Hardware Encryption: Promises vs. Reality

Hardware Encryption: Promises vs. Reality

Researchers from Masaryk University, Red Hat, and OpenSSL examined 38 self‑encrypting SSDs claiming support for the TCG Opal2 standard. Such drives offer hardware encryption — data is encrypted using built‑in cryptographic logic. The tests revealed that claiming Opal2 compliance does not guarantee real security. The full study is available here.

Some of the identified weaknesses: • Five drives exhibited encryption implementation flaws, producing repeated block patterns even after the encryption key was changed. • Seven devices failed randomness tests, and two of them produced especially predictable sequences. • One SanDisk batch had sequentially generated factory reset codes (PSID), making it possible to guess valid codes for other drives in the same batch. • Another six drives improperly validated PSID length and accepted legitimate codes padded with arbitrary characters.

Researchers also noted compatibility issues. Three of the 38 drives were incompatible with LUKS2 (the disk‑encryption format widely used in Linux) due to firmware bugs and limitations. Among 24 drives advertising SUM mode — meant to prevent admin access to user data — only 14 actually worked with LUKS2.

Researchers also found 12 models marketed as hardware‑encrypting drives but based on Pyrite2, which only enforces password access control and does not encrypt data at all.

Vendor responses highlighted the problem. Only one drive received a firmware update, while other replies (if any) said: • The issue is known but not fixed. • The affected model is end‑of‑support. • The vulnerable function is now unsupported, and users are advised to rely on software encryption instead.