www.bunniestudios.com Open in urlscan Pro
2607:f440::4227:1d1d  Public Scan

Form analysis
2 forms found in the DOM

POST /#es_form_f1-n1

<form action="/#es_form_f1-n1" method="post" class="es_subscription_form es_shortcode_form " id="es_subscription_form_635a52400fb90" data-source="ig-es">
  <div class="es-field-wrap"><label>Name*<br><input type="text" name="esfpx_name" class="ig_es_form_field_name" placeholder="" value="" required="required"></label></div>
  <div class="es-field-wrap"><label>Email*<br><input class="es_required_field es_txt_email ig_es_form_field_email" type="email" name="esfpx_email" value="" placeholder="" required="required"></label></div><input type="hidden" name="esfpx_lists[]"
    value="d80f73a28285"><input type="hidden" name="esfpx_form_id" value="1"><input type="hidden" name="es" value="subscribe">
  <input type="hidden" name="esfpx_es_form_identifier" value="f1-n1">
  <input type="hidden" name="esfpx_es_email_page" value="6466">
  <input type="hidden" name="esfpx_es_email_page_url" value="https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=6466">
  <input type="hidden" name="esfpx_status" value="Unconfirmed">
  <input type="hidden" name="esfpx_es-subscribe" id="es-subscribe-635a52400fb90" value="c5746b4771">
  <label style="position:absolute;top:-99999px;left:-99999px;z-index:-99;"><input type="email" name="esfpx_es_hp_email" class="es_required_field" tabindex="-1" autocomplete="-1" value=""></label><input type="submit" name="submit"
    class="es_subscription_form_submit es_submit_button es_textbox_button" id="es_subscription_form_submit_635a52400fb90" value="Subscribe"><span class="es_spinner_image" id="spinner-image"><img
      src="https://www.bunniestudios.com/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/email-subscribers/lite/public/images/spinner.gif" alt="Loading"></span>
</form>

GET https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/

<form role="search" method="get" id="searchform" class="searchform" action="https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/">
  <div>
    <label class="screen-reader-text" for="s">Search for:</label>
    <input type="text" value="" name="s" id="s">
    <input type="submit" id="searchsubmit" value="Search">
  </div>
</form>

Text Content

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


NAME THAT WARE, SEPTEMBER 2022

September 30th, 2022

The Ware for September 2022 is shown below.





I like the extra effort that went into the mounting of the elements on the right
hand side of the lower photo. There’s a lot of cheaper ways this could have been
done that involve some compromises, but this is probably one of the more robust
yet repairable ways to do it that might also shave a couple mm off the final
product’s thickness at the same time.

Thanks again to jackw01 for contributing these wonderfully photographed wares!

Posted in name that ware | 11 Comments »


WINNER, NAME THAT WARE AUGUST 2022

September 30th, 2022

The Ware for August 2022 is the optical trackball sensor from a Logitech M570
trackball mouse, which has a 30×30 pixel optical flow sensor and infrared LED in
a ~8mm square package. The principle of operation is the same as an optical
mouse. Congrats to Wouter for guessing it! email me for your prize.

Posted in name that ware | No Comments »


BOOK REVIEW: OPEN CIRCUITS

September 21st, 2022

There’s a profound beauty in well-crafted electronics.

Somehow, the laws of physics conspired with the evolution of human consciousness
such that sound engineering solutions are also aesthetically appealing: from the
ideal solder fillet, to the neat geometric arrangements of components on a
circuit board, to the billowing clouds of standard cells laid down by the latest
IC place-and-route tools, aesthetics both inspire and emerge from the
construction of practical, everyday electronics.

Eric Schlaepfer (@TubeTimeUS) and Windell Oskay (co-founder of Evil Mad
Scientist)’s latest book, Open Circuits, is a celebration of the electronic
aesthetic, by literally opening circuits with mechanical cross-sections,
accompanied by pithy explanations and illustrations. Their masterfully executed
cross-sectioning process and meticulous photography blur the line between
engineering and art, reminding us that any engineering task executed with soul
and care results in something that can inspire feelings of awe (“wow!”) and
reflection (“huh.”): that is art.



