Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Cold boot attack

A cold boot attack is a type of that exploits the effect in (DRAM), allowing an attacker with physical access to a powered-off computer to recover sensitive data, such as encryption keys, by rapidly rebooting the system and dumping the residual contents of RAM before the data fully decays. This attack relies on the physical property that DRAM cells retain charge for a short period after power loss—typically seconds at but extendable to minutes or longer when the memory modules are cooled, such as with canned air or —enabling the extraction of bit patterns that may include cryptographic material. The process generally involves freezing the RAM chips to preserve data, removing power, and then from an external medium (e.g., a USB drive with imaging software like Memdump or bios_memimage) to capture a memory image for offline . First publicly detailed in 2008 by researchers including J. Alex Halderman from , the attack demonstrated successful recovery of full , , and encryption keys from popular tools such as , , and , often within minutes using error-correcting algorithms to reconstruct degraded data. Experiments revealed that data retention times varied by type and temperature, with up to 60 minutes of viability at temperatures (-196°C) and predictable decay patterns that facilitated key identification via tools like "keyfind." The primary threat targets laptops and other portable devices where physical access is feasible, undermining assumptions that powering off clears volatile memory securely, though limitations include dependency on quick execution, variable success across hardware (e.g., may accelerate decay), and safety risks from cooling agents. Mitigations include hardware-based solutions like Trusted Platform Modules (TPM) for key storage outside , memory scrambling on shutdown, soldering to the to prevent module removal, and operating system features that overwrite sensitive data or disable . Research as of early 2025 confirms that cold boot attacks remain effective on modern DDR4 and DDR5 memory, with possible for seconds to minutes even without cooling. Despite these defenses, the attack highlights ongoing vulnerabilities in physical memory security for systems relying on software .

Fundamentals

Data Remanence in Memory

Data remanence in memory refers to the persistence of data in after power is removed, due to residual charge that does not immediately dissipate. In (DRAM), each bit is stored as an on a paired with a ; without periodic refresh cycles, this charge leaks through mechanisms such as , reverse-biased junction leakage, and gate-induced drain leakage (GIDL), leading to over time. In (), data is held in bistable latching circuitry using cross-coupled inverters; arises from trapped charge in junctions and floating nodes, resulting in shorter natural retention compared to . The retention time—the duration data remains readable—varies significantly based on several factors. Lower temperatures reduce leakage currents by slowing and thermal excitation, extending retention; for instance, cooling DRAM with to approximately -196°C can preserve data for hours, while (around 25°C) limits it to seconds. Memory type influences this as well: older DDR2 modules exhibit longer retention (up to 35 seconds at ) than DDR3 (typically under 10 seconds without cooling, requiring -30°C for viable persistence), and DDR4 typically exhibits retention times on the order of seconds at ambient conditions but incorporates that complicates without altering the underlying physics. Recent empirical studies (as of 2024) show DDR4 retention times varying widely, with bit error rates below 10% after 10 seconds and approaching 50% after 120 seconds at approximately 20°C for tested modules. DDR5 modules demonstrate even shorter retention times at ambient conditions, with substantial bit errors (around 36–41%) appearing within the first second after power-off in tested configurations. Experimental studies have quantified these behaviors. In a 2008 investigation, researchers tested various modules and found retention times ranging from 2.5 to 35 seconds at for full , with over 99% of bits recoverable after 1 second and cooling to -50°C extending usability to 10 minutes or more. For , tests on 1980s-era chips showed retention of milliseconds to seconds at 24°C, increasing to minutes or longer at -50°C depending on whether nodes were grounded or floating. The decay process in DRAM can be modeled approximately as exponential, reflecting the RC time constant of the cell capacitor. The retained charge Q(t) follows Q(t) = Q_0 e^{-t / \tau}, where Q_0 is the charge, t is time, and \tau = C V_0 / I_\text{leak} with C as (typically 20–30 fF), V_0 as voltage (around 0.5–1 V), and I_\text{leak} as the age (on the order of fA to pA per cell). Temperature dependence is incorporated via an Arrhenius-like , with retention time as e^{-kT} (where k \approx 0.05 for typical cells, reducing time by about 40% per 10°C rise). This model captures the probabilistic nature of failure, where cells converge to a (often 0) rather than random flips.

