4 ms·
Trying to use a non-secure set-top-box SoC as the core of a "secure" device seems incredibly questionable to me. Even with an allegedly tamper-resistant enclosu
by duskwuff 4y ago
Trying to use a non-secure set-top-box SoC as the core of a "secure" device seems incredibly questionable to me. Even with an allegedly tamper-resistant enclosure, I'd still be very concerned about attacks like drilling into the case to access JTAG (which is accessible from the top of the Compute Module).
After realizing that this seems to primarily be intended for cryptocurrency applications, though... yeah, that seems about par for the course.
- HyperSane 4y agothe actual board is embedded in epoxy and will destroy encryption keys if tampered with.
- duskwuff 4y agoIf, by "the actual board", you mean the HSM -- that hardly matters. If an attacker can seize control of the application processor over JTAG, they can command the HSM to do whatever they want.
- HyperSane 4y agoWhere do you see the JTAG?
- duskwuff 4y agoThe eight-pin footprint next to the FCC logo is the VideoCore JTAG connector. The connector isn't populated, but the signals are all there and usable (AFAIK).
- HyperSane 4y agoCould it be disabled?
- geerlingguy 4y agoThis is actually one of the attack vectors I'm thinking about trying with the box when I get more time to hack at it. The accelerometer and temperature sensors / settings could make it a little more difficult, since the heat sink is directly above the processor and one would need to get through it to gain access to the pins. But it could be possible with some creative solutions. Probably not if all tamper protections are active though.