Andrew Huang's Blog, page 9

Name that Ware, December 2022

The Ware for December 2022 is shown below.

Turning this into a suitable Name that Ware-style entry was a bit tough, but I think maybe I hit a balance between leaving enough clues, and giving it away. We’ll see shortly!

I have a lot more to say about this ware: I will give proper attribution once the ware has been guessed (or the end of the month, whichever is sooner); but let’s just say I was incredibly pleased to find such detailed images in the public domain.

Winner, Name that Ware November 2022

The ware for November 2022 is a Keithley 2110-240. I’ll give Rodrigo F. the win, but I’m curious how he knew it was the -240 version; I did not expect someone to discern the line voltage rating from the photos!

Also, thank you Ian Mason for the lucid explanation of the exposed traces near key signals. Here’s his quoted answer, so you don’t have to look it up in the comment thread:

The reason for stripping resist from over guard rings [is] to ensure that any leakage paths come into electrical contact with the guard ring. If you had, say, a bit of flux residue as a leakage path, if it passed between two pins but over the solder mask then the guard ring would be insulated from it and would have no effect. The whole point of a guard ring is that it’s a (relatively) low impedance path either to ground or to a duplicate of the measured signal – being insulated behind soldermask is anything but low impedance.

It’s tricks like these they never teach you in school. I’m guessing it was a hard-learned lesson for the persons who had to figure out that trick on their own. Thanks for sharing the knowledge!

Towards a More Open Secure Element Chip

“Secure Element” (SE) chips have traditionally taken a very closed-source, NDA-heavy approach. Thus, it piqued my interest when an early-stage SE chip startup, Cramium (still in stealth mode), approached me to advise on open source strategy. This blog post explains my reasoning for agreeing to advise Cramium, and what I hope to accomplish in the future.

As an open source hardware activist, I have been very pleased at the progress made by the eFabless/Google partnership at creating an open-to-the-transistors physical design kit (PDK) for chips. This would be about as open as you can get from the design standpoint. However, the partnership currently supports only lower-complexity designs in the 90nm to 180nm technology nodes. Meanwhile, Cramium is planning to tape out their security chip in the 22nm node. A 22nm chip would be much more capable and cost-effective than one fabricated in 90nm (for reference, the RP2040 is fabricated in 40nm, while the Raspberry Pi 4’s CPU is fabricated in 28nm), but it would not be open-to-the-transistors.

Cramium indicated that they want to push the boundaries on what one can do with open source, within the four corners of the foundry NDAs. Ideally, a security chip would be fabricated in an open-PDK process, but I still feel it’s important to engage and help nudge them in the right direction because there is a genuine possibility that an open SDK (but still closed PDK) SE in a 22nm process could gain a lot of traction. If it’s not done right, it could establish poor de-facto standards, with lasting impacts on the open source ecosystem.

For example, when Cramium approached me, their original thought was to ship the chip with an ARM Cortex M7 CPU. Their reasoning is that developers prize a high-performance CPU, and the M7 is one of the best offerings in its class from that perspective. Who doesn’t love a processor with lots of MHz and a high IPC?

However, if Cramium’s chip were to gain traction and ship to millions of customers, it could effectively entrench the ARM instruction set — and more importantly — quirks such as the Memory Protection Unit (MPU) as the standard for open source SEs. We’ve seen the power of architectural lock-in as the x86 serially shredded the Alpha, Sparc, Itanium and MIPS architectures; so, I worry that every new market embracing ARM as a de-facto standard is also ground lost to fully open architectures such as RISC-V.

So, after some conversations, I accepted an advisory position at Cramium as the Ecosystem Engineer under the condition that they also include a RISC-V core on the chip. This is in addition to the Cortex M7. The good news is that a RISC-V core is royalty-free, and the silicon area necessary to add it at 22nm is basically a rounding error in cost, so it was a relatively easy sell. If I’m successful at integrating the RISC-V core, it will give software developers a choice between ARM and RISC-V.

So why is Cramium leaving the M7 core in? Quite frankly, it’s for risk mitigation. The project will cost upwards of $20 million to tape out. The ARM M7 core has been taped out and shipped in millions of products, and is supported by a billion-dollar company with deep silicon experience. The VexRiscv core that we’re planning to integrate, on the other hand, comes with no warranty of fitness, and it is not as performant as the Cortex M7. It’s just my word and sweat of brow that will ensure it hopefully works well enough to be usable. Thus, I find it understandable that the people writing the checks want a “plan B” that involves a battle-tested core, even if proprietary.

This will understandably ruffle the feathers of the open source purists who will only certify hardware as “Free” if and only if it contains solely libre components. I also sympathize with their position; however, our choices are either the open source community somehow provides a CPU core with a warranty of fitness, effectively underwriting a $20 million bill if there is a fatal bug in the core, or I walk away from the project for “not being libre enough”, and allow ARM to take the possibly soon-to-be-huge open source SE market without challenge.

In my view it’s better to compromise and have a seat at the table now, than to walk away from negotiations and simply cede green fields to proprietary technologies, hoping to retake lost ground only after the community has achieved consensus around a robust full-stack open source SE solution. So, instead of investing time arguing over politics before any work is done, I’m choosing to invest time building validation test suites. Once I have a solid suite of tests in hand, I’ll have a much stronger position to argue for the removal of any proprietary CPU cores.

On the Limit of Openness in a Proprietary Ecosystem

Advising on the CPU core is just one of many tasks ahead of me as their open source Ecosystem Engineer. Cramium’s background comes from the traditional chip world, where NDAs are the norm and open source is an exotic and potentially fatal novelty. Fatal, because most startups in this space exit through acquisition, and it’s much harder to negotiate a high acquisition price if prized IP is already available free-of-charge. Thus my goal is to not alienate their team with contumelious condescension about the obviousness and goodness of open source that is regrettably the cultural norm of our community. Instead, I am building bridges and reaching across the aisle, trying to understand their concerns, and explaining to them how and why open source can practically benefit a security chip.

To that end, trying to figure out where to draw the line for openness is a challenge. The crux of the situation is that the perceived fear/uncertainty/doubt (FUD) around a particular attack surface tends to have an inverse relation to the actual size of the attack surface. This illustrates the perceived FUD around a given layer of the security hierarchy:

Generally, the amount of FUD around an attack surface grows with how poorly understood the attack surface is: naturally we fear things we don’t understand well; likewise we have less fear of the familiar. Thus, “user error” doesn’t sound particularly scary, but “direct readout” with a focused ion beam of hardware security keys sounds downright leet and scary, the stuff of state actors and APTs, and also of factoids spouted over beers with peers to sound smart.

However, the actual size of the attack surface is quite the opposite:

In practice, “user error” – weak passwords, spearphishing, typosquatting, or straight-up fat fingering a poorly designed UX – is common and often remotely exploitable. Protocol errors – downgrade attacks, failures to check signatures, TOCTOUs – are likewise fairly common and remotely exploitable. Next in the order are just straight-up software bugs – buffer overruns, use after frees, and other logic bugs. Due to the sheer volume of code (and more significantly the rate of code turnover) involved in most security protocols, there are a lot of bugs, and a constant stream of newly minted bugs with each update.

Beneath this are the hardware bugs. These are logical errors in the implementation of a function of a piece of hardware, such as memory aliasing, open test access ports, and oversights such as partially mutable cryptographic material (such as an AES key that can’t be read out, but can be updated one byte at a time). Underneath logical hardware bugs are sidechannels – leakage of secret information through timing, power, and electromagnetic emissions that can occur even if the hardware is logically perfect. And finally, at the bottom layer is direct readout – someone with physical access to a chip directly inspecting its arrangement of atoms to read out secrets. While there is ultimately no defense against the direct readout of nonvolatile secrets short of zeroizing them on tamper detection, it’s an attack surface that is literally measured in microns and it requires unmitigated physical access to hardware – a far cry from the ubiquity of “user error” or even “software bugs”.