The pages of Open Circuits contain ample inspiration for both novices and
grizzled veterans alike. Having been in electronics for four decades, I
sometimes worry I’m becoming numb and cynical as I watch the world’s landfills
brim with cheap electronics, built without care and purchased (and disposed of)
with even less thought. However, as I thumb through the pages of Open Circuits,
that excitement, that awe which I felt as a youth when I traced my fingers along
the outlines of the resistors and capacitors of my first computer returns to me.
Schlaepfer and Oskay render even the most mundane artifacts, such as the ceramic
disc capacitor, in splendid detail – and in ways I’ve never seen before. Prior
to now, I had no intuition for the dimensions of an actual capacitor’s
dielectric material. I also didn’t realize that every thick film resistor bears
the marks of lasers that trim it to its final value. Or just seeing the
cross-section of a coaxial cable, as joined through a connector – all of a
sudden, the telegrapher’s equations and the time domain reflectometry graphs
take on a new and very tangible meaning to me. Ah, I think, so that’s the bump
in the TDR graph at the connector interface!

Also breathtaking is the sheer scope of components addressed by Schlaepfer and
Oskay. Nothing is too retro, nothing is too modern, nothing is too delicate: if
you’ve ever wanted to see a vacuum tube cut in half, they managed to somehow
slice straight through it without shattering the thin glass envelope; likewise,
if you ever wondered what your smartphone motherboard might look like, they’ve
gone and sliced clear through that as well.

One of my favorite tricks of the authors is when they slice through
optoelectronic devices: somehow, they manage to cut through multiple LEDs and
leave them in an operable state, leading to stunning images such as a 7-segment
LED still displaying the number “5” yet revealed in cross-section. I really
appreciate the effort that went into mounting that part onto a beautifully
fabricated and polished (perhaps varnished?) copper-clad circuit board, so that
not only are you treated to the spectacle of the still-functional cross
sectioned device, you have the reflection of the device rippling off of a
handsomely brushed copper surface. Like I said: any engineering executed with
soul and care is also art.

In a true class act, Schlaepfer and Oskay conclude the book with an “Afterward”
that shares the secrets of their cross-sectioning and photography techniques.
Adhering to the principle of openness, this meta-chapter breaks down the fourth
wall and gives you a peek into their atelier, showing you the tools and
techniques used to generate the images within the book. Such sharing of
hard-earned knowledge is a hallmark of true masters; while lesser authors would
withold such trade secrets, fearing others may rise to compete with them,
Schlaepfer and Oskay gain an even deeper respect from their fans by disclosing
the effort and craft that went into creating the book. Sharing also plants the
seeds for a broader community of circuit-openers, preserving the knowledge and
techniques for new generations of electronics aficionados.

Even if you’re not a “hardware person”, or even if you’re “not into tech”, the
images in Open Circuits are so captivating that they may just tempt you to learn
a bit more about it. Or, perhaps more importantly, a wayward young mind may be
influenced to realize that hardware isn’t scary: it’s okay to peel back the
covers and discover that the fruits of engineering are not merely functional,
but also deeply aesthetic as well. I know that a younger version of me would
have carried a copy of this book everywhere I went, poring over its pages at
every chance.

While I was only able to review an early access electronic copy of their book, I
am excited to get the full-color, hard-cover edition of the book. Having
published a couple books with No Starch Press myself, I know the passion with
which its founder, Bill Pollock, conducts his trade. He does not scrimp on
materials: for The Hardware Hacker, he sprung on silver ink for the endsheets
and clear UV spot inks for the cover – extra costs that came out of his bottom
line, but made the hardcover edition look and feel great. So, I’m excited to see
these wonderful images rendered faithfully onto the pages of a coffee-table
companion book that I will be proud to showcase for years to come.

If you’re also turned on to Open Circuits, pre-order it on No Starch Press’
website, with the discount code “BUNNIESTUDIOS25”, to receive 25% off (no
affiliate code or trackback in that link – 100% goes to No Starch and the
authors). The code expires Tuesday, October 4. Pre-orders will also receive
exclusive phone and desktop wallpaper images that are not in the book!



Posted in Hacking, open source, Ponderings, Social | 6 Comments »


FULLY OXIDIZING `RING`: CREATING A PURE RUST TLS STACK BASED ON `RUSTLS` +
`RING`

September 16th, 2022

I really want to understand all the software that runs on my secure devices.

