Image: raspberrypi.com · rights & removal

Everything is better with lasers

Reporting by Raspberry Pi NewsRead the original at raspberrypi.com

Executive Summary

A new secure microcontroller, RP2350, was launched in August 2024, accompanied by hacking challenges to test its security. Following these challenges, the chip was revised to address security breaks discovered. Subsequently, research from Ledger Donjon disclosed a security vulnerability in the RP2350. This vulnerability allowed users with specialized equipment to potentially re-enable debug interfaces on the secured chip. The disclosure involved demonstrating that specific parts of the chip could be manipulated by focused infrared laser beams to affect register contents and allow for OTP readout. The developers determined that this research did not necessitate a full chip respin, noting that the attack is destructive, requires specialized equipment, and involves a single-device scope when per-device keys are employed. A second hacking challenge focusing on side-channel analysis is currently ongoing.

Facts Only

* RP2350 was launched in August 2024.
* Two hacking challenges were initiated targeting the security measures of RP2350.
* The RP2350 was respinned to fix breaks found during the challenges.
* Ledger Donjon disclosed a security vulnerability in RP2350.
* Research demonstrated that specialized microscopy and laser equipment could be used to re-enable the debug interface on RP2350-A4 chips.
* The research involved using infrared laser beams to affect specific register contents to enable debug access and OTP readout.
* The researchers determined the findings did not warrant a chip respin because the attack is destructive, requires physical removal/de-encapsulation, necessitates specialized skills and equipment, and has a single-device scope assuming per-device keys are used.
* A second hacking challenge focusing on side channel analysis is ongoing.

Full Take

The narrative juxtaposes the creation of high-security hardware with the subsequent, highly technical discovery of exploitable physical channels for access. The demonstration by the Ledger Donjon team establishes a clear boundary: while security measures are implemented, physical reality remains a vector, especially when sophisticated tools are available. The distinction drawn between finding an exploit (which required specialized resources and effort) and warranting a full hardware redesign is significant; it sets a precedent where research findings must be weighed against the practical cost and feasibility of remediation. The implicit message is that security architectures must account for physical-layer side channels, not just logical access controls. The subsequent mention of previous hacking challenge wins being fixed by boot ROM revisions reinforces a pattern: security fixes often rely on addressing low-level, hardware-specific flaws missed in initial design. The ongoing focus on side-channel analysis suggests a persistent tension between abstract security protocols and the physical implementation that underpins them. What assumptions are made about the baseline capability of the end-user when assessing "impossibility" versus "practical demonstration"? What is the long-term responsibility for designing systems that resist both logical and physical attacks?

From the original · Raspberry Pi News

Back in August 2024 we launched RP2350, our latest secure microcontroller. At the same time, we kicked off our first of two Hacking Challenges centred around defeating the security measures we’d built into RP2350.

Read the full story at raspberrypi.com

Sentinel — provisional

Raw score, 0 to 1 (uncalibrated)0.15

No strong signs of machine writing were found in the source article. Provisional estimate, not a finding that a person wrote it.

The model's own note (unverified)

The text reads like an official technical update or blog post from a company, detailing a product launch, a security challenge, and the findings related to a disclosed vulnerability.

This looks only at the wording of the original source article, not at this page's AI-written sections. A small local AI model made this estimate. It has not been checked against known human and machine texts, so treat it as provisional. It cannot show who wrote an article.

What the model noticed in the source article

Sentence length variance is moderate; rhythm shifts between technical announcement and narrative storytelling.

The text flows logically from product launch to vulnerability disclosure to analysis, demonstrating a cohesive voice.

The use of personal framing ('we launched', 'we’d like to thank') and referencing specific past events (Hacking Challenges) suggests an internal, human source.

The technical details regarding the attack methods and the subsequent analysis appear grounded in a specific, traceable event sequence.

Signs the model read as against machine writing

The use of casual yet precise language ('Pew pew. Drat!', 'bougie equipment') combined with technical specifics suggests a narrative style often found in company-backed engineering communications.

The explicit referencing of past events (Hacking Challenges) and subsequent fixes indicates an established, continuous timeline characteristic of human reporting or internal updates.