The current NDA-heavy status quo for SE chips creates an analytical barrier that prevents everyday users like us from determining how big the actual attack surface is. That analytical barrier actually extends slightly up the stack from hardware, into “software bugs”. This is because without intimate knowledge of how the hardware is supposed to function, there are important classes of software bugs we can’t analyze.

Furthermore, the inability of developers to freely write code and run it directly on SEs forces more functionality up into the protocol layer, creating an even larger attack surface.

My hope is that working with Cramium will improve this situation. In the end, we won’t be able to entirely remove all analytical barriers, but hopefully we arrive at something closer to this:

Due to various NDAs, we won’t be able to release things such as the mask geometries, and there are some blocks less relevant to security such as the ADC and USB PHY that are proprietary. However, the goal is to have the critical sections responsible for the security logic, such as the cryptographic accelerators, the RISC-V CPU core, and other related blocks shared as open source RTL descriptions. This will allow us to have improved, although not perfect, visibility into a significant class of hardware bugs.

The biggest red flag in the overall scenario is that the on-chip interconnect matrix is slated to be a core generated using the ARM NIC-400 IP generator, so this logic will not be available for inspection. The reasoning behind this is, once again, risk mitigation of the tapeout. This is unfortunate, but this also means we just need to be a bit more clever about how we structure the open source blocks so that we have a toolbox to guard against potential misbehavior in the interconnect matrix.

My personal goal is to create a fully OSS-friendly FPGA model of the RISC-V core and their cryptographic accelerators using the LiteX framework, so that researchers and analysts can use this to model the behavior of the SE and create a battery of tests and fuzzers to confirm the correctness of construction of the rest of the chip.

In addition to the work advising Cramium’s engagement with the open source community, I’m also starting to look into non-destructive optical inspection techniques to verify chips in earnest, thanks to a grant I received from NLNet’s NGI0 Entrust fund. More on this later, but it’s my hope that I can find a synergy between the work I’m doing at Cramium and my silicon verification work to help narrow the remaining gaps in the trust model, despite refractory foundry and IP NDAs.

Counterpoint: The Utility of Secrecy in Security

Secrecy has utility in security. After all, every SE vendor runs with this approach, and for example, we trust the security of nuclear stockpiles to hardware that is presumably entirely closed source.

Secrecy makes a lot of sense when:

Even a small delay in discovering a secret can be a matter of life or deathDistribution and access to hardware is already strictly controlledThe secrets would rather be deleted than discovered

Military applications check all these boxes. The additional days, weeks or months delay incurred by an adversary analyzing around some obfuscation can be a critical tactical advantage in a hot war. Furthermore, military hardware has controlled distribution; every mission-critical box can be serialized and tracked. Although systems are designed assuming serial number 1 is delivered to the Kremlin, great efforts are still taken to ensure that is not the case (or that a decoy unit is delivered), since even a small delay or confusion can yield a tactical advantage. And finally, in many cases for military hardware, one would rather have the device self-destruct and wipe all of its secrets, rather than have its secrets extracted. Building in booby traps that wipe secrets can measurably raise the bar for any adversary contemplating a direct-readout attack.

On the other hand, SEs like those found in bank cards and phones are:

Widely distributed – often directly and intentionally to potentially adversarial partiesProtecting data at rest (value of secret is constant or may even grow with time)Used as a trust root for complicated protocols that typically update over timeProtecting secrets where extraction is preferable to self-destruction. The legal system offers remedies for recourse and recovery of stolen assets; whereas self-destruction of the assets offers no recourse

In this case, the role of the anti-tamper countermeasures and side-channel minimization is to raise the investment necessary to recover data from “trivial” to somewhere around “there’s probably an easier and cheaper way to go about this…right?”. After all, for most complicated cryptosystems, the bigger risk is an algorithmic or protocol flaw that can be exploited without any circumvention of hardware countermeasures. If there is a protocol flaw, employing an SE to protect your data is like using a vault, but leaving the keys dangling on a hook next to the vault.

