News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:NSA Technical Report on UEFI Secure Boot Customization [pdf] by HelloNurse on Thursday September 24, 2020 @06:04AM (#24577033)
Decapping doesn't count as a "basic hardware attack".
Re:NSA Technical Report on UEFI Secure Boot Customization [pdf] by nextgens on Thursday September 24, 2020 @06:11AM (#24577075)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIPS_140-2#Level_2

It definitely does when there is no attempt made at protecting against it. L2 means "tamper evidence", you need L3 for things to start to be designed to prevent it from being "basic".

SGX is L3, you'll be hard pressed to find a TPM that does better than L2.

Phrasing it another way: Even if you don't have the skills/equipment to do it. How much do you think it costs to get someone to do it for you? How reproducible is that process? Why are we assuming it's hard?

Re:NSA Technical Report on UEFI Secure Boot Customization [pdf] by R0b0t1 on Thursday September 24, 2020 @12:01PM (#24579949)
I'm pretty sure their benchmark for hard is needing to take the device apart and do surgery on it. To me, that is what I would qualify as hard despite knowing how to do it, it's hard by way of being annoying.

Yes, I'd like more security, but it's not bad.

Re:NSA Technical Report on UEFI Secure Boot Customization [pdf] by m0zg on Thursday September 24, 2020 @06:09AM (#24577063)
For the NSA it does. :-)
Re:NSA Technical Report on UEFI Secure Boot Customization [pdf] by Avamander on Thursday September 24, 2020 @06:38AM (#24577205)
If the NSA is in your threat model, you've lost the game.
Re:NSA Technical Report on UEFI Secure Boot Customization [pdf] by wolfgke on Thursday September 24, 2020 @08:08AM (#24577781)
> If the NSA is in your threat model, you've lost the game.

For example for cryptographic primitives, if you didn't include the NSA in your threat model, you did something deeply wrong in your modelling.

Re:NSA Technical Report on UEFI Secure Boot Customization [pdf] by jonathanstrange on Thursday September 24, 2020 @09:38AM (#24578484)
However, regarding cryptography, the NSA's cryptographic expertise and resources are secret, so it's very hard to include them in a threat model.

They could know more than civilian cryptographers, have new direct attacks that we don't know yet, e.g. algebraic attacks and specialized hardware to solve gigantic systems of equations. Or, they could have a working quantum computer with many qbits. We don't know, do we?

Re:NSA Technical Report on UEFI Secure Boot Customization [pdf] by wolfgke on Thursday September 24, 2020 @09:51AM (#24578580)
> However, regarding cryptography, the NSA's cryptographic expertise and resources are secret, so it's very hard to include them in a threat model.

Sometimes information leaks (most well-known example are the leaks of Snowden) or hints come up.

One example: https://theintercept.com/2017/05/11/nyu-accidentally-exposed...

A (German) commentary on this article: http://blog.fefe.de/?ts=a73ff836

Re:NSA Technical Report on UEFI Secure Boot Customization [pdf] by motohagiography on Thursday September 24, 2020 @03:22PM (#24582481)
My threat models for my clients use a state sponsored APT, and generic SIGINT and HUMINT agencies all the time. The idea being that SIG agency does passive interception and traffic analysis, where the HUM agency does targeted collection, and the APT is opportunistic zero day.

It's not just the NSA, it's literally everyone else as a class of threat they might need to consider. Also, I use opposition researchers as threats for politically exposed people, and who cross over into foreign spy level stuff.

The controls it prescribes are straightforward, and realistically, it's a risk you just understand, do your best to mitigate it, and accept.If you are going to not do business because you are afraid of state level consequences, you've got a legal/regulatory problem, and not a technical one.

Re:NSA Technical Report on UEFI Secure Boot Customization [pdf] by dfox on Thursday September 24, 2020 @01:45PM (#24581282)
That leak says something about the resources, not the expertise. For example both the NSA and almost every NATO equivalent of it tends to design cryptographic primitives with openly documented “weird” interfaces (key checksums, self-synchronizing remarkably slow stream ciphers...) and probably nobody outside of these agencies really knows why.