Self-Wiping Hard Drives From Toshiba 268
Orome1 writes "Toshiba announced a family of self-encrypting hard disk drives engineered to automatically invalidate protected data when connected to an unknown host. Data invalidation attributes can be set for multiple data ranges, enabling targeted data in the drive to be rendered indecipherable by command, on power cycle, or on host authentication error."
Law enforcement... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I guarantee there is a or backdoor master key that will allow law enforcement to access the drive.
Re: (Score:2)
I guarantee there is a or backdoor master key that will allow law enforcement to access the drive.
The difference between "law enforcement" and the NSA is several orders of magnitude when it comes to "backdoor" anything.
My point here is the only "backdoor" keys (IF there really are any) are going to be closely held secrets within certain agencies, not for any person with a badge to have access to. Otherwise, you would leave no room for the lawyers to generate "revenue" bitching back and forth about encrypted data and user rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Which makes truecrypt your friend. Cant backdoor that one....
well they can have big bubba in cellblock 5 backdoor the key out of you.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Just make sure to do some backups in case "it" decides to protect yourself at random due to some malfunctions, or for example, a CPU upgrade etc. where the drive decides it needs to protect you...
Re:Law enforcement... (Score:4, Interesting)
Confiscate the computer with a self-encrypting HDD. Boot a live CD, image the HDD. Analyse the image.
Or am I missing the point?
Re: (Score:3)
There are very strict rules of evidence that require you to PROVE that you didn't tamper with data. Mounting a disk read/write certainly violates those rules. Attaching the disk to a computer that CAN mount the disk read/write (as opposed to using a hardware write blocker) probably violates them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is true, as a forensics professional. Strict rules of police work apply in the business, and they make sense. For example, if someone does not use a hardware write blocker to copy the drive to an image, then performs study only on that image, the case is pretty much screwed up.
However, where the rubber meets the road is in front of a jury of people who likely have little clue, nor really care about official P&P. They have zero interest that a forensics officer failed to use a hardware write bloc
Re: (Score:3)
However, where the rubber meets the road is in front of a jury of people who likely have little clue, nor really care about official P&P.
My understanding is that a jury will never see evidence that was obtained through improper procedures. When the system functions as intended, the judge would bar improperly-obtained evidence from being presented at trial.
Re: (Score:2)
If they cared about "rules" we wouldn't be worried about protecting our data from them.
The only kind of "self-destruct" apparatus I would trust is the one I apply myself. Anything that might have keys that are escrowed is useless when it comes to peace of mind.
Re: (Score:2)
The HDD wipes the moment you turn the power on and it finds something different with your system's configuration. There won't be an opportuity to image it.
Of course, since this is done in hardware, I wouldn't be surprised if law enforcement has a skeleton key.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. It doesn't wipe the platters, it wipes the encryption key from the controller.
Removing the encrypted platters won't help you.
Re: (Score:2)
Confiscate the computer with a self-encrypting HDD. Boot a live CD, image the HDD. Analyse the image.
Or am I missing the point?
Uh, analyze what exactly? A 250GB encrypted "file"? Hardware encryption should live well below what any LiveCD or cloning software is capable of viewing, otherwise, there would be no point in selling this as a viable product if it were THAT easy to circumvent.
Re: (Score:2)
Law Enforcement is going to have a master key. They ARE going to love these.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I more likely will see a hacker, or perhaps an employee selling the ability on the black market.
This would be a nice bonus for thieves and industrial/national espionage professionals. While someone is staying and enjoying the Elbonian hospitality, their intel agents can pull the HDD out of the laptop, attach a specialized controller that has this protection disabled, dump the data, and then slide it back in, and nobody would notice.
I'm less worried about LEOs getting access to data than thieves. The marke
Re: (Score:2)
The illusion of security is arguably worse then no security at all.
Re: (Score:2)
What... (Score:2)
...could possibly go wrong?
Re:What... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No you haven't. Your data is still there. Just don't be doing anything foolish like trying to access it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Finally, Write-Only Memory becomes mainstream.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, now my designs to mount a specialized file system under dev/null will finally pay off!
Re:What... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or different but better protections. For instance, a drive like this might be in a remote office in China, whereas the backup (or the source of the data) is in some secure location in your home country.
Re: (Score:3)
As someone who recently say a big raid array failing spectacularly and taking data with it because of a firmware bug on the disks themselves, can say that nothing will go wrong. This has success written all over it.
Re: (Score:2)
You had multiple disk corruption due to a common firmware bug on the drives themselves? That seems like its going to be pretty damn rare.
Now if you had a single drive failure and it took our your stripped, non-redundant array, then thats not really a big shocker is it?
Re:What... (Score:5, Informative)
You had multiple disk corruption due to a common firmware bug on the drives themselves? That seems like its going to be pretty damn rare.
Happens all the time because most RAID builders buy all their drives in one order from the same vendor. Heck they probably have sequential serial numbers. If there is a bug, they're going to totally lose that array because it'll hit all the drives.
Let me guess, about a year ago or a bit more, he bought a set of Maxstor 541DX, Fireball 3, or DiamondMax Plus 8, the defect lists slowly started filling up, one drive finally failed outright, then during the restore/rebuild process multiple drives also failed because their defect lists filled up during the restoration, then the drive firmware literally crashed on the next boot leaving you with nothing at all but a set of paperweights that don't even show up in the BIOS list? Mmmm, just guessing?
Always better off buying RAID drives from different vendors at different times, if you can.
Re: (Score:2)
Heck they probably have sequential serial numbers.
I learned that the hard way. But happily I also learned that I was as emotionally attached to my data as I thought I was.
Re: (Score:2)
A useful reminder that, despite what many hope, there's no B for Backup in RAID.
Re: (Score:2)
A useful reminder that, despite what many hope, there's no B for Backup in RAID.
You would be looking for a RABID setup? Try selling that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, the 'on command' wipe has a pop up window that asks "are you sure you want to wipe the drive? [(OK)]"
Enhanced Harddrive (Score:2, Interesting)
This one is way cooler.
It actually releases acid into the hard-drive platters:
http://www.deadondemand.com/products/enhancedhdd
If they've implemented this properly then you could send a remote command wirelessly that would wipe the hard-drive.
I'm pretty sure this is a forensic investigators nightmare...
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda does take quite a while on larger drives...
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda does take quite a while on larger drives...
It does, but "throw a bunch of acid on the platters" seems like a bit of a weird, mad scientist solution to trivial-to-solve problem.
Encrypt your entire 3TB hard drive with a 2,048-bit key. When the bad guys come a-knockin', don't zero out the 3TB of data. Zero out the 2,048 bit key, which takes just a few ms. Now instead of 3TB of useful data, you'll have 3TB of pseudorandom garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
Password for what? Unless you've memorized the 2,048 bit key, they've got nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
It might have been possible in the early days of hard disks, but not anymore. Data is just packed too densely. Think about it, if there was room for new data and old data to exist on one disk, then you've just doubled the capacity of your hard disk. If that were possible, hard disk makers would be advertising the increased capacity.
If you still believe the myth, I'd encourage you to find one instance of data being read off of a zeroed drive in the past 10 years.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe a zero'd drive still has a chance at being read, with expensive enough equipment. A drive overwritten with one pass of random data (or likely any noisey pattern) is unrecoverable - except for those bad blocks that have been "spared out", of course, those'll get you.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, then find someone willing to give you a quote to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe a zero'd drive still has a chance at being read
Don't believe, prove. The hard drive scientists say it can't be done. The data recovery people say it hasn't been possible for 15 years.
But, it would only take one successful demonstration to prove them wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Its also possible to recover data from a drive after writing zeros to it just one time. Its going to cost enough to be cost prohibitive in most cases, but its not impossible to pull off, of course its also not very reliable to get useful data out of it either.
At one time, with older technology, it was theoretically possible to do this. Nobody to my knowledge has ever actually managed to do it in the real world.
