Ender, Maik, Leander, Gregor, Moradi, Amir, Paar, Christof.
2022.
A Cautionary Note on Protecting Xilinx’ UltraScale(+) Bitstream Encryption and Authentication Engine. 2022 IEEE 30th Annual International Symposium on Field-Programmable Custom Computing Machines (FCCM). :1–9.
FPGA bitstream protection schemes are often the first line of defense for secure hardware designs. In general, breaking the bitstream encryption would enable attackers to subvert the confidentiality and infringe on the IP. Or breaking the authenticity enables manipulating the design, e.g., inserting hardware Trojans. Since FPGAs see widespread use in our interconnected world, such attacks can lead to severe damages, including physical harm. Recently we [1] presented a surprising attack — Starbleed — on Xilinx 7-Series FPGAs, tricking an FPGA into acting as a decryption oracle. For their UltraScale(+) series, Xilinx independently upgraded the security features to AES-GCM, RSA signatures, and a periodic GHASH-based checksum to validate the bitstream during decryption. Hence, UltraScale(+) devices were considered not affected by Starbleed-like attacks [2], [1].We identified novel security weaknesses in Xilinx UltraScale(+) FPGAs if configured outside recommended settings. In particular, we present four attacks in this situation: two attacks on the AES encryption and novel GHASH-based checksum and two authentication downgrade attacks. As a major contribution, we show that the Starbleed attack is still possible within the UltraScale(+) series by developing an attack against the GHASH-based checksum. After describing and analyzing the attacks, we list the subtle configuration changes which can lead to security vulnerabilities and secure configurations not affected by our attacks. As Xilinx only recommends configurations not affected by our attacks, users should be largely secure. However, it is not unlikely that users employ settings outside the recommendations, given the rather large number of configuration options and the fact that Security Misconfiguration is among the leading top 10 OWASP security issues. We note that these security weaknesses shown in this paper had been unknown before.
Engels, Susanne, Schellenberg, Falk, Paar, Christof.
2020.
SPFA: SFA on Multiple Persistent Faults. 2020 Workshop on Fault Detection and Tolerance in Cryptography (FDTC). :49–56.
For classical fault analysis, a transient fault is required to be injected during runtime, e.g., only at a specific round. Instead, Persistent Fault Analysis (PFA) introduces a powerful class of fault attacks that allows for a fault to be present throughout the whole execution. One limitation of original PFA as introduced by Zhang et al. at CHES'18 is that the adversary needs know (or brute-force) the faulty values prior to the analysis. While this was addressed at a follow-up work at CHES'20, the solution is only applicable to a single faulty value. Instead, we use the potency of Statistical Fault Analysis (SFA) in the persistent fault setting, presenting Statistical Persistent Fault Analysis (SPFA) as a more general approach of PFA. As a result, any or even a multitude of unknown faults that cause an exploitable bias in the targeted round can be used to recover the cipher's secret key. Indeed, the undesired faults in the other rounds that occur due the persistent nature of the attack converge to a uniform distribution as required by SFA. We verify the effectiveness of our attack against LED and AES.