Skip to content
Reference

Threat catalogue

Every threat we defend against carries a stable ID, a cost tier, an explicit defense layer, and a residual-risk note. The ones we don't defend against are named just as plainly. The matrix view lives on the threat model page.

Tier 1 — Software-only attacks

Bots, throwaway cloud servers, software chip emulators. Stopped outright: the proof simply doesn't check out. This is the tier that carries almost all real-world abuse volume, which is why displacing it changes your economics.

T-101VM-spawn-and-discard account farming$0.01–$0.10 · Infinite

MechanismRent cloud VMs, run signup with each as a fresh identity. Cost ~$0.005/hr per instance.

Defense layersL2, L3, L9

ResidualNone at the cryptographic layer. Attacker must escalate.

Real-worldLayerZero's 803K excluded wallets were largely cloud-VM clusters.

T-102Cloud-vTPM account farming (NitroTPM / Azure / GCP)$0.01–$0.50 · Infinite

MechanismCloud VM has a real virtual-TPM 2.0 producing a structurally valid attestation. Bypasses naive 'did they have a TPM' checks.

Defense layersL2, L3, L4, L9

ResidualNone under strict-hardware. Under cloud-permissive policy, IID cross-validation closes it.

T-103swtpm emulator account farming~$0 · Infinite

MechanismUserspace swtpm emulator produces TPM 2.0 commands and certs chaining to swtpm-localca.

Defense layersL2, L3, L9

ResidualNone.

Real-worldSUSE virt guide documents emulated TPM reports manufacturer 49424d00 regardless of host.

T-104CAPTCHA solver-farm bot signup$0.001–$0.005 · Infinite

MechanismSolver farms defeat CAPTCHA at $1–$3 / 1000 solves.

Defense layersOut-of-scope at the cryptographic layer. See residual note.

ResidualOut-of-scope for Root Herald directly — but composes: solver-farm wins CAPTCHA, fails attestation.

T-105Anti-detect browser + residential proxy$0.20–$1 · Infinite

MechanismRotated browser fingerprints + residential IP egress. Defeats FingerprintJS / Castle / DataDome.

Defense layersL8 (partial), L10

ResidualNone when paired with attestation.

T-106Email/phone churn signup$0.05–$0.50 · Infinite

MechanismThrowaway emails, SIM farms, virtual-number services.

Defense layersOut-of-scope at the cryptographic layer. See residual note.

ResidualOut-of-scope alone; composes with attestation.

Tier 2 — Firmware-vulnerability attacks

Exploiting a known flaw in a chip's firmware, limited to the shrinking pool of un-patched machines. We ship no blocklist of vulnerable firmware; we flag a device whose boot fingerprint drifts from your known-good baseline, and we honour revoked bootloaders.

T-201TPM-Fail timing side-channel~$0 · Bounded

MechanismTiming side-channel against Intel fTPM ECDSA. Recovers private keys in minutes locally.

Defense layersL8 (partial), L9

ResidualRoot Herald ships no known-bad firmware deny-list. The compensating controls are change-detection against a customer's known-good PCR reference values (a device whose measured boot no longer matches its allow-listed reference is flagged) plus dbx bootloader revocation.

Real-worldtpm.fail PoC; CVE-2019-11090.

T-202ROCA on Infineon RSAcompute only · Bounded

MechanismCoppersmith's attack on Infineon RSA generation flaw. ~760K still-vulnerable May 2025.

Defense layersL3 (partial), L8 (partial), L9

ResidualEstonian national ID recall (2017) — 750K cards re-keyed.

Real-worldCVE-2017-15361; weaponized PoCs exist.

T-203faulTPM voltage glitching$200 rig + hours · Bounded

MechanismVoltage-glitching against AMD fTPM on Zen 2/3. ~$200 hardware, hours per chip.

Defense layersL8 (partial), L9

ResidualRequires physical access; bounds to ≈ Tier 3.

Real-worldUSENIX / Black Hat USA 2023.

T-204CVE-2025-2884 OOB read (Pluton/fTPM)~$0 · Bounded

MechanismOOB read in TCG TPM 2.0 reference. Patched in AGESA 1.2.0.3e.

Defense layersL9

ResidualLarge unpatched OEM tail through 2026. There is no CVE/firmware-rev deny-list; the policy-layer control is change-detection against known-good PCR reference values plus dbx revocation.

T-205TPM-Genie hardware interposer$30 + skill · Bounded

MechanismHardware interposer on LPC bus intercepts and modifies commands.

Defense layersL7, L8

ResidualBounds to Tier 3 + labor; uneconomic for most use cases.

