In the same way GPUs handle graphics and TPUs handle AI workloads, a security processor is tasked with establishing a “root of trust” by checking that all firmware is authentic. The solution to this problem, he says, is to have a dedicated device in charge of the security of a system.
Software isn’t even running yet, so it has no way of checking what’s going on,” noted Myszne. “Any compromise that takes place during this process is completely undetectable. At launch, a system is booted in increments, starting with a small footprint of code that loads into the CPU, followed by a larger pool of code, then eventually the operating system loads from the hard drive (opens in new tab) or network. The problem with attacks of this kind is that they cannot be identified and blocked by software. (Image credit: Shutterstock / Gorodenkoff) However, less than a third of security funding is set aside to protect firmware, and 21% of security chiefs even admit that firmware goes totally unmonitored. Recent figures (opens in new tab) from Microsoft show that 80% of organizations have suffered at least one firmware attack over the last couple of years. “As a result, attackers are becoming more specialized, heading down the stack towards the firmware attacks here are both difficult to detect and persistent.” “The most common types of attacks take the form of applications that target the upper layers, but these have been fairly successfully blocked,” Myszne explained. And if the software has access, an attacker can gain access too.” Firmware securityįounded in 2019 and backed by Xilinx, a pioneer in the field of programmable SoCs, Kameleon’s objective is to reverse the dynamics of cybercrime, by handing the advantage to the defender.Īlthough the company is yet to bring a product to market, it is working on a piece of hardware called a Proactive Security Processing Unit (ProSPU) that it hopes can combat the threat of firmware attacks, which are increasing in volume and sophistication. “The main challenge is that the TPM is a passive device while you can store data there and nobody can see it, in order to do something with that data the software needs access. While the TPM standard has evolved significantly since its inception (the latest TPM 2.0 update was published in 2019) thanks to input from a range of organizations, Myszne suggests this approach to security suffers from a fundamental flaw.
“TPM is from 2003 it was good enough 20 years ago, but think about everything that has changed in terms of infrastructure over the last two decades,” he told TechRadar Pro.
0 kommentar(er)