It is useful to contemplate who bears the greatest risk in the traditional SE model, where chips are typically distributed without any way to update their firmware. While an individual user may lose the contents of their bank account, a chip maker may bear a risk of many tens of millions of dollars in losses from recalls, replacement costs and legal damages if a flaw were traced to their design issue. In this game, the player with the most to lose is the chipmaker, not any individual user protected by the chip. Thus, a chipmaker has little incentive to disclose their design’s details.

A key difference between a traditional SE and Cramium’s is that Cramium’s firmware can be updated (assuming an updateable SKU is released; this was a surprisingly controversial suggestion when I brought it up). This is thanks in part to the extensive use of non-volatile ReRAM to store the firmware. This likewise shifts the calculus on what constitutes a recall event. The open source firmware model also means that the code on the device comes, per letter of the license, without warranty; the end customer is ultimately responsible for building, certifying and deploying their own applications. Thus, for a player like Cramium, the potential benefits of openness outweigh those of secrecy and obfuscation embraced by traditional SE vendors.

Summary

My role is to advise Cramium on how to shift the norms around SEs from NDAs to openness. Cramium is not attempting to forge an open-foundry model – they are producing parts using a relatively advanced (compared to your typical stand-alone SE) 22nm process. This process is protected by the highly restrictive foundry NDAs. However, Cramium plans to release much of their design under an open source license, to achieve the following goals:

Facilitate white-box inspection of cryptosystems implemented using their primitivesSpeed up discovery of errors; and perhaps more importantly, improve the rate at which they are patchedReduce the risk of protocol and algorithmic errors, so that hardware countermeasures could be the actual true path of least resistanceBuild trustPromote wide adoption and accelerate application development

Cramium is neither fully open hardware, nor is it fully closed. My goal is to steer it toward the more open side of the spectrum, but the reality is there are going to be elements that are too difficult to open source in the first generation of the chip.

The Cramium chip complements the eFabless/Google efforts to build open-to-the-transistors chips. Today, one can build chips that are open to the mask level using 90 – 180nm processes. Unfortunately, the level of integration achievable with their current technology isn’t quite sufficient for a single-chip Secure Element. There isn’t enough ROM or RAM available to hold the entire application stack on chip, thus requiring a multi-chip solution and negating the HSM-like benefits of custom silicon. The performance of older processes is also not sufficient for the latest cryptographic systems, such as Post Quantum algorithms or Multiparty Threshold ECDSA with Identifiable Aborts. On the upside, one could understand the design down to the transistor level using this process.

However, it’s important to remember that knowing the mask pattern does not mean you’ve solved the supply chain problem, and can trust the silicon in your hands. There are a lot of steps that silicon goes through to go from foundry to product, and at any of those steps the chip you thought you’re getting could be swapped out with a different one; this is particularly easy given the fact that all of the chips available through eFabless/Google’s process use a standardized package and pinout.

In the context of Cramium, I’m primarily concerned about the correctness of the RTL used to generate the chip, and the software that runs on it. Thus, my focus in guiding Cramium is to open sufficient portions of the design such that anyone can analyze the RTL for errors and weaknesses, and less on mitigating supply-chain level attacks.

That being said, RTL-level transparency can still benefit efforts to close the supply chain gap. A trivial example would be using the RTL to fuzz blocks with garbage in simulation; any differences in measured hardware behavior versus simulated behavior could point to extra or hidden logic pathways added to the design. Extra backdoor circuitry injected into the chip would also add loading to internal nodes, impacting timing closure. Thus, we could also do non-destructive, in-situ experiments such as overclocking functional blocks to the point where they fail; with the help of the RTL we can determine the expected critical path and compare it against the observed failure modes. Strong outliers could indicate tampering with the design. While analysis like this cannot guarantee the absence of foundry-injected backdoors, it constrains the things one could do without being detected. Thus, the availability of design source opens up new avenues for verifying correctness and trustability in a way that would be much more difficult, if not impossible, to do without design source.

