undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmike_hearn2mo ago0 comments

Edit: deleted post. I see your other post now.

You are right - the "nonce binding" the paper uses doesn't seem convincing. The missing link is that Apple's attestation doesn't bind app generated keys to a designated requirement, which would be required to create a full remote attestation.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

mirashii2mo ago· 2 in thread

> If you can prove a public key is generated by the SEP of a machine running with all Apple's security systems enabled, then you can trivially extend that to confidential computing because the macOS security architecture allows apps to block external inspection even by the root user.

It only effectively allows this for applications that are in the set of things covered by SIP, but not for any third-party application. There's nothing that will allow you to attest that arbitrary third-party code is running some specific version without being tampered with, you can only attest that the base OS/kernel have not been tampered with. In their specific case, they attempt to patch over that by taking the hash of the binary, but you can simply patch it before it starts.

To do this properly requires a TEE to be available to third-party code for attestation. That's not a thing on macOS today.

mike_hearnOP2mo ago

I wiped my post because you are right. I don't think it needs a full SGX-style TEE. What's missing is a link to designated requirements. Abusing a nonce field doesn't seem to work, or if it does I can't figure out how. The MDM/MDA infrastructure would need to be able to include:

    public key from SEP -> designated requirement of owning app binary

The macOS KeyStore infrastructure does track this which is why I thought it'd work. But the paper doesn't mention being able to get this data server side anywhere. Instead there's this nonce hack.

It's odd that the paper considers so many angles including things like RDMA over Thunderbolt, but not the binding between platform key and app key.

Reading the paper again carefully I get the feeling the author knows or believes something that isn't fully elaborated in the text. He recognizes that this linkage problem exists, proposes a solution and offers a security argument for it. I just can't understand the argument. It appears APNS plays a role (apple push notification service) and maybe this is where app binding happens but the author seems to assume a fluency in Apple infrastructure that I currently lack.

mirashii2mo ago

I can buy the idea that if you can have the MDM infrastructure attest the code signing identity through the designated requirements, that you can probably come pretty close, but I'm still not quite sure you get there with root on macOS (and I suspect that this is part of why DCAppAttest hasn't made it to macOS yet).

Certainly, it still doesn't get you there with their current implementation, as the attempts at blocking the debugger like PT_DENY_ATTACH are runtime syscalls, so you've got a race window where you can attach still. Maybe it gets you there with hardened runtime? I'd have to think a bit harder on that.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse