I think you are making incorrect presumptions about how you would use Palladium hardware to implement a secure DRM system. If used as you suggest it would indeed suffer the vulnerabilities you describe. The difference between an insecure DRM application such as you describe and a secure DRM application correctly using the hardware security features is somewhat analogous to the current difference between an application that relies on not being reverse engineered for it's security vs one that encrypts data with a key derived from a user password. In a Palladium DRM application done right everything which sees keys and plaintext content would reside inside Trusted Agent space, inside DRM enabled graphics cards which retrict access to video RAM, and later DRM enabled monitors with encrypted digital signal to the monitor, and DRM enabled soundcards, encrypted content to speakers. (The encrypted contentt to media related output peripherals is like HDCP, only done right with non-broken crypto). Now all that will be in application space that you can reverse engineer and hack on will be UI elements and application logic that drives the trusted agent, remote attesation, content delivery and hardware. At no time will keys or content reside in space that you can virtualize or debug. In the short term it may be that some of these will be not fully implemented so that content does pass through OS or application space, or into non DRM video cards and non DRM monitors, but the above is the end-goal as I understand it. As you can see there is still the limit of the non-remote exploitability of the trusted agent code, but this is within the control of the DRM vendor. If he does a good job of making a simple software architecture and avoiding potential for buffer overflows he stands a much better chance of having a secure DRM platofrm than if as you describe exploited OS code or rogue driver code can subvert his application. There is also I suppose possibility to push content decryption on to the DRM video card so the TOR does little apart from channel key exchange messages from the SCP to the video card, and channel remote attestation and key exchanges between the DRM license server and the SCP. The rest would be streaming encrypted video formats such as CSS VOB blocks (only with good crypto) from the network or disk to the video card. Similar kinds of arguments about the correct break down between application logic and placement of security policy enforcing code in Trusted Agent space apply to general applications. For example you could imagine a file sharing application which hid the data the users machine was serving from the user. If you did it correctly, this would be secure to the extent of the hardware tamper resistance (and the implementers ability to keep the security policy enforcing code line-count down and audit it well). At some level there has to be a trade-off between what you put in trusted agent space and what becomes application code. If you put the whole application in trusted agent space, while then all it's application logic is fully protected, the danger will be that you have added too much code to reasonably audit, so people will be able to gain access to that trusted agent via buffer overflow. So therein lies the crux of secure software design in the Palladium style secure application space: choosing a good break-down between security policy enforcement, and application code. There must be a balance, and what makes sense and is appropriate depends on the application and the limits of the ingenuity of the protocol designer in coming up with clever designs that cover to hardware tamper resistant levels the the applications desired policy enforcement while providing a workably small and pracitcally auditable associated trusted agent module. So there are practical limits stemming from realities to do with code complexity being inversely proportional to auditability and security, but the extra ring -1, remote attestation, sealing and integrity metrics really do offer some security advantages over the current situation. Adam On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 03:28:15PM -0400, Tim Dierks wrote:
At 07:30 PM 8/12/2002 +0100, Adam Back wrote:
(Tim Dierks: read the earlier posts about ring -1 to find the answer to your question about feasibility in the case of Palladium; in the case of TCPA your conclusions are right I think).
The addition of an additional security ring with a secured, protected memory space does not, in my opinion, change the fact that such a ring cannot accurately determine that a particular request is consistant with any definable security policy. I do not think it is technologically feasible for ring -1 to determine, upon receiving a request, that the request was generated by trusted software operating in accordance with the intent of whomever signed it.
Specifically, let's presume that a Palladium-enabled application is being used for DRM; a secure & trusted application is asking its secure key manager to decrypt a content encryption key so it can access properly licensed code. The OS is valid & signed and the application is valid & signed. How can ring -1 distinguish a valid request from one which has been forged by rogue code which used a bug in the OS or any other trusted entity (the application, drivers, etc.)?
I think it's reasonable to presume that desktop operating systems which are under the control of end-users cannot be protected against privilege escalation attacks. All it takes is one sound card with a bug in a particular version of the driver to allow any attacker to go out and buy that card & install that driver and use the combination to execute code or access data beyond his privileges.
In the presence of successful privilege escalation attacks, an attacker can get access to any information which can be exposed to any privilige level he can escalate to. The attacker may not be able to access raw keys & other information directly managed by the TOR or the key manager, but those keys aren't really interesting anyway: all the interesting content & transactions will live in regular applications at lower security levels.
The only way I can see to prevent this is for the OS to never transfer control to any software which isn't signed, trusted and intact. The problem with this is that it's economically infeasible: it implies the death of small developers and open source, and that's a higher price than the market is willing to bear.
- Tim
--------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@wasabisystems.com