Finally, by opening as much of the chip as possible to programmers and developers, I’m hoping that we can get the open source SE chip ecosystem off on the right foot. This way, as more advance nodes shift toward open PDKs, we’ll be ready and waiting to create a full-stack open source solution that adequately addresses all the security needs of our modern technology ecosystem.

Name that Ware November, 2022

The Ware for November 2022 is shown below.

A grounded guard ring is placed around some of the most sensitive analog traces; I would love it if someone could teach me why the soldermask is removed for these guard rings. I imagine there must be some motivation to retain this motif even into mass production, since the mask-less traces run between SMT pins, which I have to imagine incurs a potential yield impact, or at the very least it makes rework more challenging.

Also, yet another tamper-proof seal broken:

It was just a matter of time…such is the fate of any seal within my reach!

Winner, Name that Ware October 2022

The Ware for October 2022 is a Wavetek Model 21 signal generator. The winner is Marc! Congrats, email me for your prize!

Here’s some more photos of the system for context. It consists of a function generator (analog) board, and a digital control board, along with a third board (not shown) that manages the LCD and buttons.

Name that Ware, October 2022

The Ware for October 2022 is shown below.

I think there should be ample clues in the first picture to guess the ware, but I included a couple of close-ups of the circuits because I love it when circuit boards document their functions so clearly. You can basically read the schematic directly off the traces. I also enjoy the motif of “here’s a ROM but no microprocessor” (the ROM is the ceramic-packaged 2716 in the top right of the first photo, with the label covering the UV erase window). ROM-based sequencers/FSMs and lookup tables were fairly common for this vintage, but these days most designs use ROMs exclusively to store code that is accessed by a CPU.

Winner, Name that Ware September 2022

The Ware for September 2022 is a Kenwood ProTalk TK-3300 2 watt 450-470 MHz two-way radio, and thanks again to jackw01 for contributing the photos. Gratz to TRM for totally smashing this one, email me for your prize. Unfortunately since the ware is contributed I don’t have the original PCB to take a better photo of the SMA connector. That being said, I do have an additional image of the die-cast metal housing that the board was mounted in:

I think the “shroud” is actually the connector screwed into that metal housing. In order to photograph the PCB separately, it looks like Jack had to desolder the connector and leave the SMA connector in the housing. I agree with Barnaby’s assessment that there was a concern about reinforcing the connector, since the whip antenna is basically an excellent torque arm for forcibly removing such connectors from the PCB.

Name that Ware, September 2022

The Ware for September 2022 is shown below.

I like the extra effort that went into the mounting of the elements on the right hand side of the lower photo. There’s a lot of cheaper ways this could have been done that involve some compromises, but this is probably one of the more robust yet repairable ways to do it that might also shave a couple mm off the final product’s thickness at the same time.

Thanks again to jackw01 for contributing these wonderfully photographed wares!

Winner, Name that Ware August 2022

The Ware for August 2022 is the optical trackball sensor from a Logitech M570 trackball mouse, which has a 30×30 pixel optical flow sensor and infrared LED in a ~8mm square package. The principle of operation is the same as an optical mouse. Congrats to Wouter for guessing it! email me for your prize.

Book Review: Open Circuits

There’s a profound beauty in well-crafted electronics.

Somehow, the laws of physics conspired with the evolution of human consciousness such that sound engineering solutions are also aesthetically appealing: from the ideal solder fillet, to the neat geometric arrangements of components on a circuit board, to the billowing clouds of standard cells laid down by the latest IC place-and-route tools, aesthetics both inspire and emerge from the construction of practical, everyday electronics.

Eric Schlaepfer (@TubeTimeUS) and Windell Oskay (co-founder of Evil Mad Scientist)’s latest book, Open Circuits, is a celebration of the electronic aesthetic, by literally opening circuits with mechanical cross-sections, accompanied by pithy explanations and illustrations. Their masterfully executed cross-sectioning process and meticulous photography blur the line between engineering and art, reminding us that any engineering task executed with soul and care results in something that can inspire feelings of awe (“wow!”) and reflection (“huh.”): that is art.

The pages of Open Circuits contain ample inspiration for both novices and grizzled veterans alike. Having been in electronics for four decades, I sometimes worry I’m becoming numb and cynical as I watch the world’s landfills brim with cheap electronics, built without care and purchased (and disposed of) with even less thought. However, as I thumb through the pages of Open Circuits, that excitement, that awe which I felt as a youth when I traced my fingers along the outlines of the resistors and capacitors of my first computer returns to me. Schlaepfer and Oskay render even the most mundane artifacts, such as the ceramic disc capacitor, in splendid detail – and in ways I’ve never seen before. Prior to now, I had no intuition for the dimensions of an actual capacitor’s dielectric material. I also didn’t realize that every thick film resistor bears the marks of lasers that trim it to its final value. Or just seeing the cross-section of a coaxial cable, as joined through a connector – all of a sudden, the telegrapher’s equations and the time domain reflectometry graphs take on a new and very tangible meaning to me. Ah, I think, so that’s the bump in the TDR graph at the connector interface!

Also breathtaking is the sheer scope of components addressed by Schlaepfer and Oskay. Nothing is too retro, nothing is too modern, nothing is too delicate: if you’ve ever wanted to see a vacuum tube cut in half, they managed to somehow slice straight through it without shattering the thin glass envelope; likewise, if you ever wondered what your smartphone motherboard might look like, they’ve gone and sliced clear through that as well.

One of my favorite tricks of the authors is when they slice through optoelectronic devices: somehow, they manage to cut through multiple LEDs and leave them in an operable state, leading to stunning images such as a 7-segment LED still displaying the number “5” yet revealed in cross-section. I really appreciate the effort that went into mounting that part onto a beautifully fabricated and polished (perhaps varnished?) copper-clad circuit board, so that not only are you treated to the spectacle of the still-functional cross sectioned device, you have the reflection of the device rippling off of a handsomely brushed copper surface. Like I said: any engineering executed with soul and care is also art.

In a true class act, Schlaepfer and Oskay conclude the book with an “Afterward” that shares the secrets of their cross-sectioning and photography techniques. Adhering to the principle of openness, this meta-chapter breaks down the fourth wall and gives you a peek into their atelier, showing you the tools and techniques used to generate the images within the book. Such sharing of hard-earned knowledge is a hallmark of true masters; while lesser authors would withold such trade secrets, fearing others may rise to compete with them, Schlaepfer and Oskay gain an even deeper respect from their fans by disclosing the effort and craft that went into creating the book. Sharing also plants the seeds for a broader community of circuit-openers, preserving the knowledge and techniques for new generations of electronics aficionados.

Even if you’re not a “hardware person”, or even if you’re “not into tech”, the images in Open Circuits are so captivating that they may just tempt you to learn a bit more about it. Or, perhaps more importantly, a wayward young mind may be influenced to realize that hardware isn’t scary: it’s okay to peel back the covers and discover that the fruits of engineering are not merely functional, but also deeply aesthetic as well. I know that a younger version of me would have carried a copy of this book everywhere I went, poring over its pages at every chance.

While I was only able to review an early access electronic copy of their book, I am excited to get the full-color, hard-cover edition of the book. Having published a couple books with No Starch Press myself, I know the passion with which its founder, Bill Pollock, conducts his trade. He does not scrimp on materials: for The Hardware Hacker, he sprung on silver ink for the endsheets and clear UV spot inks for the cover – extra costs that came out of his bottom line, but made the hardcover edition look and feel great. So, I’m excited to see these wonderful images rendered faithfully onto the pages of a coffee-table companion book that I will be proud to showcase for years to come.

If you’re also turned on to Open Circuits, pre-order it on No Starch Press’ website, with the discount code “BUNNIESTUDIOS25”, to receive 25% off (no affiliate code or trackback in that link – 100% goes to No Starch and the authors). The code expires Tuesday, October 4. Pre-orders will also receive exclusive phone and desktop wallpaper images that are not in the book!