Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Find Way To Zap RSA Algorithm
alphadogg writes "Three University of Michigan computer scientists say they have found a way to exploit a weakness in RSA security technology used to protect everything from media players to smartphones and e-commerce servers. RSA authentication is susceptible, they say, to changes in the voltage supply to a private key holder. While guessing the 1,000-plus digits of binary code in a private key would take unfathomable hours, the researchers say that by varying electric current to a secured computer using an inexpensive purpose-built device they were able to stress out the computer and figure out the 1,024-bit private key in about 100 hours – all without leaving a trace. The researchers in their paper outline how they made the attack (PDF) on a SPARC system running Linux."
In what kind of scenario would you have access to the PSU of the server you attacked? Private key servers should not be directly accessible after all.
In what kind of scenario would you have access to the PSU of the server you attacked?
E.g. Hosted data center
Probably much more threatening(though, frankly, that pleases me) to DRMed embedded systems and similar gear that is supposed to be "secure" vs. its immediate environment; but is also in the hands of the public in huge quantities.
Yeah, if I can break into your datacenter and clamp some crazy widget onto the (presumably multiple) lines supplying your server's PSUs, a clever voltage attack is not the biggest of your problems.
If, on the other hand, you can guess the private crypto keys out of a DRMed PMP just by clipping a 15 dollar device from some shady mod-chip vendor to the recharging port and waiting a few days, heads will roll. There are a lot of devices these days that are designed to keep keys secret from the owners of the hardware. Particularly for common ones, voltage attack devices might well become fairly common advanced hobbyist and/or grey market items...
DRM, smart-cards, cable/tv access boxes, media players, stolen laptops, etc
Probably not e-commerce servers exactly, but you never know depending on the physical security of your datacenter. And with DRM, of course, the purpose is to lock you out of equipment to which you have physical access.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
but seriously people who figure these things out and make them work... i question their sanity, brilliant but you have to be a mad scientist to achieve these things
You're in the wrong place, and your attitude sucks. Consider yourself lucky to live in a world with people who are this driven by their curiosity.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
If someone has physical access to your machine, then you have already lost.
Im a gamer, not a grammer major. This post is full of spelling and grammer mistakes.
When the 'server' is a chip on a smart card and the 'PSU' is your POS terminal.
...due to flaws in the implementation, not the algorithm.
The "flaw in implementation" in most cases being the relatively common "flaw" of being implemented in real-world hardware, where it has to consume power, utilize moving electrical current, obey the laws of physics, etc, rather than existing only on paper where such "flaws" can be avoided.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Depends on what the DRM is trying to protect. Music players, video players for downloadable content, and basically anything where the content isn't tied to a physical object like a game disc will need a private key of some kind to encrypt the data on their volatile storage. While most of this will probably be done using symmetric encryption, you still need some way for the server that hands out the content to prove that it is a real device and not an emulated device, and that's normally done with a locally stored private key.
This is moderated flamebait... I’m not sure why. I read the entire thing in a congratulatory tone.
I guess some people think being called “sick” is an insult...
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
It's an implementation on specific hardware that was broken. Not the first time, nor the last. If the *algorithm* would have been broken, now *that* would have been news!
Ubi dubium ibi libertas: Where there is doubt, there is freedom.
Kinda reminds me of the TrueCrypt attack that made a splash a couple of years ago in which the attacker can compromise an encrypted partition by obtaining possession of the host hardware right after a power-down, getting inside the chassis and spraying down the RAM DIMMS with an inverted can of air so as to cool them down to slow the entropy of the down-powered chips; the attacker then has to create and analyze the leftover ram images with his own hardware and pull the encryption key out of that mess. As the Mythbusters would say: plausible? Yes. Practical? not really. I guess if you think you're in possession of some pretty valuable data you'll go to lengths.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Rubber hose.
To the back of the thigh.
10 seconds.
100 pesos.
Since when did slashvertisments start to include BDSM offers?
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
"the researchers say that by varying electric current to a secured computer"...
Um, if they have physical access to the computer (in order to monkey with the power), why would it be considered secure?
Um, if they have physical access to the computer (in order to monkey with the power), why would it be considered secure?
This vulnerability is dangerous in the case when the same key is being used in many devices. Cracking one means you've cracked them all. This is a fairly common situation in consumer devices. See the HD-DVD player keys, or the TI graphing calculator signing keys.
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
What, you don't think "Look out! That reaction containment vessel is about to fail!" is a valid sentence?
Fail is totally a verb. Adjective status in standard English is a bit more questionable, though.