With today's technology, it's not even theoretically possible. A good explanation can be found here [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
"Military wipe spec?" What does that even mean?
NIPSOM doesn't allow wiping of drives which have had classified data on it. The only approved disposal method is physical destruction. This is not to say that the data would otherwise be recoverable--it is to say that they want there to be no chance of recovering data from those atoms without breaking the known laws of physics.
Re: (Score:2)
This is either a joke or a scam. What they claim cannot be implemented for any reasonable amount of money.
Re: (Score:3)
This one is way cooler.
It actually releases acid into the hard-drive platters:
But is it RoHS compliant?
My organization is "going green".
Ever seen copper turn green with corrosion?
A thermite charge big enough to get over the curie point would work just as well.
Re: (Score:2)
But is it RoHS compliant? My organization is "going green".
I'm sure it won't be hard to find a green colored acid.
This isn't new ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, I liked DOS.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft developed fool-proof methods to trash entire hard drives long ago...
I remember "Doublespace" being pretty effective at wiping hard drives.
a nightmare (Score:5, Insightful)
I can only imagine how many IT support types will accidentally wipe these things. How sad and hilarious this will be!
Murphey's favorite drive (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The first time some cosmic ray flips some bit that the drive queries to determine which host its attached to you lose all of your data.
Based on nosediving industry quality trends, I'd say that the odds of that particular error mode happening are minuscule compared to those of a garden variety click-of-death losing all your data.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, everybody who is using these drives will have copy of their data elsewhere. So the odds to weigh, for a laptop, are unrecoverable cosmic-ray-induced errors vs. a salesman losing his laptop when he gets drunk at the airport bar.
Have you ever worked with salesmen?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why you have to back it up to another drive with the same feature!
For storage in certain devices... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, your Superman III ATM virus could have an error in a decimal location, and give you $300000 almost immediately...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be nice if printer companies would do something fairly simple:
When saving a file to be printed, AES256 encrypt the file with a random key (from a secure RNG), then store the key in RAM. If the file is to be stored for more than just a print job, have a small area of easily zeroed out, battery backed up storage for this.
When the file is finished, zero out the key from RAM, and unlink() the disk file. Since the file is not recoverable once the key in RAM is destroyed, there wouldn't be a real need
Old News (Score:5, Funny)
Self wiping drives - I had a few of those YEARS ago. They had the added feature that when they were erasing themselves,they alerted the user via a loud screeching sound.
Prior art? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More info (Score:5, Interesting)
What a ... blog. Yeah. Just go to toshiba.com and read the press release from the source, instead of the cut and pasted partial version at the ... blog:
http://sdd.toshiba.com/techdocs/MKxx61GSYG_release.pdf [toshiba.com]
They claim it uses AES256.. How do you know its not some kind of simple XOR? Probably their exotic "crypto erasure scheme" which they don't discuss is simply deleting the AES256 key. Where would you store the key? How about in the partition table? How long until there's a patch to linux fdisk to read the key, or at least not overwrite it when partitioning, and then how long until someone uses a loopback crypto file system support until linux to read a drive assuming you previously know the AES256 key?
Also, those drives are small. The last time I bought a 160 GB drive was in the mid 00s. Wouldn't it be hilarious if the low capacity was because everything is stored twice, once "encrypted" for the (l)user and once unencrypted for government special access "only"?
This is just all speculation on top of speculation, yet it all seems strangely likely.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not store the key in a small sector of nvram on the control board, that's what the iphone 4 and ipad do with their crypto key.
No can do. Haven't met a SMD component yet that I can't desolder and I just do electronics as a hobby. Before people complain you can't do that with a $5 rat shack iron, the more money you spend at hakko.com the easier this is to do. I suppose if someone ever builds a nvram or flash in a BGA package or does some crazy bare die thing, it might cost as much as a new car, but I could theoretically do it. Pop that flash chip into an off the shelf reader and shazam you got the AES256 key.