It’s a bit of a quixotic quest, but so far we’ve made pretty good progress
towards this goal: I’ve been helping to write the Xous OS from the ground up in
pure Rust – from the bootloader to the apps. Xous now has facilities like secure
storage, a GUI toolkit, basic networking, and a password vault application that
can handle U2F/FIDO, TOTP, and plaintext passwords.

One of the biggest challenges has been keeping our SBOM (software bill of
materials) as small as possible. I consider components of the SBOM to be part of
our threat model, so we very selectively re-write crates and libraries that are
too bloated. This trades off the risk of introducing new bugs in our hand-rolled
code versus the risk of latent, difficult-to-discover bugs buried in more
popular but bloated libraries. A side benefit of this discipline is that to this
day, Xous builds on multiple platforms with nothing more than a default Rust
compiler – no other tooling necessary. It does mean we’re putting a lot of trust
in the intractably complicated `rustc` codebase, but better than also including,
for example, `gcc`, `nasm`, and `perl` codebases as security-critical SBOM
components.

Unfortunately, more advanced networking based on TLS is a huge challenge. This
is because the “go-to” Rust library for TLS, `rustls`, uses `ring` for its
cryptography. `ring` is in large part an FFI (foreign function interface)
wrapper around a whole lot of assembly and C code that is very platform specific
and lifted out of BoringSSL. And it requires `gcc`, `nasm`, and `perl` to build,
pulling all these complicated tools into our SBOM.

Notwithstanding our bespoke concerns, `ring` turns out to be the right solution
for probably 90%+ of the deployments by CPU core count. It’s based on the
highly-regarded, well-maintained and well-vetted BoringSSL codebase (“never roll
your own crypto”!), and because of all the assembly and C, it is high
performance. Secure, high-performance code, wrapped in Rust. What else could you
ask for when writing code that potentially runs on some of the biggest cloud
services on the Internet? I definitely can’t argue with the logic of the
maintainers – in Open Source, sustainability often requires catering to
deep-pocketed patrons.

The problem, of course, is that Open Source includes The Bazaar, with a huge
diversity of architectures. The problem is well-stated in this comment from a
RedHat maintainer:

> …I’m not really speaking as a member of the Packaging Committee here, but as
> the person who is primary maintainer for 2000+ packages for Rust crates.
> 
> In Fedora Linux, our supported architectures are x86_64, i686, aarch64,
> powerpc64le, s390x, and, up to Fedora 36, armv7 (will no longer supported
> starting with Fedora 37). By default, all packages are built on all
> architectures, and architecture support is opt-out instead of opt-in. […]
> 
> On the other hand, this also makes it rather painful to deal with Rust crates
> which only have limited architecture support: Builds of packages for the
> affected crates and every other package of a Rust crate that depends on them
> need to opt-out of building on, in this case, powerpc64le and s390x
> architectures. This is manageable for the 2-3 packages that we have which
> depend on ring, but right now, I’m in the process of actually removing
> optional features that need rustls where I can, because that support is unused
> and hard to support.
> 
> However, the problem will get much worse once widely-used crates, like hyper
> (via h3 and quinn) start adding a (non-optional) dependency on rustls / ring.
> At that point, it would probably be easier to stop building Rust crates on the
> two unsupported architectures completely – but we cannot do that, because some
> new distribution-critical components have been introduced, which were either
> written from scratch in Rust, or were ported from C or Python to Rust, and
> many of them are network stack related, with many of them using hyper.

Long story short, if Redhat/Fedora can’t convince `ring` to support their needs,
then the prognosis for getting our niche RISC-V + Xous combo supported in `ring`
does not look good, which would mean that `rustls`, in turn, is not viable for
Xous.

Fortunately, Ellen Poe (ellenhp) reached out to me in response to a post I made
back in July, and informed me that she had introduced a patch which adds RISC-V
support for ESP32 targets to `ring`, and that this is now being maintained by
the community as `ring-compat`. Her community graciously tried another go at
submitting a pull request to get this patch mainlined, but it seems to not have
made much progress on being accepted.