Attack Execution

Executing a cold boot attack requires physical access to the target machine, allowing the attacker to interrupt power and manipulate the hardware directly. Additionally, the attacker needs a bootable medium, such as a USB drive containing a custom operating system like a live image or a network boot setup via PXE, to image the contents without relying on the target's potentially compromised . The process begins with a sudden power-off or of the target system to preserve the residual charge in cells, exploiting . Prior to or immediately after power interruption, the attacker cools the modules to extend the window, typically using an inverted can of to achieve temperatures around -50°C. The modules are then removed from the target machine and inserted into an attacker-controlled system. Finally, the attacker boots the custom medium on this system and dumps the memory contents using tools such as dd for block-level copying or specialized imaging software, capturing the raw data before significant decay occurs. Common tools for cooling include inverted cans for accessible, low-cost application, while more advanced setups employ to reach -196°C and minimize bit errors to under 0.17% after . For , PXE-based kernels enable transfers at speeds up to 300 Mb/s over a , though USB drives are simpler but slower, taking about 4 minutes for 1 of . Early experiments demonstrated success rates exceeding 90% for recovering keys from cooled , with bit error rates as low as 0.1% after 60 seconds at -50°C, enabling near-complete reconstruction of sensitive . Key challenges include memory scrambling introduced by modern BIOS or firmware, which may overwrite portions of RAM during boot; this can be mitigated by transferring modules to a compatible system or using quick-boot techniques. The attack must also be executed rapidly, as data retention at room temperature lasts only seconds (ranging from 2.5 to 35 seconds across modules), necessitating cooling to extend viability to minutes.

Applications

Digital Forensics

The application of cold boot techniques in digital forensics emerged shortly after the 2008 demonstration by researchers at Princeton University, who showed that encryption keys could be recovered from RAM remnants in powered-off systems, paving the way for legitimate investigative uses by law enforcement. Agencies such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) integrated these methods into live computer forensics projects starting around 2009, employing them to seize encryption keys from suspects' laptops in cases involving encrypted data. This marked the transition from theoretical vulnerability to practical tool for evidence recovery, particularly when traditional acquisition methods fail due to encryption or volatile memory contents. Forensic procedures emphasize controlled environments to ensure and preserve the chain of custody, beginning with immediate cooling of modules—often using cans or to reach temperatures as low as -25°C—immediately after powering off the device to slow data decay. The cooled is then transplanted to a sterile host system or imaged via specialized bootable tools like Memdump or bios_memimage, producing a raw dump that documents every handling step, from to analysis, via timestamps, hashes, and signed logs. These dumps are subsequently processed with forensics frameworks such as , which scans for patterns like key schedules to extract artifacts without altering the original evidence. Experiments mirroring investigative scenarios have demonstrated high success in key recovery from DDR2 modules under optimal cooling, with bit retention exceeding 99% after short periods at reduced temperatures, as validated in controlled tests adapting the original cold boot method for evidentiary purposes. More recently, as of 2021, adaptations of cold boot methods have been explored for recovering encryption keys from mobile devices like smartphones in forensic investigations. Ethical and legal frameworks require judicial warrants for physical device access, as the technique demands hands-on manipulation that could raise Fourth Amendment concerns in jurisdictions like the . Court admissibility remains limited by risks of partial during cooling or remapping, necessitating validation through error-checking algorithms and expert testimony to affirm reliability, though no widespread challenges have invalidated such evidence to date.

Malicious Exploitation

Cold boot attacks pose significant risks for unauthorized data theft, primarily exploited by adversaries seeking to extract sensitive information from . State-sponsored actors, such as those involved in , may employ these attacks during targeted physical intrusions to access cryptographic keys or other confidential data on compromised devices. Cybercriminals, on the other hand, target high-value individuals to steal personal or financial details, leveraging the attack's simplicity for moderately skilled operators with physical access. Common malicious scenarios include the theft of encryption keys from unattended laptops in transient settings like hotels or offices, where an attacker can briefly the device to capture residual before the owner returns. Another prevalent risk involves extracting financial from active banking sessions on powered-off but recently used machines, enabling fraud or without leaving digital traces. These attacks rely on the core technique of exploiting DRAM to dump contents maliciously. The portability of modern devices heightens these threats, particularly for travelers or users in shared environments such as conference venues or co-working spaces, where opportunities for brief physical increase dramatically. Demonstrations from the 2008-2010s, including those by researchers, illustrated the attack's practicality, yet no major public incidents have been publicly attributed exclusively to cold boot methods; instead, they are frequently integrated with other physical intrusion techniques in sophisticated operations. This combination underscores the ongoing, albeit covert, danger in high-stakes environments.

