* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Secure coprocessors - University of Pittsburgh
Airborne Networking wikipedia , lookup
Cracking of wireless networks wikipedia , lookup
Zero-configuration networking wikipedia , lookup
Wireless security wikipedia , lookup
Recursive InterNetwork Architecture (RINA) wikipedia , lookup
Distributed operating system wikipedia , lookup
Piggybacking (Internet access) wikipedia , lookup
Computer security wikipedia , lookup
Distributed firewall wikipedia , lookup
Using Secure Coprocessors to Protect Access to Enterprise Networks Dr. José Carlos Brustoloni Dept. Computer Science University of Pittsburgh [email protected] Joint work with Haidong Xia and Jayashree Kanchana Motivation ♦ Attackers can easily bypass firewalls and VPNs: laptop computers infected on a trip telecommuting from home computers shared with children or cybercafés rogue modems rogue wireless access points May 3, 2005 Jose' Brustoloni 2 Previous proposed solutions ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Verify node’s configuration before accepting node in network Node sends list with node’s software configuration and versions to a network server Server may accept node’s configuration or confine node to restricted network that allows only updating node’s software Expected to become common in a few years Cisco’s Network Admission Control (NAC) Microsoft’s Network Access Protection (NAP) Many other similar initiatives May 3, 2005 Jose' Brustoloni 3 Continuing vulnerability ♦ ♦ Malicious node can spoof list with node’s software configuration and versions How can network server be sure of node’s configuration? May 3, 2005 Jose' Brustoloni 4 Secure coprocessors Trusted Computing Group (TCG) has standardized secure coprocessors (TPM) for just this type of problem ♦ Low cost ($4) ♦ Present in increasing number of computers from IBM, HP, and others ♦ May 3, 2005 Jose' Brustoloni 5 Our contributions 1. How to integrate secure coprocessors with network protocols? Straightforward answer is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks → Bound Keyed Attestation (BKA) ♦ 2. How to integrate secure coprocessors with operating system? Straightforward answer is vulnerable to buggy components other than the kernel → TCB prelogging ♦ Straightforward answer is also vulnerable to tampering by root → Security association root tripping ♦ 3. How to keep node under its owner’s control? Danger of software lock-in → Sealing-free attestation confinement ♦ May 3, 2005 Jose' Brustoloni 6 Authenticated boot Core Root of Trust for Measurement = BIOS boot block Measurement Agents TPM e.g., daemons and configuration files May 3, 2005 Jose' Brustoloni 7 Attestation ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Challenger sends nonce to node Node’s operating system asks node’s secure coprocessor to sign quote (software digests currently stored in coprocessor) Signature uses private key generated within coprocessor Some authority previously verified that compliant secure coprocessor bound to node and signed certificate with coprocessor’s public key Node’s operating system sends software log, quote, and certificate to challenger Challenger verifies certificate, quote, and log May 3, 2005 Jose' Brustoloni 8 MITM attack against attestation conformant host nonce MITM quote authentication server tunnel (e.g. TLS) May 3, 2005 Jose' Brustoloni 9 Our solution: Bound Keyed Attestation Combine attestation with Diffie-Helman to generate shared secret ♦ Bind secret with tunnel’s keys ♦ → Attestation and tunnel endpoints are the same May 3, 2005 Jose' Brustoloni 10 BKA protocol May 3, 2005 Jose' Brustoloni 11 TCB prelogging ♦ Trusted Computing Base (TCB): anything that could compromise node’s security includes kernel, configuration files, daemons, root setuid applications How can we be sure that TCB is measured? ♦ Our solution: use TCB list (itself part of TCB) ♦ Kernel: ♦ Prelogs items in TCB list into secure coprocessor at boot time Measures these items, as well as any daemons and root setuid applications, at open or exec time In case of discrepancy, logs it into secure coprocessor and breaks any security associations that depend on the TCB list May 3, 2005 Jose' Brustoloni 12 Security association root tripping ♦ Root can change configuration after boot time ♦ e.g., sysctl, ifconfig Our solution: If user insists in logging in as root: 1. 2. May 3, 2005 Drop any security associations that depend on TCB list e.g., destroy keys necessary for network access Log event into secure coprocessor node will need to reboot before regaining access Jose' Brustoloni 13 Sealing-free attestation confinement ♦ ♦ Secure coprocessor also enables sealing data such that data retrieval is possible only when platform has the same configuration Danger of software lock-in: software seals to itself node owner’s data ♦ can’t use competing applications may lose data if software provider disappears Our solution: Operating system supports attestation but not sealing Integrate attestation only with intranet access control protocols, which typically cannot cross firewalls May 3, 2005 Jose' Brustoloni 14 Experimental results ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Implemented all mechanisms on FreeBSD 4.8 running on IBM ThinkPad T30 with 1.8 GHz Pentium 4 and TPM 1.1b secure coprocessor BKA integrated with PEAPv2 / 802.1x on Open1x and FreeRADIUS FreeRADIUS ran on Dell computer with 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 without secure coprocessor TCB prelogging, security association root tripping, and sealingfree attestation confinement have negligible impact on FreeBSD 4.8 boot latency or run-time performance May 3, 2005 Jose' Brustoloni 15 Authentication and authorization latency and projected throughput Latency (ms) Projected throughput (supplicants/min) PEAPv2 PEAPv2 + LOG PEAPv2 + BKA 67 88 2822 2650 2510 519 • LOG is a NAC-like protocol, vulnerable to spoofing • BKA latency dominated by secure coprocessor’s quote time (2.5 s) • Throughput with BKA can be easily increased by using multiple authentication servers May 3, 2005 Jose' Brustoloni 16 Related work ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ NAP, NAC, TNC Bear TcgLinux Microsoft’s NGSCB / Intel’s LT Terra May 3, 2005 Jose' Brustoloni 17 Conclusions Firewalls and VPNs are not enough ♦ Several commercial proposals to authenticate nodes’ configuration are vulnerable to spoofing ♦ Secure coprocessors can block spoofing, but have challenges of their own ♦ We introduced several new solutions to these challenges: ♦ Bound Keyed Attestation TCB prelogging Security association root tripping Sealing-free attestation confinement Experiments show that our techniques have acceptable overhead Jose' Brustoloni May 3, 2005 ♦ 18