CWE-1300: Improper Protection of Physical Side Channels
Weakness ID: 1300
Abstraction: Base Structure: Simple
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom Filter
Description
The device does not contain sufficient protection mechanisms to prevent physical side channels from exposing sensitive information due to patterns in physically observable phenomena such as variations in power consumption, electromagnetic emissions (EME), or acoustic emissions.
Extended Description
An adversary could monitor and measure physical phenomena to detect patterns and make inferences, even if it is not possible to extract the information in the digital domain.
Physical side channels have been well-studied for decades in the context of breaking implementations of cryptographic algorithms or other attacks against security features. These side channels may be easily observed by an adversary with physical access to the device, or using a tool that is in close proximity. If the adversary can monitor hardware operation and correlate its data processing with power, EME, and acoustic measurements, the adversary might be able to recover of secret keys and data.
Relationships
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition, relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Nature
Type
ID
Name
ChildOf
Base - a weakness
that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Variant - a weakness
that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition, relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Hardware Design" (CWE-1194)
Nature
Type
ID
Name
MemberOf
Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.
Base - a weakness
that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
The different Modes of Introduction provide information about how and when this weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which introduction may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the given phase.
Phase
Note
Implementation
Applicable Platforms
This listing shows possible areas for which the given weakness could appear. These may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms, Technologies, or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given weakness appears for that instance.
Languages
Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Operating Systems
Class: Not OS-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Architectures
Class: Not Architecture-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Technologies
Class: Not Technology-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Common Consequences
This table specifies different individual consequences associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to achieve a different impact.
Scope
Impact
Likelihood
Confidentiality
Technical Impact: Read Memory; Read Application Data
Demonstrative Examples
Example 1
Consider a device that checks a
passcode to unlock the screen.
(bad code)
As each character of
the PIN number is entered, a correct character
exhibits one current pulse shape while an
incorrect character exhibits a different current
pulse shape.
PIN numbers used to unlock a cell phone
should not exhibit any characteristics about
themselves. This creates a side channel. An
attacker could monitor the pulses using an
oscilloscope or other method. Once the first
character is correctly guessed (based on the
oscilloscope readings), they can then move to the
next character, which is much more efficient than
the brute force method of guessing every possible
sequence of characters.
(good code)
Rather than comparing
each character to the correct PIN value as it is
entered, the device could accumulate the PIN in a
register, and do the comparison all at once at the
end. Alternatively, the components for the
comparison could be modified so that the current
pulse shape is the same regardless of the
correctness of the entered
character.
Example 2
Consider the device vulnerability CVE-2021-3011, which affects certain microcontrollers [REF-1221]. The Google Titan Security Key is used for two-factor authentication using cryptographic algorithms. The device uses an internal secret key for this purpose and exchanges information based on this key for the authentication. If this internal secret key and the encryption algorithm were known to an adversary, the key function could be duplicated, allowing the adversary to masquerade as the legitimate user.
(bad code)
The local method of extracting the secret key consists of plugging the key into a USB port and using electromagnetic (EM) sniffing tools and computers.
(good code)
Several solutions could have been considered by the manufacturer. For example, the manufacturer could shield the circuitry in the key or add randomized delays, indirect calculations with random values involved, or randomly ordered calculations to make extraction much more difficult or a combination of these techniques.
message encryption software uses certain instruction sequences that allows RSA key extraction using a chosen-ciphertext attack and acoustic cryptanalysis
power consumption varies based on number of pixels being illuminated in a display, allowing reading of secrets such as the PIN by using the USB interface to measure power consumption
Potential Mitigations
Phase: Architecture and Design
Apply blinding or masking techniques to implementations of cryptographic algorithms.
Phase: Implementation
Add shielding or tamper-resistant protections to the device to increase the difficulty of obtaining measurements of the side-channel.
Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality
Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
Resultant
(where the weakness is typically related to the presence of some other weaknesses)
Detection Methods
Manual Analysis
Perform a set of leakage detection tests such as the procedure outlined in the Test Vector Leakage Assessment (TVLA) test requirements for AES [REF-1230]. TVLA is the basis for the ISO standard 17825 [REF-1229]. A separate methodology is provided by [REF-1228]. Note that sole reliance on this method might not yield expected results [REF-1239] [REF-1240].
Effectiveness: Moderate
Manual Analysis
Post-silicon, perform full side-channel attacks (penetration testing) covering as many known leakage models as possible against test code.
Effectiveness: Moderate
Manual Analysis
Pre-silicon - while the aforementioned TVLA methods can be performed post-silicon, models of device power consumption or other physical emanations can be built from information present at various stages of the hardware design process before fabrication. TVLA or known side-channel attacks can be applied to these simulated traces and countermeasures applied before tape-out. Academic research in this field includes [REF-1231] [REF-1232] [REF-1233].
Effectiveness: Moderate
Functional Areas
Power
Memberships
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Nature
Type
ID
Name
MemberOf
View - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries).
[REF-1229] ISO/IEC. "ISO/IEC 17825:2016: Testing methods for the mitigation of non-invasive attack classes against cryptographic modules". 2016.
<https://www.iso.org/standard/60612.html>.
[REF-1231] Danilo Šijaˇci´, Josep Balasch, Bohan Yang, Santosh Ghosh
and Ingrid Verbauwhede. "Towards efficient and automated side-channel evaluations at design time". pp. 305-319. Journal of Cryptographic Engineering, 10(4). 2020.
<https://www.esat.kuleuven.be/cosic/publications/article-3204.pdf>.
[REF-1232] Amit Kumar, Cody Scarborough, Ali Yilmaz
and Michael Orshansky. "Efficient simulation of EM side-channel attack resilience". pp. 123-130. IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD). 2017.
<https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/3199700.3199717>. URL validated: 2023-04-07.
[REF-1233] Yuan Yao, Tuna Tufan, Tarun Kathuria, Baris Ege, Ulkuhan Guler
and Patrick Schaumont. "Pre-silicon Architecture Correlation Analysis (PACA): Identifying and Mitigating the Source of Side-channel Leakage at Gate-level". IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive. 2021-04-21.
<https://eprint.iacr.org/2021/530.pdf>.
[REF-1239] François-Xavier Standaert. "How (not) to Use Welch's T-test in Side-Channel Security Evaluations". IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive. 2017-02-15.
<https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/138.pdf>.
[REF-1240] Carolyn Whitnall and
Elisabeth Oswald. "A Critical Analysis of ISO 17825 ('Testing methods for the mitigation of non-invasive attack classes against cryptographic modules')". IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive. 2019-09-10.
<https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/1013.pdf>.
Description
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition, relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
