From f14b83d06412aad735d985a6d7cd4595d20f83b8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: jaseg Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 13:25:03 +0200 Subject: Work on changes letter --- paper/tches-22-01-changes.tex | 106 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 106 insertions(+) create mode 100644 paper/tches-22-01-changes.tex (limited to 'paper/tches-22-01-changes.tex') diff --git a/paper/tches-22-01-changes.tex b/paper/tches-22-01-changes.tex new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7857125 --- /dev/null +++ b/paper/tches-22-01-changes.tex @@ -0,0 +1,106 @@ +\documentclass[a4paper]{scrartcl} +\usepackage[T1]{fontenc} +\usepackage{amssymb,amsmath} +\usepackage{eurosym} +\usepackage{wasysym} +\usepackage{amsthm} +\usepackage{censor} +\usepackage[ + backend=biber, + style=numeric, + natbib=true, + url=false, + doi=true, + eprint=false + ]{biblatex} +\addbibresource{ihsm.bib} + + +\makeatletter +\@ifclasswith{iacrtrans}{submission}{ + \newcommand{\censorIfSubmission}[1]{\censor{#1}{\scriptsize[Author information removed for double-blind peer review]}} +}{ + \newcommand{\censorIfSubmission}[1]{#1} +} +\makeatother + +\usepackage[binary-units]{siunitx} +\DeclareSIUnit{\baud}{Bd} +\DeclareSIUnit{\year}{a} +\usepackage{commath} +\usepackage{graphicx,color} +\usepackage{subcaption} +\usepackage{array} +\usepackage{hyperref} + +\renewcommand{\floatpagefraction}{.8} +\newcommand{\degree}{\ensuremath{^\circ}} +\newcolumntype{P}[1]{>{\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}} +\newcommand{\partnum}[1]{\texttt{#1}} + +\begin{document} +\title{Can't Touch This: Inertial HSMs Thwart Advanced Physical Attacks} +\subtitle{Changes of Major Revision compared to version submitted to TCHES 20/4} +\maketitle + +This document lists the requested revisions we identified from the reviewers comments and explains how we adressed these +requests. + +\paragraph{Lack of discussion of operational constraints} + +As pointed out by Reviewer~B, our initial submission lacked a detailed discussion of the operational constraints of +Inertial Hardware Security Modules. We have adressed this with more than two pages of new content on the operation of +IHSMs in the new Sections~3.5 ``Long-Term Operation'' and~3.6 ``Transportation''. +% FIXME + +\paragraph{Lack of discussion of improved cooling capabilities of IHSMs compared to traditional HSMs} + +As Reviewer~D pointed out, our initial submission alluded to the possibility of facilitating cooling airflow through an +IHSM's security mesh and noted that this would allow for greater processing capabilities, but did not go into detail on +the extent of this effect. In our revised paper, we have extended Section~3.4 ``Mechanical Layout'' with an +order-of-magnitude estimation of this effect based on real-world benchmarks and information available from vendors of +traditional HSMs. + +\paragraph{Mechanical Rotating Stage Attacks} + +As pointed out by Reviewer~D, in our original submission our discussion of the Swivel Chair Attack discusses attacks by +by a rotating human attacker in depth and mentions the possibility of a fully mechanized attack robot. However, our +initial submission did not go into detail on the constraints of such a fully mechanized attack. In our revised paper we +have completed our discussion in this section with one half page of new content and one new diagram discussing +fully mechanized attack robots. + +\paragraph{Comparison of IHSM attacks to those on traditional HSMs} + +In addition to the previous point, Reviewer~D pointed out that the discussion of attacks on IHSMs in our initial +submission would have benefited from a more thorough contextualization of the attacks possible on traditional HSMs. In +response, we have significantly extended Section~4 ``Attacks'' with one page of new content in two new Subsections~4.2 +``Attacks that don't work'' and~4.3 ``Attacks that work on any HSM'' that provide this missing context to guide the +reader. + +\paragraph{Notes on future work} +Reviewer~D stated that they would find an outlook on the next design steps towards a practically usable design +interesting. We have adressed this at the end of Section~7 ``Conclusion'' to the extent of our current plans. + +\paragraph{Design Artifact Availability} +Reviewer~D state that acceess to design artifacts would be useful for readers of the paper. While we cannot make our +design artifacts available as part of the peer review process as they contain a multitude of references to the +identities of the authors and their employer, we have added a brief appendix that in the publication version of our +paper will contain a link to the open-source repository containing all hardware, software and paper sources relating to +our research project. + +\paragraph{Detailed discussion of contactless attacks} + +Reviewer~C noted that like a traditional HSM an IHSM cannot prevent contactless attacks such as electromagnetic +sidechannel attacks or laser fault injection. While our initial submission acknowledged this property of our design, our +original submission did not provide a detailed discussion of its extent. In our revised paper, we have added a new +Section~4.2 ``Attacks that work on any HSM'' that provides more detail on contactless attacks. In this section we +observe that the IHSM design allows for some mitigations against contactless attacks due to the physically larger space +it can provide to its payload. + +\paragraph{Justification of mesh monitor power consumption estimates} + +A point noted by Reviewer~B is that in our initial submission we provided an estimate on the current consumption of an +IHSM monitoring cirucit without providing a detailed justification of our estimate. In response, we have extended +Section~5.3 ``Power transmission from Stator to rotor'' with a more detailed justification of this estimate. + +\end{document} -- cgit