Weakness · Medium
CWE-1431: Driving Intermediate Cryptographic State/Results to Hardware Module Outputs
What it is
The product uses a hardware module implementing a cryptographic algorithm that writes sensitive information about the intermediate state or results of its cryptographic operations via one of its output wires (typically the output port containing the final result).
- Severity (our rating)
- Medium
- Likelihood of exploit
- Not rated by MITRE
- Introduced during
- Implementation
- Exploited in the wild
- No CVE in CISA's catalog
What an attacker can do
- Read Memory (Confidentiality)
- Read Application Data (Confidentiality)
How to prevent it
Architecture and Design
- Designers/developers should add or modify existing control flow logic along any data flow paths that connect "sources" (signals with intermediate cryptographic state/results) with "sinks" (hardware module outputs and other signals outside of trusted cryptographic zone). The control flow logic should only allow cryptographic results to be driven to "sinks" when appropriate conditions are satisfied (typically when the final result for a cryptographic operation has been generated). When the appropriate conditions are not satisfied (i.e., before or during a cryptographic operation), the control flow logic should drive a safe default value to "sinks".
Implementation
- Designers/developers should add or modify existing control flow logic along any data flow paths that connect "sources" (signals with intermediate cryptographic state/results) with "sinks" (hardware module outputs and other signals outside of trusted cryptographic zone). The control flow logic should only allow cryptographic results to be driven to "sinks" when appropriate conditions are satisfied (typically when the final result for a cryptographic operation has been generated). When the appropriate conditions are not satisfied (i.e., before or during a cryptographic operation), the control flow logic should drive a safe default value to "sinks".
How to find it
- Automated Static Analysis - Source Code. Automated static analysis can find some instances of this weakness by analyzing source register-transfer level (RTL) code without having to simulate it or analyze it with a formal verification engine. Typically, this is done by building a model of data flow and control flow, then searching for potentially-vulnerable patterns that connect "sources" (signals with intermediate cryptographic state/results) with "sinks" (hardware module outputs and other signals outside of trusted cryptographic zone) without any control flow.
- Simulation / Emulation. Simulation/emulation based analysis can find some instances of this weakness by simulating source register-transfer level (RTL) code along with a set of assertions that incorporate the simulated values of relevant design signals. Typically, these assertions will capture desired or undesired behavior. Analysis can be improved by using simulation-based information flow tracking (IFT) to more precisely detect unexpected results.
- Formal Verification. Formal verification can find some instances of this weakness by exhaustively analyzing whether a given assertion holds true for a given hardware design specified in register-transfer level (RTL) code. Typically, these assertions will capture desired or undesired behavior. For this weakness, an assertion should check for undesired behavior in which one output is a signal that captures when a cryptographic algorithm has completely finished; another output is a signal with intermediate cryptographic state/results; and there is an assignment to a hardware module output or other signal outside of a trusted cryptographic zone. Alternatively, when using a formal IFT verification, the same undesired behavior can be detected by checking if computation results can ever leak to an output when the cryptographic result is not copmlete.
- Manual Analysis. Manual analysis can find some instances of this weakness by manually reviewing relevant lines of source register-transfer level (RTL) code to detect potentially-vulnerable patterns. Typically, the reviewer will trace the sequence of assignments that connect "sources" (signals with intermediate cryptographic state/results) with "sinks" (hardware module outputs and other signals outside of trusted cryptographic zone). If this sequence of assignments is missing adequate control flow, then the weakness is likely to exist.
H2 Security
Found it in your code?
We review where it appears, fix it with your team, and check it was not already used against you.
Talk to our teamT Academy
Stop writing it in the first place
Learn to build software and systems without weaknesses like this one, with practice on real hosts in your browser, every objective checked on the machine.
Start freeSource: MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration, CWE version 4.19.1. CWE is a trademark of The MITRE Corporation.