Then source an ident
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The advantage of Ironkeys is that they are potted with hardened epoxy, and that Dremeling access to the chips is quite tough. Who knows if they would have any tamper resistant issues if someone drills small holes to connect wires.
Ideally, all the crypto, including key storage should be on the same die, in a well thought out tamper-resistant package. Putting all the crypto on one chip means that an attacker would not just have to have a desoldering station, but access to a chip fab for technology. This is
Re: (Score:2)
...Also, those drives are small. The last time I bought a 160 GB drive was in the mid 00s.
When the average corporate (or even home) user can barely fill a 160GB hard drive in the useful life of the computer, I'm struggling to see the justification for terabyte drives in desktops and laptops.
Sure, there are power geeks out there hungry for 2TB sitting in a laptop, but the only use I've found so far in buying drives THAT big is to watch someone lose a metric fuckton of data when the 2TB hard drive fails, vs. just losing a shitload of data when the 250GB hard drive fails.
Giving a user a bigger bask
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if they're doing it right, the key material is split between the drive and the host. The host and the drive have to perform a key exchange to end up with a shared secret, which is used by the drive to encrypt data. If plugged into an unknown host, or if the drive is programmed to generate a key in RAM at power-on and never save it anywhere, there's no key to recover.
Rampant speculation and paranoia is just insulting. The low capacity is probably because this is a drive designed to have extremely high
Don't attempt this at home (Score:5, Insightful)
This just in... (Score:2, Funny)
Laptop theft is at an all time low. In unrelated news, kidnappings are on the rise.
Legislative Bypass... (Score:2)
It seems to me that, increasingly, the legislative drive is to criminalize a failure to decrypt data, rather than actually needing the data as evidence. The idea is to give the failure to decrypt data a higher penalty than the actual crime for which you are being prosecuted, thus coercing you into decrypting the data. I mean, why bother trying to crack, break, or coerce the decryption factors when you can just build a stronger case?
There [slashdot.org] are [slashdot.org] several [slashdot.org] examples [slashdot.org] of [slashdot.org] this [slashdot.org] on Slashdot.
Such a drive could just prov
Re: (Score:2)
Hence Truecrypt's plausible deniability.
They'll have to prove there's more data before they can prosecute you.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that truecrypt heavily advertises this feature, so if you decrypt your volume and it has pictures of fuzzy kittens, they'll say "ha ha very funny, I said kiddie porn, not kitty porn. Now decrypt the secret volume."
Re: (Score:2)
Except that truecrypt heavily advertises this feature, so if you decrypt your volume and it has pictures of fuzzy kittens, they'll say "ha ha very funny, I said kiddie porn, not kitty porn. Now decrypt the secret volume."
Plausible deniability, in this case, means that there is no confirming evidence that there is data there. In this case, the poster is referring to this [truecrypt.org].
That said, presence of TrueCrypt drivers or bootloader would probably shatter that, and even without those, the court system isn't even remotely logical. All the prosecution has to do is convince a bunch of (non-technical) people that it's relevant, and you're back to "encrypted blob", see my OP, etc..
Re: (Score:2)
No, they just have to throw you in jail until you produce the key to the hidden partition. Didn't have a hidden partition? Sucks to be you.
Or do you expect the government to be the Good Guys in the story?
Re: (Score:2)
XKCD [xkcd.com]
This is why we have the fifth amendment in the US, I haven't been following it lately, but it was considered a violation of the fifth amendment protections to compel disclosure of an encryption key from the suspect.
Re: (Score:2)
God bless Minnesota [state.mn.us] :/
But I agree, that's how it's supposed to work.
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you're talking about someone being convicted even though the encryption of the evidence wasn't broken. You might want to read that appeal ruling carefully. It implies that there is other evidence (testimony, likely), that contradicts the perp's claim that there was nothing encrypted on the computer, implying there was no encrypted kiddie-porn on the computer. The appeals court is basically saying that yes, it's mostly irrelevant that there happens to be PGP on a commonly configured computer. But
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you're talking about someone being convicted even though the encryption of the evidence wasn't broken. You might want to read that appeal ruling carefully. It implies that there is other evidence (testimony, likely), that contradicts the perp's claim that there was nothing encrypted on the computer, implying there was no encrypted kiddie-porn on the computer. The appeals court is basically saying that yes, it's mostly irrelevant that there happens to be PGP on a commonly configured computer. But there's enough evidence that pictures of a child were uploaded to the computer to make it irrelevant that the PGP is irrelevant. So the fact that PGP is common isn't enough of an argument to overturn any of the case.
So basically the testimony is enough to convict so even if the jury had relied on the existence of PGP it's not enough to un-convict. I.e., you don't "get off on a technicality" unless the technicality actually changes the validity of the evidence against you.
What they didn't do there is state as a precedent that the existence of encryption software is in itself evidence of a crime. In case that's where you're going.
Mostly going for:
We find that evidence of appellant’s internet use and the existence of an encryption program on his computer was at least somewhat relevant to the state’s case against him.
... and ...
Evidence of appellant’s computer usage and the presence of an encryption program on his computer was relevant to the state’s case. We affirm the district court’s evidentiary rulings.
Sure, it could be worse, but that's not a good quote to hear in a US justice system. The UK has certainly crossed this line, but you'd be a fool not to see the US heading there too.
I must have one of these (Score:4, Funny)
A bad blocks scan at the weekend showed my year-old Toshiba hard drive has invalidated at least a hundred sectors so far.
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:4, Funny)
Pretty stupid (Score:3)
So steal/confiscate the whole machine. The only thing this does is it makes legitimate data recovery harder and may even cause unintended data loss. This is not how to do it. Amateur-crypto at best.
The BESTEST security! (Score:3)
Damn Small Linux (a boot & eject distro) booted from read only media, save your shit to an external truecrypt USB drive (hidden offsite)!
Whose Law Enforcement? (Score:3)
The US simply does not manufacture items like hard drives. I am certain that law enforcement as well as government good squads in many nations will not tolerate any form of personal security including a self wiping drive. So when it comes to back doors and over rides it may well be governments other than our own that can peek into these drives at will. And I doe believe that any software or hardware that is effective in securing ones' data will usually be from a source either infiltrated or owned by government agencies.
I'm not so sure how much I would like to protest the situation as I understand that covert electronic modes have already been effective for our forces in war actions.
Raises bar/Two edged sword (Score:3)
This raises the bar in terms of effort required to safely capture the data. If the system is effective then the drive electronics have to be bypassed. That is, either transplant new control electronics into the drive frame or transplant the platters. Clearly beyond the means of the average thief and raises the cost/effort level for law enforcement. That is unless Toshiba provides a "Law Enforcement SDK".
OTOH, the sword cuts two ways: not only does the drive provide protection from unauthorized access, it also puts the data under constant risk. Any data on the drive has a veritable Damocle's sword hanging over it. The possibility of accidentally triggering the destruct mode seems very real. Think about some of the false positive issues with that used to occur with Windows licensing where a minor system change made Windows think it was on a new installation. Happened to me several times and put me on the phone to Microsoft. ie: I added ram once, going from a single 512M to 2x1G and my activation cancelled; another time I upgraded the video card. Innocent but triggered the software detector.
Reminds me of Dr. Strangelove for some reason. I have an image of Slim Pickins riding my Toshiba disk into a mushroom cloud of destruction. Sorry, off topic. Damn OCD ;->
Re:TrueCrypt (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
TrueCrypt is FIPS140-2 compliant, it just isn't certified as such. No one has yet volunteered to pay for it and it would be a recurring expense for every released version. Such a thing is generally unreasonable for an open source project unless it is sponsored by an interested third party.
It is much the same situation as the Single UNIX Specification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification). There are only a few OSes that can call themselves certified UNIX, but there are hundreds if not thou
Re:TrueCrypt (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow! I genuinely thought I was the last person on Earth still using PCMCIA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would of course be branded the DeathStar.
I'd buy it, if it were.
Re: (Score:2)
They got that capability the day the rm(1) command was compiled.