News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Intel SGX Fuse Key0, a.k.a. Root Provisioning Key Was Extracted by Researchers.

Re:Intel SGX Fuse Key0, a.k.a. Root Provisioning Key Was Ext... by motohagiography on Monday August 26, 2024 @08:57PM (#41363688)
the failure mode of having a single provisioning key instead of limited batch keys derived from ones in an HSM creates the incentive where this is inevitable.

if one key gets you all chips, then someone is going to get that because the payout is total dominion. I've seen this trade off in similar protocols, and every time it's like "thanks for the advice, we're going to go with just the one, it's easier." There is one OEM/protocol I suspect actually uses diversified batch keys as their root provisioning secret, and really it's the way to go if you do business globally now.

What's more interesting is what the consequences will be, as if there are none (it's not like the stock will hurt) then the market is saying crypto can be sabotaged with impunity.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Intel SGX Fuse Key0, a.k.a. Root Provisioning Key Was Ext... by anonymousDan on Monday August 26, 2024 @09:58PM (#41363970)
Is there a trade-off wrt attestation privacy here - i.e. using a single root key is better for privacy?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Intel SGX Fuse Key0, a.k.a. Root Provisioning Key Was Ext... by hedora on Monday August 26, 2024 @10:43PM (#41364164)
Ideally, at least for headless server hardware, if you have physical access, you could wipe the provisioning key and replace it with your own.

Doing so should blow away the disk keys, etc.

I’ve always assumed systems that relied on a key and didn’t support that were backdoored.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Intel SGX Fuse Key0, a.k.a. Root Provisioning Key Was Ext... by fragmede on Tuesday August 27, 2024 @12:05AM (#41364478)
Which systems support that?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Intel SGX Fuse Key0, a.k.a. Root Provisioning Key Was Ext... by motohagiography on Tuesday August 27, 2024 @05:55PM (#41373544)
with batch sizes in the millions less so, but agreed it's still a differentiating attribute. I would solve that higher up in the protocols that used it, as the initialization keys shouldn't be related to post-provisioning keys in a way that is verifiable to anyone except the OEM, again arguable, but it's a higher level protocol question imo.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Intel SGX Fuse Key0, a.k.a. Root Provisioning Key Was Ext... by paulmd on Tuesday August 27, 2024 @06:22AM (#41366001)
> There is one OEM/protocol I suspect actually uses diversified batch keys as their root provisioning secret, and really it's the way to go if you do business globally now.

seems like apple, since it’s actually an important factor to them and not just to third parties?

[ Parent | on HN ]