a hardware security module to protect Information Security CORPORATION X.509 certificates and private keys. It provides a secure environment for cryptographic operations that nearly +1-847-405-0500 all security-enabled applications can access. [email protected] www.infoseccorp.com infoseccorp Overview Acala affords an organization’s servers the functionality of a physical @infoseccorp hardware security module (HSM) for a fraction of the cost. It stores each servers’ credentials in a single encrypted file on any designated storage /infsec.us device (e.g., local hard drive, network share, or removable memory device), and provides cryptographic operations to security-enabled programs through a PKCS#11 application programming interface. Acala Benefits • Lowers cost CSfC Applications • Enhances security In some instances, Acala may be used in a CSfC solution as the PKCS#11 • Enforces strict password cryptographic provider for CertAgent, ISC’s Certificate Authority. quality requirements Acala also includes a key generation feature to generate • Audits all private key operations symmetric keys for use in CSfC solutions that don’t use a PKI. • May be easily deployed and managed • Appropriate for oganizations of any size • Uses NIST CMVP-validated FIPS 140-2 cryptography and today’s proven standards, including ANSI X.509 and IETF PKIX, TLS, and S/MIME Use Cases for Acala TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS • Complies with NIST FIPS Safeguarding Keys in a Low Assurance CertAgent Deployment 140-2 Level 1 requirements Acala’s software protection
    [Show full text]