Hardware Security Module Basics

The Problem with current HSM tech

Currently, HSMs are only used in certain specific niche applications such as certificate authority key management and financial transaction data handling. One key reason for this is that HSMs currently don't provide the affordances that would be needed for them to be adopted more widely by the cryptographic and security engineering community. As far as I can tell, the two core missing affordances are:

1. To be more widely adopted, HSMs must become less expensive. Currently, they go for several tens of thousands of Euro, which puts them outside most budgets.
2. To be more widely adopted, HSMs must provide the standardized programming interfaces familiar to cryptographic developers. Currently, every HSM vendor has their own custom cryptographic API and a developer will have to train on one specific vendor's tooling. Furthermore, any documentation of these internals is kept secret behind NDAs. This constitutes a high barrier to entry, decreasing adoption in particular with young developers accustomed to open-source ecosystems.

Attacking cost of implementation

The first issue can be addressed by simply creating a viable low-cost alternative. There is no fundamental technical reason for the high cost of HSMs. This cost is instead due to manufacturers trying to recoup their expenses for R&D as well as certification from the small volumes HSMs are sold in.

Compared to system integration and certification the pure R&D cost of HSM defense mechanisms themselves is not too high in an academic context it should be feasible to develop a sort of HSM blueprint that can then be cheaply produced by anyone in need. Since the application areas outlined here are far from the core business areas of the clients of established HSM vendors this would most likely not be a realistic threat to any established vendor's business and a co-existence of both should not pose any problems in the short term.

Benefits of an academic HSM standard

Tackling the high cost of current HSM hardware with an open-source HSM blueprint would yield several academic advantages beyond cost reduction.

1. An open-source blueprint could serve as an academic reference design to evaluate and compare other HSM designs against. For instance this would not only allow quantifying the effectiveness of academic security measures but also allow an evaluation of commercial HSMs.
2. An open-source blueprint could stimulate academic research in this academically very quiet albeit commercially important area. This research would ultimately benefit everyone employing HSMs by raising security standards in the field. Since HSMs are never solely relied upon for overal system security both defensive and offensive security research would yield these benefits.
3. An open-source blueprint would encourage new people to get into the field and both apply HSMs to practical problems as well as improve HSMs themselves. Currently, this is highly discouraged due to the strictly proprietary nature of all available systems.
4. Finally, developing an open-source HSM blueprint might yield new findings in adjacent academic areas due to the hightly multi-disciplinary nature of security research in general and HSM design in particular.

Scope of an academic HSM standard

An academic HSM blueprint would need to be flexible so that researchers can adapt it to their particular problem. A modular architecture would lend itself to this flexibility. Fundamentally, there would be three components to this architecture. First, a base containing infrastructure such as the surveillance microcontroller, power supplies, power supply filtering and hardware DPA countermeasures, and possibly a standardized mechanical and electrical interface.

Next to the base, a system integrator would put their payload. The nature of this payload is intentionally kept unspecified, and it might be anything from a cryptographic microcontroller to a small embedded system such as a raspberry pi single board computer. Keeping the payload open like this achieves two benefits: It gives the HSM blueprint's user their familiar tooling and the hardware they need, allowing fast adoption. Someone well-versed in e.g. Javascript could literally implement their cryptography in Javascript, run it on an off-the-shelf raspberry pi and just apply the HSM blueprint around it. In addition, keeping the payload open reduces the scope of what needs to be implemented. Building a general SDK on top of something like a bare ARM SoC such as a TI OMAP or a Freescale/NXP IMX would be a considerable additional burden, on top of the actual HSM design. Keeping the payload open allows research to concentrate on the actual point, the HSM design.

The final and most important component would be a set of security measures that can be combined with the base to form the final HSM. Each of these security measures would entail a detailed specification of its design, manufacture and security properties. These security measures could be simple things like tamper switches or potting, but could also be complex things like security meshes.

Given these three components -- base, payload and security measures as detailed specifications any engineer should be able to design and manufacture a HSM customized to their needs. Unifying these three components within the HSM blueprint would be a set of reference designs. Each reference design would implement a particular parametrization of the three architectural components with a physical hole cut out where the payload would go.. These reference designs would for one serve to guide any implementer on the customization and integration of their own derivation from the blueprint. In addition it would serve as an extremely simple, low-cost point of entry into the ecosystem. A curious researcher could simply replicate the reference design and put their existing payload inside. Practically this might mean e.g. a researcher having PCBs produced according to the design files for a reference design for a mesh-based HSM, producing their own mesh, physically glueing a raspberry pi SBC into the middle of it, and potting the resulting system. Given the ease of prototype PCB fabrication today this would realistically allow evaluation of HSM technologies on a budget that is orders of magnitude less than the cost of current HSMs.

Improvements on existing techniques

DIY or small lab mesh production

3D metal patterning techniques refers to any technique for producing thin, patterned metal structures on a three-dimensional plastic substrate. The basic process would consist of 3D-printing the polymer substrate, depositing a thin metal layer on top and then patterning this metal layer. A good starting point here would be the recent work of Ben Kraznow on this exact thing.

