This isn’t the first article I’ve written about Trusted Compute Bases (TCBs), so if the concept is new to you, I suggest that you have a look at What’s a Trusted Compute Base? to get an idea of what I’ll be talking about here. In that article, I noted the importance of the size of the TCB: “what you want is a small, easily measurable and easily auditable TCB on which you can build the rest of your system – from which you can build a ‘chain of trust’ to the other parts of your system about which you care.” In this article, I want to take some time to discuss the importance of the size of a TCB, how we might measure it, and how difficult it can be to reduce the TCB size. Let’s look at all of those issues in order.
Size does matter
However you measure it – and we’ll get to that below – the size of the TCB matters for two reasons:
- the larger the TCB is, the more bugs there are likely to be;
- the larger the TCB is, the larger the attack surface.
The first of these is true of any system, and although there may be ways of reducing the number of bugs, proving the correctness of all or, more likely, part of the system, bugs are both tricky to remove and resilient – if you remove one, you may well be introducing another (or worse, several). Now, the kinds or bugs you have, and the number of them, can be reduced through a multitude of techniques, from language choice (choosing Rust over C/C++ to reduce memory allocation errors, for instance) to better specification and on to improved test coverage and fuzzing. In the end, however, the smaller the TCB, the less code (or hardware – we’re considering the broader system here, don’t forget), you have to trust, the less space there is for there to be bugs in it.
The concept of an attack surface is important, and, like TCBs, one I’ve introduced before (in What’s an attack surface?). Like bugs, there may be no absolute measure of the ratio of danger:attack surface, but the smaller your TCB, well, the less there is to attack, and that’s a good thing. As with bug reduction, there are number of techniques you may want to apply to reduce your attack surface, but the smaller it is, then, by definition, the fewer opportunities attackers have to try to compromise your system.
Measuring the size of your TCB is really, really hard – or, maybe I should say that coming up with an absolute measure that you can compare to other TCBs is really, really hard. The problem is that there are so many measurements that you might take. The ones you care about are probably those that can be related to attack surface – but there are so many different attack vectors that might be relevant to a TCB that there are likely to be multiple attack surfaces. Let’s look at some of the possible measurements:
- number of API methods
- amount of data that can be passed across each API method
- number of parameters that can be passed across each API method
- number of open network sockets
- number of open local (e.g. UNIX) sockets
- number of files read from local storage
- number of dynamically loaded libraries
- number of DMA (Direct Memory Access) calls
- number of lines of code
- amount of compilation optimisation carried out
- size of binary
- size of executing code in memory
- amount of memory shared with other processes
- use of various caches (L1, L2, etc.)
- number of syscalls made
- number of strings visible using
stringscommand or similar
- number of cryptographic operations not subject to constant time checks
This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but just to show the range of different areas in which vulnerabilities might appear. Designing your application to reduce one may increase another – one very simple example being an attempt to reduce the number of API calls exposed by increasing the number of parameters on each call, another being to reduce the size of the binary by using more dynamically linked binaries.
This leads us to an important point which I’m not going to address in detail in this article, but which is fundamental to understanding TCBs: that without a threat model, there’s actually very little point in considering what your TCB is.
Reducing the TCB size
We’ve just seen one of the main reasons that reducing your TCB size is difficult: it’s likely to involve trade-offs between different measures. If all you’re trying to do is produce competitive marketing material where you say “my TCB is smaller than yours”, then you’re likely to miss the point. The point of a TCB is to have a well-defined computing base which can protect against specific threats. This requires you to be clear about exactly what functionality requires that it be trusted, where it sits in the system, and how the other components in the system rely on it: what trust relationships they have. I was speaking to a colleague just yesterday who was relaying a story of software project who said, “we’ve reduced our TCB to this tiny component by designing it very carefully and checking how we implement it”, but who overlooked the fact that the rest of the stack – which contained a complete Linux distribution and applications – could be no more trusted than before. The threat model (if there was one – we didn’t get into details) seemed to assume that only the TCB would be attacked, which missed the point entirely: it just added another “turtle” to the stack, without actually fixing the problem that was presumably at issue: that of improving the security of the system.
Reducing the TCB by artificially defining what the TCB is to suit your capabilities or particular beliefs around what the TCB specifically should be protecting against is not only unhelpful but actively counter-productive. This is because it ignores the fact that a TCB is there to serve the needs of a broader system, and if it is considered in isolation, then it becomes irrelevant: what is it acting as a base for?
In conclusion, it’s all very well saying “we have a tiny TCB”, but you need to know what you’re protecting, from what, and how.