At this point, the following options remained:

 * Use WolfSSL with FFI bindings, through the wolfssl-sys crate.
 * Write our own crappy pure-Rust TLS implementation
 * Patch over all the `ring` FFI code with pure Rust versions

WolfSSL is appealing as it is a well-supported TLS implementation precisely
targeted toward light-weight clients that fit our CPU profile: I was confident
it could meet our space and performance metrics if we could only figure out how
to integrate the package. Unfortunately, it is both license and language
incompatible with Xous, which would require turning it into a stand-alone binary
for integration. This also reduced efficiency of the code, because we would have
to wrap every SSL operation into an inter-process call, as the WolfSSL code
would be sandboxed into its own virtual memory space. Furthermore, it introduces
a C compiler into our SBOM, something we had endeavoured to avoid from the very
beginning.

Writing our own crappy TLS implementation is just a patently bad idea for so
many reasons, but, when doing a clean-sheet architecture like ours, all options
have to stay on the table.

This left us with one clear path: trying to patch over the `ring` FFI code with
pure Rust versions.

The first waypoint on this journey was to figure out how `ring-compat` managed
to get RISC-V support into `ring`. It turns out their trick only works for
`ring` version 0.17.0 – which is an unreleased, as-of-yet still in development
version.

Unfortunately, `rustls` depends on `ring` version 0.16.20; `ring` version
0.16.20 uses C code derived from BoringSSL that seems to be hand-coded, but
carefully reviewed. So, even if we could get `ring-compat` to work for our
platform, it still would not work with `rustls`, because 0.17.0 != 0.16.20.

Foiled!

…or are we?

I took a closer look at the major differences between `ring` 0.17.0 and 0.16.20.
There were enough API-level differences that I would have to fork `rustls` to
use `ring` 0.17.0.

However, if I pushed one layer deeper, within `ring` itself, one of the biggest
changes is that ring’s “fipsmodule” code changes from the original, hand-coded
version, to a machine-generated version that is derived from ciphers from the
fiat-crypto project (NB: “Fiat Crypto” has nothing to do with cryptocurrency,
and they’ve been at it for about as long as Bitcoin has been in existence. As
they say, “crypto means cryptography”: fiat cryptography utilizes formal methods
to create cryptographic ciphers that are guaranteed to be correct. While
provably correct ciphers are incredibly important and have a huge positive
benefit, they don’t have a “get rich quick” story attached to them and thus they
have been on the losing end of the publicity-namespace battle for the words
“fiat” and “crypto”). Because their code is machine-generated from formal
proofs, they can more easily support a wide variety of back-ends; in particular,
in 0.17.0, there was a vanilla C version of the code made available for every
architecture, which was key to enabling targets such as WASM and RISC-V.

This was great news for me. I proceeded to isolate the fipsmodule changes and
layer them into a 0.16.20 base (with Ellen’s patch applied); this was
straightforward in part because cryptography APIs have very little reason to
change (and in fact, changing them can have disastrous unintended consequences).

Now, I had a `rustls` API-compatible version of `ring` that also uses
machine-generated, formally verified pure C code (that is: no more bespoke
assembly targets!) with a number of pathways to achieve a pure Rust translation.

Perhaps the most “correct” method would have been to learn the entire Fiat
Crypto framework and generate Rust back-ends from scratch, but that does not
address the thin layer of remnant C code in `ring` still required to glue
everything together.

Instead, Xobs suggested that we use `c2rust` to translate the existing C code
into Rust. I was initially skeptical: transpilation is a very tricky
proposition; but Xobs whipped together a framework in an afternoon that could at
least drive the scripts and get us to a structure that we could rapidly iterate
around. The transpiled code generated literally thousands of warnings, but
because we’re transpiling machine-generated code, the warning mechanisms were
very predictable and easy to patch using various regex substitutions.

Over the next couple of days, I kept plucking away at the warnings emitted by
`rustc`, writing fix-up patches that could be automatically applied to the
generated Rust code through a Python script, until I had a transpilation script
that could take the original C code and spit out warning-free Rust code that
integrates seamlessly into `ring`. The trickiest part of the whole process was
convincing `c2rust`, which was running on a 64-bit x86 host, to generate 32-bit
code; initially all our TLS tests were failing because the bignum arithmetic
assumed a 64-bit target. But once I figured out that the `-m32` flag was needed
in the C options, everything basically just worked! (hurray for `rustc`’s
incredibly meticulous compiler warnings!)

