Kingston Digital Statement on SF-2000-based Encrypted SSDs

[HardOCP News]

Kingston, the independent world leader in memory products, along with LSI, its SSD processor partner, have recently been in discussions related to the encryption capabilities of the SF-2000 platform. It was discovered that the ’self encrypting’ feature that Kingston® markets on both the SSDNow V+200 and KC100 lines runs in 128-bit AES encryption mode, not the originally stated 256-bit mode. Both AES modes encrypt and secure the data on the SSD from unauthorized access ― just to different encryption standards.

Kingston is working with LSI to correct this and to ensure that future production of the aforementioned drives delivers 256-bit AES encryption mode.

Feedback from Kingston's customer base regarding the SSDNow V+200 and KC100 model SSDs does not indicate that the encryption feature is critical or widely used in most deployments. Kingston’s teams will work closely with customers who require 256-bit AES encryption to ensure that they are taken care of, and are able to swap out their current drives for ones with the correct encryption level when it becomes available. Kingston customers with further questions are encouraged to contact Kingston technical support for additional clarification.

Kingston will notate the 128-bit AES encryption mode going forward on all literature to avoid confusion until the issue is remedied. Please note that this issue affects all manufacturers of SSDs utilizing the SF-2000 family of products and is not a Kingston-centric issue. Kingston believes in the importance of a great customer experience and will continue to communicate openly with our valued customer base.

 

[Cerulean]

independent.

world leader.

ungh

 

[mwroobel]

Damn, Kingston admitted to a problem! They once accused me of counterfeiting when I returned some DIMMS (And these were DIMMS that THEY had already RMA'd once and shipped new ones back to me so they were the source) and it took a lot of teeth-pulling to get them to replace them!

 

[trick_m0nkey]

Yeah, I mean, not a lot of people are going to want encryption, but the ones that do arent going to want to settle for 128 bit....

 

[Wumpus]

Yeah, I mean, not a lot of people are going to want encryption, but the ones that do arent going to want to settle for 128 bit....

Easy. Just encrypt *anything* with 256 bit AES and then use that to xor everything...

128 bit symmetric encryption isn't a problem. "Self encrypting" doesn't make any sense for SSD use (you could "self write" backup data using public key crypto - but that would look silly with SSDs - it would be write only until you typed in the reading password.

 

[Cerulean]

TrueCrypt anyone?

 

[Decibel]

TrueCrypt anyone?

Encrypting any more than the SandForce controller does already would severely compromise the performance of these drives.

The way that they are supposed to work is compression and encryption on the fly. You can't really compress encrypted data.

 

[Wumpus]

Encrypting any more than the SandForce controller does already would severely compromise the performance of these drives.

The way that they are supposed to work is compression and encryption on the fly. You can't really compress encrypted data.

Tough call. Sandforce would have to expose an unbelievable amount of how it works (it couldn't be worth it for them to explain enough of the details, they would go smack up against proprietary details of the SSD itself) before you should consider it safe. Best guess is that it might keep out a small time thief, but expect a complete attack to be published at any time.

 

[yawnbox]

hardwarecanucks dot com, Intel 520 240GB Cherryville SSD Review, page 3
Introducing the SandForce SF2000 Family

http://www./forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/50980-intel-520-240gb-cherryville-ssd-review-3.html

"AES encryption has also doubled from 128 to 256"