Controversial Security Paper Nixed From Black Hat

coondoggie writes us with a link to the Network World site, as he tends to do. Today he offers an article discussing the cancellation of a presentation which would have undermined chip-based security on PCs. Scheduled during the Black Hat USA 2007 event, the event's briefing promised to break the Trusted Computing Group's module, as well as Vista's Bitlocker. Live demos were to be included. The presenters pulled the event, and have no interest in discussing the subject any more. "[Presenters Nitin and Vipin Kumar's] promised exploit would be a chink in the armor of hardware-based system integrity that [trusted platform module] (TPM) is designed to ensure. TPM is also a key component of Trusted Computing Group's architecture for network access control (NAC). TPM would create a unique value or hash of all the steps of a computer's boot sequence that would represent the particular state of that machine, according to Steve Hanna, co-chair of TCG's NAC effort."

Comments

How could a presentation "undermine" security?

[benhocking]

If the chip is secure, then no mere presentation can undermine its security. If it's not secure, then there's no security to undermine. Don't shoot the messenger.

Re:How could a presentation "undermine" security?

[BunnyClaws]

Agreed. Another possibility is that one of them discovered a flaw with their method. Eleventh-hour bugs right before demos are the most evil ones of all.

Ding! Ding! Ding! This more than likely is the case. What is more likely to happen? These guys getting silenced and quietly removing their presentation or these guys figuring out they were wrong and quietly removing their presentation. If there was a threat from the company there would have been a leak about the reason for pulling the plug on the presentation. More than likely the presenter discovered a flaw and quietly pulled the plug.

Re:How could a presentation "undermine" security?

[Overzeetop]

How about -$100,000 and possible jail time? Not an unusual price for a criminal investigation, say, for a DMCA violation. These guys really do play hardball, and if you're lawyer agrees with their lawyers, you'd have to have quite a set to go to a public forum where the authorities are waiting for you to finish your talk so they can take you downtown, along with your presentation as proof to turn over to the DA.

Not saying it's right...but there are both carrots and sticks, and I have no doubt they are both used.

Now crackers will have an advantage...

[denis-The-menace]

Now crackers will have an advantage and the rest of us will be blind-sided.

I don't like the whole [trusted platform module] (TPM) because we consumers are are not trusted in the whole scheme.

But for the few us techies that get this P.O.S. "security" system foisted upon them by their clueless/soldout management, wouldn't be nice to be able to explain why the hacker(s) got through the night before?

Conspiracy shmiracy

[packetmon]

Yanked why? ... Maybe because security experts have already exposed *stolen/old/re-hashed concepts* and they didn't want to be embarrassed...

DMCA anyone?

[TheSciBoy]

My guess is that they could not go to the US from fear of being arrested for breaking the DMCA/some other law. I for sure wouldn't go to the US under any circumstances with information on how to defeat any kind of security.

Security by obscurity still seems to be the mantra.

Re:Reason for pull?

[PoliTech]

As for why they cancelled the presentation, last year Cisco sued Black Hat conference organizers after a security researcher demonstrated a method for running unauthorized code on a Cisco router. That, or there was a deal made.

My question is why would anyone place their information security "Trust" in MS BitLocker, or Indochinese hardware (TPM chips) that likely already contain built in backdoors for John Law, and corporate drones?

Open Source Full disk encryption is fast and free, open source Firewalls and process restricting software are available for those who just can't resist getting infected with the latest malware. Most Open Source security software developers are likely NOT under the control of Big Brother in any form, be it corporate drones or big government fascists.

So while I'm a little disappointed that the Back Hatters decided to forgo the presentation of cracking TPM, since it was never trustworthy or secure to start with, and since anyone serious about security would never use such a faux security scheme at the outset, cracking TPM and "Trusted Computing" was only a curiosity anyway.

The "Trusted Computing Initiative" is simply a way to provide vendors "Plausible Deniability" and to limit liability for allowing exposed data, nothing more.

Re:Reason for pull?

[WED Fan]

Or, perhaps, like in science, they discovered a flaw in their own methodology that rendered the presentation pointless. It does happen. How many times has someone yelled eureka, only to have some genius say, "Uh, Bob, you still have the machine plugged into the grid, it's not under its own power"?

Re:Reason for pull?

[computational super]

As for why they cancelled the presentation, last year Cisco sued Black Hat conference organizers after a security researcher demonstrated a method for running unauthorized code on a Cisco router.

And still there are people, even here on Slashdot, who insist that anonymous speech is not a precondition for free speech.

Vendors want TPM, not consumers.

[fahrbot-bot]

Remember: TPM is there so the vendors can trust the PC, not the consumers (hardware owners) - who are, as far as the vendors are concerned, untrustworthy...