Tier 3 — Physical device farm

The honest cost floor. The chips are real, so the attacker buys real hardware at roughly $30–$200 a device. Each chip is unique, and bulk purchases show up as a detectable cluster.

T-301Refurb device farm$30–$200 · Bounded

MechanismBuy hundreds of cheap real devices, each a unique valid attestable identity. Logistics-bound.

Defense layersL8, L10

ResidualThe honest cost floor: capital-bound and detectable, not impossible. Six-figure airdrops still clear this bar.

Real-worldSoutheast Asia click-farm operations photographed publicly.

T-302Burner-phone-service farm$40–$100 · Bounded

MechanismMany 'fresh' phones used briefly, then retired.

Defense layersL8, L10

ResidualSame as T-301.

Tier 4 — Physically swapping the chip

Only possible on machines with a removable TPM. Around 70% of modern Windows PCs bake the chip into the CPU, where there is nothing to swap.

T-401TPM chip swap (discrete TPM only)$40–$200 · Bounded

MechanismDesolder existing discrete TPM, solder in a new $5 Infineon SLB 9672, mint fresh EKpub.

Defense layersL8, L10

ResidualOnly applies to discrete TPMs — ~70% of modern Windows uses in-CPU Pluton/PTT/fTPM.

T-402Header-pin TPM module replacement$20–$40 · Bounded

MechanismEnthusiast motherboards with TPM header pins allow swap without soldering.

Defense layersL8, L10

ResidualSame shape as T-401.

Tier 5 — Extracting a key from the silicon

Nation-state-grade lab work: one device at a time, six figures each. Off the table for any commercial abuse case.

T-501Decapping / electron microscopy$50K–$200K · Singular

MechanismPhysical attacks against the TPM die.

Defense layersL8 (partial), L10

ResidualNot on the cost ladder for any commercial abuse case.

Relay attacks — reusing a real device's proof elsewhere

Capture a genuine proof and reuse it from somewhere else. Cloud relays are caught by binding the proof to one specific instance; physical relays gain nothing, because each proof is tied to one unique chip.

T-601Cloud-cuckoo relay~$0 · Infinite if it works

MechanismHarvest a real NitroTPM attestation from one EC2, replay from a different cloud instance.

Defense layersL4

ResidualNone when RequireCloudCrossValidation = true. Default for cloud-permissive policy.

T-602Physical-cuckoo relay~$0 · Infinite attempts, 1 identity

MechanismScript N fresh signup sessions, pipe each nonce to one real TPM, collect N quotes.

Defense layersL8

ResidualAttacker is pushed back to Tier 3 (acquire more real chips). The 'cheap relay shortcut' doesn't exist.

T-603Token replay$0 · Singular

MechanismCapture a valid attestation JWT, re-submit later.

Defense layersL5

ResidualNone within the quote-freshness window.

T-604Session-binding bypass$0 · Singular

MechanismUse a valid token in a context other than the one for which it was issued.

Defense layersL5, L9

ResidualDepends on RP integrating correctly; libraries get this right by default.

Out of scope for hardware alone

Hardware attestation alone cannot stop a real person paid to sign up, a stolen account, a stolen device, a compromised manufacturer, or a rogue insider. Layered defences apply.

T-701Compensated real users ('device mercenaries')$1–$50 · Bounded

MechanismPay N real users $X each to perform a real attestation from their real devices.

Defense layersL10

ResidualHonest disclosure. Hardware attestation alone cannot stop this. Layered defense (hardware floor + behavioral) is the strategy.

Real-worldDocumented in LayerZero's airdrop retrospective.

T-702Account-takeover post-enrollmentvariable · Bounded

MechanismCompromise a legitimate user's session post-enrollment.

Defense layersOut-of-scope at the cryptographic layer. See residual note.

ResidualOut-of-scope; step-up MFA / CAEP / session-management is the customer's stack.

T-703Device theft / borrowed devicevaries · Singular

MechanismLegitimate hardware under attacker's physical control.

Defense layersOut-of-scope at the cryptographic layer. See residual note.

ResidualA user can mark a device stolen; the per-tenant ban list then rejects further attestations from it.

T-704Supply-chain compromise of manufacturer CAnation-state · Singular

MechanismAttacker compromises an Infineon/ST/Nuvoton/Intel/AMD/Microsoft CA and mints arbitrary EK certs.

Defense layersOut-of-scope at the cryptographic layer. See residual note.

ResidualDetection + response only.

T-705Insider threat (Root Herald operator)n/a · Singular

MechanismRoot Herald employee exfiltrates EKpub data or forges tokens.

Defense layersOut-of-scope at the cryptographic layer. See residual note.

ResidualSOC 2 controls (in progress, not yet certified); not protocol-level.