Copper filament methods would be any method embedding copper wire from a spool in some resin or other matrix. This could mean either of a systematic approach of carefully winding or folding the copper wire into patterns or a non-systematic approach of simply stuffing a large tangle of copper wire into a small space. The main challenge with the former would be to find a non-tedious way of production. The main challenge with the latter would be to find process parameters that guarantee complete coverage of the HSM without holes or other areas of lower sensitivity to intrusions. Both approaches would require careful consideration of the overall design including the polymer resin supporting structure to ensure sensitivity against attacks since copper wire is mechanically much stronger than the micrometre-thin metal coatings used in patterning techniques.

Envelope measurement

Finally, I think there is another set of currently under-utilized tamper-detection methods that would be very interesting to explore. I am not aware of an academic term for these, so I am just going to dub them envelope measurement here.

The fundamental apporach of a mesh is to build a physical security envelope (the mesh) that physically detects when it is disturbed (open or short circuits). This approach works well but has the disadvantage that these meshes are rather complex to manufacture since effectively every part of them is acting as a sensing element. A conceptually more complex but in practice potentially simpler approach might be to split the functions of security envelope and sensing element. This would mean that in place of the mesh, some form of passive element such as metal foil forms the security envelope which is then checked for tampering using a very sensitive sensor inside. This remote-sensing approach might simplify the manufacture of the envelope itself and thus yield a design that is more easily customized. Following are a few ideas on how to approach this envelope measurement problem.

Ultrasonic If the HSM is potted, a few ultrasonic transducers could be added inside the potting. With several transducers, any one could be used to transmit ultrasound while the others measure complex phase and energy of the signal they receive. The circuitry for this could be made fairly simple if using a static transmit frequency or a low chirp rate by using a homodyne receiver built around a comparator fed into some timers. This approach would likely detect any mechanical attack and would also rule out chemical attacks involving liquids (though starting from which amount of liquid depends on receiver sensitivity). The main disadvantages might be high power consumption and cost and size of the ultrasonic transducers. Traditional cheap transducers made for air as a transmission medium are fairly large and might not adequately couple into potting compound. If somehow one could convince a standard small piezo element to do the same job that would be great as far as cost and size are concerned. A concern in some fringe use cases might be suceptibility to ambient noise, though this could easily be reduced at the expense of space and heat dissipation capacity by adding sound dampening on the outside. A likely attack vector against this approach might be using a laser cutter to drill a hole through the potting compound, then inserting probes carefully chosen to not couple too much to the potting compound ultrasonically.

Light In either an unpotted HSM or one potted with a transparent (at some wavelengths) potting compound one could embed LEDs and photodiodes in a similar setup to the ultrasonic setup described above. In contrast to the ultrasound, the LEDs would literally have to light up the HSM's interior and shadows might be an issue since the HSM is likely some flat rectangular shape. A possible solution to this would be to coat both the embedded payload and the lid with some highly reflective paint such as some glossy silver paint or simple white paint. The basic approach might be as simple as simply turning on several LEDs distributed throughout the HSM in turn and measuring amplitude at several photodetectors, or as complex as doing a LIDAR-like phase measurement sweeping through a range of frequencies to determine not only absorption but also phase/distance characteristics between emitter LED and detector photodiode. Using some high-gain TIA along with a homodyne detector (lock-in amplifier) and changing emitter intensity, very precise measurements of both absorption and phase might be possible, as might be measurements through almost opaque, diffuse potting compounds such as a grey epoxide resin. The main disadvantages of this method would likely be the need to thoroughly light-proof the entire HSM (likely by wrapping it in metal foil) and the potentially high cost of transmitter and receiver circuitry (nice TIAs aren't cheap). To be effective against attacks using e.g. very fine drills and probes the system would likely have to be very sensitive.

Radar Finally, one could turn to standard radar techniques to fingerprint the inside of the HSM. The goal here would be fingerprinting instead of mapping since only changes need to be detected. In this approach one could use homodyne detection to improve sensitivity and reduce receiver complexity, and sweep frequencies similar to an FMCW radar (but probably without exploiting the self-demodulation effect). Besides high cost, this approach has two disadvantages. First, such a system would likely not go beyond 24GHz or maybe 40GHz due to component availability issues. Even at 40GHz the wavelength in the potting compound would be in the order of magnitude of several millimeters. Fine intrusions using some tool chosen to not interact too much with the EM field inside the HSM such as a heated ceramic needle or simply a laser cutter might not be detectable using this approach. In any case, this system would certainly not be able to detect small holes piercing the HSM enclosure. The HSM enclosure would have to be made into an RF shield, likely by using some metal foil in it.

Overall in the author's opinion these three techniques are most promising in order Light, Ultrasonic, Radar. Light would prbably provide the best sensitivity at expense of some cost. Ultrasonic might be used in conjunction with light to cover some additional angles since it is potentially very low-cost. Radar seems hard to engineer into a solution that works reliably and also would likely be at least an order of magnitude more expensive than the other two technologies while not providing better sensitivity.