The upshot is now we have a fork of `ring` in `ring-xous` that is both
API-compatible with the current `rustls` version, and uses pure Rust, so we can
compile TLS for Xous without need of gcc, clang, nasm, or perl.

BUT IS IT CONSTANT TIME?

One note of caution is that the cryptographic primitives used in TLS are riddled
with tricky timing side channels that can lead to the disclosure of private keys
and session keys. The good news is that a manual inspection of the transpiled
code reveals that most of the constant-time tricks made it through the
transpilation process cleanly, assuming that I interpreted the barrier
instruction correctly as the Rust `compiler_fence` primitive. Just to be sure, I
built a low-overhead, cycle-accurate hardware profiling framework called
perfcounter. With about 2 cycles of overhead, I’m able to snapshot a timestamp
that can be used to calculate the runtime of any API call.

Inspired by DJB’s Cache-timing attacks on AES paper, I created a graphical
representation of the runtimes of both our hardware AES block (which uses a
hard-wired S-box for lookups, and is “very” constant-time) and the transpiled
`ring` AES code (which uses program code that can leak key-dependent timing
information due to variations in execution speed) to convince myself that the
constant-time properties made it through the transpilation process.



Each graphic above shows a plot of runtime versus 256 keys (horizontal axis)
versus 128 data values (vertical axis) (similar to figure 8.1 in the above-cited
paper). In the top row, brightness corresponds to runtime; the bright spots
correspond to periodic OS interrupts that hit in the middle of the AES
processing routine. These bright spots are not correlated to the AES
computation, and would average out over multiple runs. The next lower row is the
exact same image, but with a random color palette, so that small differences in
runtime are accentuated. Underneath the upper 2×2 grid of images is another 2×2
grid that corresponds to the same parameters, but averaged over 8 runs.

Here we can see that for the AES with hardware S-boxes, there is a tiny bit of
texture, which represents a variability of about ±20 CPU cycles out of a typical
time of 4168 cycles to encrypt a block; this variability is not strongly
correlated with key or data bit patterns. For AES with transpiled ring code, we
see a lot more texture, representing about ±500 cycles variability out of a
typical time of 12,446 cycles to encrypt a block. It’s not as constant time as
the hardware S-boxes, but more importantly the variance also does not seem to be
strongly correlated with a particular key or data pattern over multiple runs.



Above is a histogram of the same data sets; on the left are the hardware
S-boxes, and the right is the software S-box used in the `ring` transpilation;
and across the top are results from a single run, and across the bottom are the
average of 8 runs. Here we can see how on a single run, the data tends to bin
into a couple of bands, which I interpret as timing differences based upon how
“warm” the cache is (in particular, the I-cache). The banding patterns are
easily disturbed: they do not replicate well from run-to-run, they tend to
“average out” over more runs, and they only manifest when the profiling is very
carefully instrumented (for example, introducing some debug counters in the
profiling routines disrupts the banding pattern). I interpret this as an
indicator that the banding patterns are more an artifact of external influences
on the runtime measurement, rather than a pattern exploitable in the AES code
itself.

More work is necessary to thoroughly characterize this, but it’s good enough for
a first cut; and this points to perhaps optimizing `ring-xous` to use our
hardware AES block for both better performance and more robust constant-time
properties, should we be sticking with this for the long haul.

Given that Precursor is primarily a client and not a server for TLS, leakage of
the session key is probably the biggest concern, so I made checking the AES
implementation a priority. However, I also have reason to believe that the ECDSA
and RSA implementation’s constant time hardening should have also made it
through the transpilation process.

That being said, I’d welcome help from anyone who can recommend a robust and
succinct way to test for constant time ECDSA and/or RSA operation. Our processor
is fairly slow, so at 100MHz simply generating gobs of random keys and signing
them may not give us enough coverage to gain confidence in face of some of the
very targeted timing attacks that exist against the algorithm. Another
alternative could be to pluck out every routine annotated with “constant time”
in the source code and benchmark them; it’s a thing we could do but first I’m
still not sure this would encompass everything we should be worried about, and
second it would be a lot of effort given the number of routines with this
annotation. The ideal situation would be a Wycheproof-style set of test vectors
for constant time validation, but unfortunately the Wycheproof docs simply say
“TBD” under Timing Attacks for DSA.

