heads

, then used to calculate a random number by a shell script in Heads. If the number on your mobile phone matches with the number on the screen, then it proves the system is not being tampered. Read the code here: https://github.com/osresearch/heads/blob/584c07042ef4898de52... https://github.com/osresearch/heads/blob/584c07042ef4898de52... (yes, all shell scripts... I'm not sure whether this is a security issue, but this design is probably inspired by the initrd/sysvinit shell scripts) Obviously, it means every time you boot your computer, it requires you to check the 6-digit code against your phone, before it boots the actual Linux kernel, or enter your full-disk encryption key. To me, Librem Key improves it, by automating the process (as Nitrokey has TOTP functionality already), and using a simple protocol to automate the challenge-response verification. If you want to learn more, make sure to read about Heads first. https://github.com/osresearch/heads This presentation is a good start. https://trmm.net/Heads_33c3 Attack Vectors: 1. The trustworthiness and security of the TPM. The Free Software community has historically rejected them because of the DRM aspect of "trusted" computing. But to this day, the complete DRM dystopia (where all the proprietary software is running inside Intel Management Engine, and performs DRM-related cryptography in TPM blackboxes, was it called Microsoft Palladium?) didn't turn out to be a threat, fortunately. So now even RMS acknowledged that there is no actual reason to not implementing free software security tools based on TPM. Another reason is potential backdoor, but even there is a backdoor, using it still improves security, compared to completely unprotected machines. In the future, perhaps there can be Free Hardware TPM, but not in the foreseeable future, and Heads's usage of TPM is still a big step towards security. 2. Completeness of measurements. If some software/hardware changes are not measured, or can be replayed by the attacker, the attack will not be detected. But the measurements are done collaterally by coreboot in early boot, and Heads in later boot, and to me is fairly extensive. Maybe there is still room for attacks, but difficult. Pentesters are always welcomed. BTW, man-in-the-middle attack to the entire verification process is possible, but it only has theoretical interests, as the attacker has to stay in the middle between you and your screen. 3. Another general issue is the security of the TOTP seed, like, if your Google Authenticator is hacked. The problem is somehow mitigated by using a Nitrokey/Librem Key, but the TOTP code is still running on a generic STM32F1 MCU, not the OpenPGP Card. STM32F1 is known for its tamper-nonresistance. But because of NDAs, there is currently no good alternative choices though. But still, just like TPM, I think it greatly improves the current situation so far, let's use it. It still has problems, and in the future we may do better. 4. Automation. Librem Key automates the challenge-response, unlike the original Heads, which prints the code on the screen. In the original Heads, if Heads itself is tampered, it will noticed by the user for incorrect/no code. But with automation, perhaps the attacker has a way to trick the users now? Need to check this. > and even then i'm an amateur at cryptography stuff Me too. I'm also working on a similar security token in my spare time. Hopefully, before the New Year, I can submit a Show HN. You may find it's interesting to read. Finally, all of my descriptions are based on my first-hand impressions, not necessarily facts, and totally unverified. Make sure to check the primary sources!