Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Workshop on Attacks and Solutions in Hardware Security Workshop 2019
DOI: 10.1145/3338508.3359568
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Breaking TrustZone Memory Isolation through Malicious Hardware on a Modern FPGA-SoC

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
6
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
1
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This work extends our research performed in [10]. We found out that the problem observed with the XMPUs also affects the Xilinx peripheral protection unit (XPPU).…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 80%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…This work extends our research performed in [10]. We found out that the problem observed with the XMPUs also affects the Xilinx peripheral protection unit (XPPU).…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 80%
“…Despite the presence of these isolation mechanisms, we have shown in our previous work [10] that DMA attacks from a HT are possible on the ZU+. We found out that a hardware accelerator connected to the accelerator coherency port (ACP) is not affected by the SMMU and that the Xilinx memory protection units (XMPUs) fail in isolating the memory of the CPU from the ACP.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 82%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Hardware security has been developed to guarantee the integrity of IoT devices and offer them protection against cyberattacks. It has been applied to TPM, a secure password processing standard, and to Trustzone, which sets the security boundary of the kernel and creates execution privileges [35][36] [37]. Recently, as the importance of IoT security has increased, the security solution under it has been integrated with microcontroller units (MCUs).…”
Section: A Hardware Securitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For TrustZone, it means the TEE has the highest privilege to control the REE and communicate with all peripherals. The design violates the principle of least privilege by including unnecessary peripherals and buggy peripheral drivers in the software TCB [27] and exposing the TEE to malicious peripheral inputs [38]. For SGX, it means applications in enclaves have to go through and trust the REE OS to communicate with peripherals [71], bloating the size of software TCB by including a usually monolithic REE OS kernel, e.g., 27.8M Source Lines of Code (SLOC) of the Linux kernel [23]; iii) the TEE shares a processor core with the REE in a time-sliced fashion, not only costing many CPU cycles [75], [98] for the expensive context switches between the TEE and REE but also making it vulnerable to cache side-channel attacks [25], [30], [39], [97], [99], which directly undermine TEE's security promises; iv) the software TCBs in TEEs are large, creating big attack surfaces for runtime attacks that hijack the control or data flow [17], [101].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%