undefined | Better HN

0 pointsblueflow1y ago0 comments

I'd buy you an replacement laptop of the same model and then install a rendering of your boot process and password prompt on it. Doing a switcheroo and waiting in my bunker until the fake sends me the password you entered.

The screen/keyboard is not authenticated to the user, and TPM is not capable of fixing that.

It doesn't require some state actor to do that. Just money.

0 comments

Foxboron1y ago

`tpm2-totp` defeats the entire "replace the laptop" threat scenario.

https://github.com/tpm2-software/tpm2-totp

blueflowOP1y ago

The "replaced laptop" scenario is a full MITM on the hardware. TOTP generally does not protect against MITM. The required TOTP code is, in this scenario, generated by the device in the attackers hand. So the fake could also display it.

Foxboron1y ago

You need to decide between the attack here. Are you subverting hardware or are you replacing a laptop?

The TOTP token here is sealed inside TPM.

1 more reply

dist-epoch1y ago

A solution would be to have two passwords, and display a secret security image between them.

User is required to not enter the second password if the wrong security image is displayed.

You can still attack it with a fancy radio transmitter which transmits the security image from the stolen laptop when it's displayed after you've entered the first password to the second laptop.

p_l1y ago

Attestation closes this vulnerability, for example through tools like Ultrablue [1] which provides a self-hosted method of verifying that the TCB has not been modified through external tool (in this case, your phone running Ultrablue)

[1] https://github.com/ANSSI-FR/ultrablue

blueflowOP1y ago

The TCB has not been modified - that's the point of that attack. Its just physically elsewhere. A high 24 dBi high gain antennae to close that gap costs 70 EUR and you would attest the device in the attackers hands, not the one in front of you.

hedora1y ago

I think some of those hardware attestation thingies use clocks and tight latency jitter bounds to make replay attacks harder. If it takes more than "2 x time light takes to move 10 ft + deterministic delay from the other side", or less than the deterministic delay, then they refuse to unlock.

Some cars even get this right these days. Most don't.

fargle1y ago

i like the way you think

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

Foxboron1y ago

`tpm2-totp` defeats the entire "replace the laptop" threat scenario.

https://github.com/tpm2-software/tpm2-totp

blueflowOP1y ago

Foxboron1y ago

You need to decide between the attack here. Are you subverting hardware or are you replacing a laptop?

The TOTP token here is sealed inside TPM.

1 more reply

dist-epoch1y ago

A solution would be to have two passwords, and display a secret security image between them.

User is required to not enter the second password if the wrong security image is displayed.

You can still attack it with a fancy radio transmitter which transmits the security image from the stolen laptop when it's displayed after you've entered the first password to the second laptop.

p_l1y ago

[1] https://github.com/ANSSI-FR/ultrablue

blueflowOP1y ago

hedora1y ago

Some cars even get this right these days. Most don't.

fargle1y ago

i like the way you think

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse