[PATCH v8 3/4] doc: trusted-encrypted: updates with TEE as a new trust source
gmail Elaine Palmer
erpalmerny at gmail.com
Wed Dec 2 14:34:07 EST 2020
Hi Sumit,
Thank you for the detailed descriptions and examples of trust sources for Trusted Keys. A group of us in IBM (Stefan Berger, Ken Goldman, Zhongshu Gu, Nayna Jain, Elaine Palmer, George Wilson, Mimi Zohar) have been doing related work for quite some time, and we have one primary concern and some suggested changes to the document.
Our primary concern is that describing a TEE as a Trust Source needs to be more specific. For example, "ARM TrustZone" is not sufficient, but "wolfSSL embedded SSL/TLS library with ARM TrustZone CryptoCell-310" is. Just because a key is protected by software running in a TEE is not enough to establish trust. Just like cryptographic modules, a Trust Source should be defined as a specific implementation on specific hardware with well-documented environmental assumptions, dependencies, and threats.
In addition to the above concern, our suggested changes are inline below.
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg at linaro.org>
> Subject: [PATCH v8 3/4] doc: trusted-encrypted: updates with TEE as a new trust source
> Date: November 3, 2020 at 11:01:45 AM EST
> To: jarkko.sakkinen at linux.intel.com, zohar at linux.ibm.com, jejb at linux.ibm.com
> Cc: dhowells at redhat.com, jens.wiklander at linaro.org, corbet at lwn.net, jmorris at namei.org, serge at hallyn.com, casey at schaufler-ca.com, janne.karhunen at gmail.com, daniel.thompson at linaro.org, Markus.Wamser at mixed-mode.de, lhinds at redhat.com, keyrings at vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity at vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module at vger.kernel.org, linux-doc at vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org, op-tee at lists.trustedfirmware.org, Sumit Garg <sumit.garg at linaro.org>
>
> Update documentation for Trusted and Encrypted Keys with TEE as a new
> trust source. Following is brief description of updates:
>
> - Add a section to demostrate a list of supported devices along with
> their security properties/guarantees.
> - Add a key generation section.
> - Updates for usage section including differences specific to a trust
> source.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg at linaro.org>
> Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen at linux.intel.com>
> ---
> Documentation/security/keys/trusted-encrypted.rst | 203 ++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 171 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/security/keys/trusted-encrypted.rst b/Documentation/security/keys/trusted-encrypted.rst
> index 1da879a..16042c8 100644
> --- a/Documentation/security/keys/trusted-encrypted.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/security/keys/trusted-encrypted.rst
> @@ -6,30 +6,161 @@ Trusted and Encrypted Keys are two new key types added to the existing kernel
> key ring service. Both of these new types are variable length symmetric keys,
> and in both cases all keys are created in the kernel, and user space sees,
> stores, and loads only encrypted blobs. Trusted Keys require the availability
> -of a Trusted Platform Module (TPM) chip for greater security, while Encrypted
> -Keys can be used on any system. All user level blobs, are displayed and loaded
> -in hex ascii for convenience, and are integrity verified.
> +of a Trust Source for greater security, while Encrypted Keys can be used on any
> +system. All user level blobs, are displayed and loaded in hex ascii for
> +convenience, and are integrity verified.
>
> -Trusted Keys use a TPM both to generate and to seal the keys. Keys are sealed
> -under a 2048 bit RSA key in the TPM, and optionally sealed to specified PCR
> -(integrity measurement) values, and only unsealed by the TPM, if PCRs and blob
> -integrity verifications match. A loaded Trusted Key can be updated with new
> -(future) PCR values, so keys are easily migrated to new pcr values, such as
> -when the kernel and initramfs are updated. The same key can have many saved
> -blobs under different PCR values, so multiple boots are easily supported.
>
> -TPM 1.2
> --------
> +Trust Source
> +============
>
> -By default, trusted keys are sealed under the SRK, which has the default
> -authorization value (20 zeros). This can be set at takeownership time with the
> -trouser's utility: "tpm_takeownership -u -z".
