A2: Analog Malicious Hardware [pdf]
Called it! It was No 7 on a low-ranked comment [1], the third option in link at bottom of another [2] for standard cells (knew they&#x27;d get messed with), and mentioned repeatedly on Schneier&#x27;s blog. Guy I learned risk from said he actively countered analog poisoning of 3rd party I.P. his company licensed. He said he was constantly finding it, mostly for I.P. obfuscation but sometimes more nefarious. Here&#x27;s one of his observations on subverting crypto processors with digital or analog additions:<p>&quot;Controlling bits like the Carry flag is essential to the security of all crypto algorithms (techniques like DPA and &quot;timing attacks&quot; try to discover this information by observing the operation of the CPU) if you have a hardware way to transfer just this ONE bit, than most crypto available todays is useless. &quot;<p>He kept pointing out, probably from experience, that you could just modify a bit here, an MMU there, or add RF circuit to bypass plenty of protections. Nobody would even notice analog additions because &quot;their digital tools can&#x27;t see it.&quot; It would take careful reverse engineering. Old risk already deployed into production re-invented in a neat, new paper with new technique.<p>Honestly, I originally got the subversion idea from the MULTICS Security Evaluation [3] [4]. Schell and Karger, <i>not Thompson</i>, should get credit for first attack like this as they introduced software that kept poking at a memory location until the MMU experienced an intermittent failure. They got in since software people assumed HW always worked. They also invented basis of &quot;Thompson Attack&quot; (see note below). So, I predicted HW trojans sitting on MMU, IOMMU, PCI, TRNG&#x27;s, and some other things using non-standard circuits that nonetheless preserve timing, etc. So, a few years ahead on this one.<p>Note: Karger and Schell also invented in same project the idea of subverting a PL&#x2F;I compiler to insert malicious code into stuff compiled with it, including the OS. Thompson read that and expanded on it with Trusting Trust. Now, Karger and Schell attack is called the &quot;Thompson Attack.&quot; Nah, the founders of INFOSEC thought of that one first, too. Take that Thompson fanboys! :P<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10906999" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10906999</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10468624" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10468624</a><p>[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.acsac.org&#x2F;2002&#x2F;papers&#x2F;classic-multics-orig.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.acsac.org&#x2F;2002&#x2F;papers&#x2F;classic-multics-orig.pdf</a><p>[4] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.acsac.org&#x2F;2002&#x2F;papers&#x2F;classic-multics.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.acsac.org&#x2F;2002&#x2F;papers&#x2F;classic-multics.pdf</a>