Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ORWL – The first open source, physically secure computer

crowdsupply.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 195 posts

Re: ORWL – The first open source, physically secure computer

#61

Post by VoidWhisperer »

tajen wrote: post #37
JoachimSchipper wrote: post #5

Having some physical security in a OSS-hacker-compliant form factor is really quite nice. This is not going to replace a proper HSM, and almost certainly is a less secure place to store your data than an iPhone; but it's a good start for those unwilling to give up on (the performance of) PCs. It's worth noting that QubesOS, which is supported by this system, protects against e.g. USB-based attacks by running a virtua…

Why is it potentially less secure than an iPhone? Attackers can't scan the RAM because of the enclosure, whereas they might do so on an iPhone, correct?

Correct me if I am wrong, but if that was possible, wouldn't the FBI have had a lot less of a challenging time getting the data off of that guy's phone?

Re: ORWL – The first open source, physically secure computer

#62

Post by monocasa »

Cyph0n wrote: post #25
mordocai wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://libreboot.org/faq/#amd . ARM maybe?

ARM has TrustZone.

TrustZone is, for practical purposes, a little more open if you're the one designing the board. Most of the time, the crypto is opt in, and you as the final assembler control the keys.

Re: ORWL – The first open source, physically secure computer

#63

Post by nickpsecurity »

na85 wrote: post #43
mthoms wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FTA: This project is about having a standard, physically secure computer that anyone can use – as open as we can make it. All these concepts are important, and they mean that x86 and flawless out-of-the-box Windows support are not optional. There are reasons everyone is using x86, even in the security community and in governmental agencies around the world: compatibility, performance, and security. Make no mistake, s…

That's all fine and good but they should not advertise it as secure if it's not.

They advertise it as "physically-secure" in the text. I didn't watch the video. They explicitly call out many risks, why they're there, and what they do about them.

Re: ORWL – The first open source, physically secure computer

#64

Post by JohnStrange »

jamesgeck0 wrote: post #41
JohnStrange wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's criminally irresponsible to sell such a computer, because it will easily result in data loss and not all users are educated enough to understand the consequences of such a flawed "security" design. Of course, you can claim that it's ultimately the customers fault in this case, and I agree, but they should nevertheless expect some lawsuits. There is always a tradeoff between security and data integrity, something…

It's not illegal or irresponsible to sell a computer that deletes data when tampered with when "deletes data when tampered with" is _advertised as one of the primary features of the machine_.

I agree "criminally irresponsible" was the wrong choice of words and I rightly got flamed for it.

Re: ORWL – The first open source, physically secure computer

#65

Post by grandsham »

dmichulke wrote: post #48
libeclipse wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite a lot more than a few trillion.

You have to account for Moore's Law within the few trillions GP mentioned

Bruce Schneier and others[1] have done the math on brute forcing 256 bit keys: even with a perfectly efficient computer using the least amount of energy possible, you would have to deplete the entire energy content of the Sun to just iterate over a 225 bit keyspace once, let alone do anything meaningful with those keys.

Moore's Law doesn't really factor into it.

[1]http://security.stackexchange.com/a/6149

Re: ORWL – The first open source, physically secure computer

#66

Post by subway »

Cyph0n wrote: post #25
mordocai wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://libreboot.org/faq/#amd . ARM maybe?

ARM has TrustZone.

TrustZone alone is much closer to a SecureBoot or TPMish feature than ME. It's possible it would allow implementation of an ME-like software stack running inside the TEE.

It's worth mentioning that there is at least one OSS implementation of a TEE software stack, OP-TEE, making this even less of an issue. Assuming your device/soc mfg doesn't lock you out.

http://www.linaro.org/blog/core-dump/op-tee-open-source-secu...

Re: ORWL – The first open source, physically secure computer

#67

Post by rtkwe »

jsudhams wrote: post #47
libeclipse wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite a lot more than a few trillion.

Isn't brute force a chance? Should it not be "see you in next minute to few years?"

It's all down to probabilities, yes our hypothetical attacker could guess your key correctly the first time or within a few years but the chances are so tiny it approaches zero for practical purposes on practical timescales.

Re: ORWL – The first open source, physically secure computer

#69

Post by grandsham »

CIPHERSTONE wrote: post #58
pstrateman wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhh.. yes but enjoy brute forcing a 256 bit key. See you in a few trillion years.

NSA Engineer: Hey boss, this one's using a 256 bit key. NSA Manager: Connect it to the quantum computer that doesn't "exist". Five minutes later.. NSA Engineer: We now have access.

quantum computers, at best, divide the bit-strength of a symmetric key like AES in half[1]. Brute forcing a 128 bit key is theoretically possible (in the sense that you can do it if you marshal the entire world energy output to the cause, you could crack 1 key/yr), but not a 5 minute process.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover%27s_algorithm

Re: ORWL – The first open source, physically secure computer

#70

Post by calebm »

I was very recently looking into physically secure computing solutions, and the "industry standard" seems to be the SafeNet Network HSM, formerly Luna SA Network-Attached HSM (for example, it's what Amazon uses for their CloudHSM service: https://aws.amazon.com/cloudhsm/), which costs like $30,000. With that number in mind, the ORWL price of $700 is quite enticing!
Post reply on HN