> +Trust Source provides the source of security for the Trusted Keys, on which
> +basis Trusted Keys establishes a Trust model with its user. A Trust Source could
> +differ from one system to another depending on its security requirements. It
> +could be either an off-chip device or an on-chip device. Following section
> +demostrates a list of supported devices along with their security properties/
> +guarantees:
Please change the following
"Trust Source provides the source of security for the Trusted Keys, on which basis Trusted Keys establishes a Trust model with its user."
to
"A trust source provides the source of security for the Trusted Keys. Whether or not a trust source is sufficiently safe depends on the strength and correctness of its implementation, as well as the threat environment for a specific use case. Since the kernel doesn't know what the environment is, and there is no metric of trust, it is dependent on the consumer of the Trusted Keys to determine if the trust source is sufficiently safe."
>
> -TPM 2.0
> --------
> + * Root of trust for storage
>
> -The user must first create a storage key and make it persistent, so the key is
> -available after reboot. This can be done using the following commands.
> + (1) TPM (Trusted Platform Module: hardware device)
> +
> + Rooted to Storage Root Key (SRK) which never leaves the TPM that
> + provides crypto operation to establish root of trust for storage.
> +
> + (2) TEE (Trusted Execution Environment: OP-TEE based on Arm TrustZone)
> +
> + Rooted to Hardware Unique Key (HUK) which is generally burnt in on-chip
> + fuses and is accessible to TEE only.
> +
> + * Execution isolation
> +
> + (1) TPM
> +
> + Fixed set of operations running in isolated execution environment.
> +
> + (2) TEE
> +
> + Customizable set of operations running in isolated execution
> + environment verified via Secure/Trusted boot process.
> +
> + * Optional binding to platform integrity state
> +
> + (1) TPM
> +
> + Keys can be optionally sealed to specified PCR (integrity measurement)
> + values, and only unsealed by the TPM, if PCRs and blob integrity
> + verifications match. A loaded Trusted Key can be updated with new
> + (future) PCR values, so keys are easily migrated to new PCR values,
> + such as when the kernel and initramfs are updated. The same key can
> + have many saved blobs under different PCR values, so multiple boots are
> + easily supported.
> +
> + (2) TEE
> +
> + Relies on Secure/Trusted boot process for platform integrity. It can
> + be extended with TEE based measured boot process.
> +
> + * On-chip versus off-chip
> +
> + (1) TPM
> +
> + Off-chip device connected via serial bus (like I2C, SPI etc.) exposing
> + physical access which represents an attack surface that can be
> + mitigated via tamper detection.
> +
> + (2) TEE
> +
> + On-chip functionality, immune to this attack surface.
> +
> + * Memory attacks (DRAM based like attaching a bus monitor etc.)
> +
> + (1) TPM
> +
> + Immune to these attacks as it doesn’t make use of system DRAM.
> +
> + (2) TEE
> +
> + An implementation based on TrustZone protected DRAM is susceptible to
> + such attacks. In order to mitigate these attacks one needs to rely on
> + on-chip secure RAM to store secrets or have the entire TEE
> + implementation based on on-chip secure RAM. An alternative mitigation
> + would be to use encrypted DRAM.
> +
> + * Side-channel attacks (cache, memory, CPU or time based)
> +
> + (1) TPM
> +
> + Immune to side-channel attacks as its resources are isolated from the
> + main OS.
> +
> + (2) TEE
> +
> + A careful implementation is required to mitigate against these attacks
> + for resources which are shared (eg. shared memory) with the main OS.
> + Cache and CPU based side-channel attacks can be mitigated via
> + invalidating caches and CPU registers during context switch to and from
> + the secure world.
> + To mitigate against time based attacks, one needs to have time
> + invariant implementations (like crypto algorithms etc.).
> +
> + * Resistance to physical attacks (power analysis, electromagnetic emanation,
> + probes etc.)
> +
> + (1) TPM
> +
> + Provides limited protection utilizing tamper resistance.
> +
> + (2) TEE
> +
> + Provides no protection by itself, relies on the underlying platform for
> + features such as tamper resistance.
> +
> +
please add the following:
* Provisioning - the trust source's unique and verifiable cryptographic identity is provisioned during manufacturing
(1) TPM
The unique and verifiable cryptographic identity is the endorsement key (EK) or its primary seed. A review of the generation of the EK and its accompanying certificate is part of the Common Criteria evaluation of the product's lifecycle processes (ALC_*). See "TCG Protection Profile for PC Client Specific TPM 2" (https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/resource/pc-client-protection-profile-for-tpm-2-0/).
(2) TEE
A protection profile for TEEs does not yet exist. Therefore, the provisioning process that generates the Hardware Unique Key is not evaluated by an independent third party and is highly dependent on the manufacturing environment.
* Cryptography
(1) TPM
As part of the TPM's mandatory Common Criteria evaluation, the correctness of the TPM's implementation of cryptographic algorithms, the protection of keys, and the generation of random numbers, and other security-relevant functions must be documented, reviewed, and tested by an independent third party evaluation agency. It must meet the requirements of FIPS 140-2, FIPS 140-3, or ISO/IEC 19790:2012.
(2) TEE
Evaluations of cryptographic modules within TEEs are not required, but some are available for specific implementations within TEEs.
* Interfaces and APIs
(1) TPMs have well-documented, standardized interfaces and APIs.
(2) Unless they implement functionality such as a virtual TPM, TEEs have custom interfaces and APIs.
* Threat model
The strength and appropriateness of TPMs and TEEs for a given purpose must be assessed when using them to protect security-relevant data.
We suggest documenting environmental assumptions and dependencies in a high-level threat model for each additional trust source. Just as each new LSM needs to comply with Documentation/security/lsm-development.rst, each new Trusted Key source should provide a high-level threat model. An example of a high-level threat model is "Common Security Threats v1.0” (https://www.opencompute.org/documents/common-security-threats-notes-1-pdf ).
The original Trusted Keys implementation assumed discrete physical TPMs for key protection. However, even physical TPMs themselves vary based on the manufacturer and systems in which they are placed. The embedded chipset, firmware load, algorithms, packaging, pins, and countermeasures vary. (Threats and mitigations on physical TPMs are well documented, e.g., "Threat Model of a Scenario Based on Trusted Platform Module 2.0 Specification” (http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1011/6.pdf).
Specific to Trusted Keys and TPMs, there is some discussion of threats and mitigations in the Integrity_overview.pdf on the IMA wiki:
• The trusted key component does two things to help with secure key management on Linux. First, it provides a kernel key ring service in which the symmetric encryption keys are never visible in plain text to userspace. The keys are created in the kernel, and sealed by a hardware device such as a TPM, with userspace seeing only the sealed blobs. Malicious or compromised applications cannot steal a trusted key, since only the kernel can see the unsealed blobs. Secondly, the trusted keys can tie key unsealing to the integrity measurements, so that keys cannot be stolen in an offline attack, such as by booting an unlocked Linux image from CD or USB. As the measurements will be different, the TPM chip will refuse to unseal the keys, even for the kernel.
Consumers of Trusted Keys in different environments need enough information so that they can create their own threat models tailored to their use cases. For the present submission, a high-level security model of ARM TrustZone and how Trusted Keys key protection is implemented along with an enumeration of security considerations for end-use threat models would be appropriate.
An excellent and related paper describes the strengths, weaknesses, and countermeasures of a firmware TPM implemented within a TEE. See "fTPM: A Software-only Implementation of a TPM Chip” (https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity16/technical-sessions/presentation/raj)
> +Key Generation
> +==============
> +
> +Trusted Keys
> +------------
> +
> +New keys are created from trust source generated random numbers, and are
> +encrypted/decrypted using trust source storage root key.
Please change the following
"New keys are created from trust source generated random numbers, and are encrypted/decrypted using trust source storage root key."
to
"New keys are created from random numbers generated in the trust source. They are encrypted/decrypted using a child key in the storage key hierarchy. Encryption and decryption of the child key must be protected by a strong access control policy within the trust source. “
Thank you.
Elaine
_____________________________________
Elaine R. Palmer, Senior Technical Staff Member
Secure Systems and Academy of Technology
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list