SUMMARY

`ring-xous` is a fork of `ring` that is compatible with `rustls` (that is, it
uses the 0.16.20 API), and is pure Rust. I am also optimistic that our
transpilation technique preserved many of the constant-time properties, so while
it may not be the most performant implementation, it should at least be usable;
but I would welcome the review and input of someone who knows much more about
constant-time code to confirm my hunch.

We’re able to use it as a drop-in replacement for `ring`, giving us TLS on Xous
via `rustls` with a simple `Cargo.toml` patch in our workspace:

[patch.crates-io.ring]
git="https://github.com/betrusted-io/ring-xous"
branch="0.16.20-cleanup"


We’ve also confirmed this works with the `tungstenite` websockets framework for
Rust, paving the way towards implementing higher-level secure messaging
protocols.

This leads to the obvious question of “What now?” — we’ve got this fork of
`ring`, will we maintain it? Will we try to get things upstreamed? I think the
idea is to maintain a fork for now, and to drop it once something better comes
along. At the very least, this particular fork will be deprecated once `ring`
reaches full 0.17.0 and `rustls` is updated to use this new version of `ring`.
So for now, this is a best-effort port for the time being that is good enough to
get us moving again on application development. If you think this fork can also
help your project get un-stuck, you may be able to get `ring-xous` to work with
your OS/arch with some minor tweaks of the `cfg` directives sprinkled
throughout; feel free to submit a PR if you’d like to share your tweaks with
others!

Posted in Hacking, open source, precursor | 3 Comments »


NAME THAT WARE, AUGUST 2022

August 24th, 2022

The Ware for August 2022 is shown below.


Yet another contribution from jackw01! I had always been curious about these and
I thought it was really neat to get a peek inside. It’s interesting how tightly
integrated things are becoming – a single tiny black box that does magical
things. I hope we collectively never forget what goes into everyday things, or
else they may go the way of the Antikythera Mechanism.

Posted in name that ware | 5 Comments »

« Older Entries


 * ❤️ Sponsor me on github! ❤️

 * 
 * Name*
   
   Email*
   


 * CATEGORIES
   
   * Administrative
   * betrusted
   * Biology
   * chibitronics
   * chumby
   * covid-19
   * Feminism
   * gongkai
   * Hacking
   * Made in China
   * Made in Italy
   * name that ware
   * NeTV
   * novena
   * open source
   * Ponderings
   * precursor
   * Social
   * The Factory Floor
   * Uncategorized


 * PAGES
   
   * 2012 Name That Ware Calendar
   * Contact bunnie
   * Crosslicense 1.0 (XL-1.0)
   * On Influenza A (H1N1)
   * On MicroSD Problems
     * On Hacking MicroSD Cards
   * The $12 “Gongkai” Phone
   * The Factory Floor, Part 1 of 4:
     The Quotation (or, How to Make a BOM)
     * The Factory Floor, Part 2 of 4:
       On Design for Manufacturing
     * The Factory Floor, Part 3 of 4:
       Industrial Design for Startups
     * The Factory Floor, Part 4 of 4:
       Picking (and Maintaining) a Partner
   * Why the Best Days of Open Hardware are Yet to Come
   * Add a VGA LCD to a Chumby
   * Dvorak on the Tandy 102
   * HackDAC
     * HackDAC Implementation
     * HackDAC Theory
   * Hacking the PIC 18F1320
   * Modifying the S400 Scanner for Watermark Enhancement
   * Pictures of Logic Gates in Silicon
   * Some hacks I’ve done
   * Diodes, Solitons, and Taoism
   * Name that Ware Contest Rules


 * STUFF
   
   * bunniestudios logo merch
   * Factpub Whitepaper
   * Old home page
   * PhD thesis
 * Search for:


 * META
   
   * Log in
   * Entries feed
   * Comments feed
   * WordPress.org
 * 
   This work by bunnie is licensed under a Creative Commons
   Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

bunnie's blog is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).