Live data from Hacker News

FIDO2 security key company publishes results of internal security audit

blog.doyensec.com

11–20 of 64 posts

Re: FIDO2 security key company publishes results of internal security audit

#12
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SoloKeys appear to use open source firmware, whereas Yubico's firmware is closed source since the Yubikey 4 I believe. Other than that, they seem about the same. SoloKeys is a lot younger and missing a couple of Yubikey Neo's bigger features (like PGP support).

Why did Yubikey ever close source their firmware? It's really saddening to see a company going back on that

The YubiKey hardware with its integral firmware has never been open sourced.

https://www.yubico.com/blog/secure-hardware-vs-open-source/

Re: FIDO2 security key company publishes results of internal security audit

#13
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you link to a source for that?

Have a look at the comments regarding the recent Crypto AG story here. There's some insinuation in there.

This one? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22297963

I did a ctrl + f on both pages of comments for "yubi" with no results. Sorry if I've missed something obvious.

Re: FIDO2 security key company publishes results of internal security audit

#14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did Yubikey ever close source their firmware? It's really saddening to see a company going back on that

The YubiKey hardware with its integral firmware has never been open sourced. https://www.yubico.com/blog/secure-hardware-vs-open-source/

Okay - So reading through that I get two impressions. They can't release source code because they use proprietary hardware. Secondly they believe that security through obscurity is better than publishing the code for everyone to see.

Re: FIDO2 security key company publishes results of internal security audit

#15
Excited to see an open source hardware key solution on the market to compete with yubico.

I’ve been working on my own saas app to handle authentication for any app using the web authentication framework.

hoping we start seeing more options to login using only hardware (plus pin to be extra safe) on all websites.

Re: FIDO2 security key company publishes results of internal security audit

#16
I got a Solokey as part of the Kickstarter and love em. USB-C + NFC in one device.

The one thing I'd love out of a security key is the ability to set up a "Twinned Pair". So I can have one key on my keychain that I use everyday and one I keep in my safe in case something happens to the primary. Yes, I know some services support multiple security keys - but setting up two is more work and not all services do support two.

Re: FIDO2 security key company publishes results of internal security audit

#17
I am probably wrong, but I think Fido2 keys should be ubiquitous. They provide a hardened solution for some security situations, certainly they could be a good 2nd factor or 3rd, and hopefully they could reduce the password madness we have. Yubico appears focused on the enterprise and high end users resulting in higher prices. Solokeys seems more focused on individual users with lower prices.

Disclaimer I have two Yubico keys, and two Solokeys and they all work for me, but I don't need the extra functionality of the more expensive Yubico keys.

Re: FIDO2 security key company publishes results of internal security audit

#18
post #7
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SoloKeys appear to use open source firmware, whereas Yubico's firmware is closed source since the Yubikey 4 I believe. Other than that, they seem about the same. SoloKeys is a lot younger and missing a couple of Yubikey Neo's bigger features (like PGP support).

OpenPGP is arriving, will be available via firmware upgrade. https://github.com/solokeys/openpgp

Note that for a PGP key, the idea of using cheap microcontrollers is significantly worse.

U2F/FIDO2, sure, whatever- the worst failure state there is "your account is only secured by a password", and more likely attacks require physical access. I could post the secrets off the security key I use for my Google account right now and...eh, I'd probably be fine.

PGP? Ohohohoh. Now we're talking about long-term keys and non-forward-secure crypto.

If I leak your keys once- say, through power analysis, glitching, whatever- I can decrypt everything that has ever been encrypted for that key, and everything that ever will be. Compromise is total. Grab the device while it's unlocked, or use a camera, keylogger, or shoulder-surf to get your PIN- or just crack it, decrypting the encrypted keyblobs from flash ... the only thing protecting you is a barely-above-popcorn Cortex-M.

At that point, just use the fTPM in your CPU. Otherwise... hardened hardware is much more important for PGP.

If I had to design a PGP key storage mechanism, I'd probably use a reasonably well-known, well-tested "secure microprocessor"- or a 'TPM-on-a-chip' connected to an untrusted microcontroller (which would be basically just an adapter/protocol translato...hm, no, plaintext would still go across its bus, right? Forget the gpgcard spec right now, might do some link encryption, but that would be good and it's GPG so it probably doesn't. Yeah, no, I think you need the full stack on one die- or else open to attacks like replacing the untrusted microcontroller with one that logs all plaintexts it sees (and...is gpgcard challenge-response? Gotta be ...but if not, can log the pin too...anyways, ignore this aside))

Anyways, a secure microcontroller- hardware crypto engine so the microcontroller code never sees raw key material, hardware rate limiting/lockout if possible, reasonable secure boot, maybe even disable firmware upgrades entirely, self-zeroizes if you sneeze at the wrong time, etc. Attacks are still possible, but the cost goes WAY up- at least past the six figure mark, hopefully.

I'd also ban all use of RSA private keys- too easy to mess up generation, and especially since we're "secure hardware" now which means, apparently, we can't generate primes too good. No, EC keys exclusively.

Anyways ...a commodity STM32 is fine for fido2. Not great, but it's fine.

It's almost a nonstarter for PGP, and honestly any PGP support needs a giant warning label that it shouldn't be relied on to protect against physical attacks.

Re: FIDO2 security key company publishes results of internal security audit

#19
post #15

Excited to see an open source hardware key solution on the market to compete with yubico. I’ve been working on my own saas app to handle authentication for any app using the web authentication framework. hoping we start seeing more options to login using only hardware (plus pin to be extra safe) on all websites.

To date, the core of our firmware is also used by NitroKey [1], Signet HC [2] and OnlyKey [3]. We did a pretty significant refactor [4] to make the lib even easier to use as part of our MOSS award [5].

Hopefully we'll see even more products -and thus user adoption- of fido2/webauthn.

If anyone is reading, has a hardware project and would like to add fido2 functionality, please reach out!

[1] https://shop.nitrokey.com/shop/product/nitrokey-fido2-55

[2] https://www.crowdsupply.com/nth-dimension/signet-high-capaci...

[3] https://crp.to/2019/10/onlykey-beta8-release-announcement/

[4] https://github.com/solokeys/solo/pull/344

[5] https://medium.com/solokeyssec/solokeys-achieves-fido2-certi...

Re: FIDO2 security key company publishes results of internal security audit

#20
post #3

Who is this company and why would I buy a key from them instead of Yubico?

Don't know who they are but there's some speculation that Yubico is Crypto AG like.

This is testable, and also very difficult to falsify without testing it. I'd say there is more value in doing or sponsoring the research to investigate it and I wouldn't cast aspersions on the vendors. They are better than passwords for the majority of consumer and corporate use cases.

The most basic attack and test is to verify and/or reduce the entropy of secret symmetrical (AES) keys in the SE after personalization.

The challenge with hardware security modules is verifying outputs from the same keys but on different devices, because the key is derived/instantiated in the secure tamper proof environment. The whole point is the key doesn't exist anywhere else.

If your threat model includes the intelligence agencies of super powers, your main problem is more diplomatic than technical.

Post reply on HN