Impact on Encryption

Circumventing Full Disk Encryption

Full disk encryption (FDE) systems protect by encrypting entire storage devices using strong cryptographic algorithms such as AES-256, where the encryption keys are typically loaded into () during system operation to enable efficient decryption and access. In a cold boot attack, an adversary gains physical access to the device, powers it off to trigger in , and then rapidly reboots into a specialized environment to dump the contents of the modules. This process allows extraction of the FDE keys, which can then be used offline to decrypt the storage drive without needing the user's password or authentication credentials. The vulnerability window for key exposure spans from system boot—when keys are first loaded into —until complete shutdown, during which they remain in unless explicitly cleared. Due to , these keys persist for seconds at or up to minutes (or longer with cooling techniques like canned air to -50°C) after power loss, creating a brief but exploitable period for . Even in cases of partial corruption or scrambling of contents, remains feasible, as algorithms can reconstruct keys from noisy dumps with error rates as low as 15-30%, enabling decryption despite incomplete data. This attack circumvents FDE's core security model by bypassing interactive password prompts entirely, relying instead on physical possession of the hardware to access keys directly from RAM. It has demonstrated high effectiveness against open-source FDE software such as TrueCrypt (versions 4 and 5), where AES encryption keys and tweak keys were recovered without errors from memory images, allowing full drive decryption. VeraCrypt, the successor to TrueCrypt, shares a similar design for key storage in RAM and was likely vulnerable in early versions, but starting with version 1.24 (October 2019), it includes mitigations such as erasing encryption keys from memory on shutdown and optional RAM encryption for stored keys. Key recovery from such dumps employs specialized algorithms beyond simple brute-force searches, which become impractical for long keys under high error conditions (e.g., over 2^56 candidate keys at 10% error). Instead, pattern-based reconstruction techniques exploit the structured nature of cryptographic keys—such as AES key schedules—to correct errors efficiently; for instance, AES-256 keys can be rebuilt in under 1 second at 15% error rates or 30 seconds at 30% error rates, achieving success in 50-90% of cases depending on decay levels. These methods, combined with error-correcting codes, have shown up to 98% recovery success for shorter keys like DES even at 50% corruption, underscoring the attack's practicality against FDE.

Specific Systems

Microsoft's full disk encryption (FDE) was demonstrated to be vulnerable to cold boot attacks in 2008, where encryption keys such as the sector pad and keys, or even TPM-stored secrets unsealed into , could be recovered from memory images captured after powering off systems, enabling full bypass without a PIN in basic TPM mode. Researchers successfully extracted these keys, with an automated tool called BitUnlocker mounting encrypted volumes in approximately 25 minutes for 2 GB of using USB imaging. Empirical tests showed near-100% success rates when cooling to -50°C, with bit error rates below 1% after 10 minutes, allowing reliable key recovery without correction in most cases. However, as of 2025, modern configurations using TPM 2.0, fTPM, or Pluton can mitigate risks by avoiding key exposure in . VeraCrypt, the open-source successor to TrueCrypt, inherited similar vulnerabilities in versions prior to 1.24 due to its shared design for storing master encryption keys in plaintext in RAM during volume mounting. The 2008 research recovered keys error-free from systems using , and early VeraCrypt versions (pre-2019) likely exhibited comparable susceptibility to cold boot methods. Starting with version 1.24 (October 2019), introduced mitigations including options to erase system encryption keys from memory during shutdown or reboot and to enable RAM encryption for stored keys, specifically targeting cold boot attacks and RAM dumps. RAM encryption is incompatible with hibernate and Fast Startup modes, effectively disabling them when active to reduce risks. Apple's on macOS stores encryption s in during active sessions, making pre-2018 Intel-based systems without the T2 chip prone to cold boot attacks where the 128-bit and 160-bit can be extracted from images. Researchers in 2008 imaged from Intel-based Macs using an EFI-based tool after brief power-off, recovering keys without bit errors and decrypting disk blocks via custom tools like vilefault. This vulnerability allowed access even in locked or suspended states, with passwords also stored in for potential passphrase derivation. Empirical results indicated full recovery in tests on Mac OS X 10.4 and 10.5, with success rates approaching 100% under cooled conditions and imaging times comparable to other systems, around 20-30 minutes for typical sizes. However, starting with the T2 chip (2018) and , the Secure Enclave handles management, preventing extraction from . Linux's , often used with LUKS for FDE, exhibits in-memory storage issues where encryption keys persist in while volumes are mounted, enabling cold boot recovery. In 2008 experiments on kernel 2.6.20 with 128-bit AES-CBC, keys were identified error-free in PXE-captured memory images post-power cycle, allowing volume decryption and mounting after modifying cryptsetup. The attack highlights the lack of automatic key wiping in active use, with empirical data showing recovery times of 15-25 minutes for 1-2 GB and negligible failure rates when was chilled, as bit decay was minimal within the imaging window. Modern setups with TPM integration can reduce exposure by sealing keys, though keys are still loaded into during operation. As of 2025, hardware advancements like soldered further diminish the practical impact of cold boot attacks on these systems.

Countermeasures

Effective Strategies

Preventing physical access to computing devices remains the most fundamental defense against cold boot attacks, as these exploits require direct hardware manipulation. Implementing physical security measures such as locked enclosures, surveillance alarms, and restricted access facilities denies attackers the opportunity to reset or cool the system. Additionally, configuring BIOS or UEFI passwords restricts unauthorized changes to boot settings, preventing the loading of external media or altered boot sequences that facilitate memory imaging. Secure boot chains, which verify firmware and bootloader integrity through cryptographic signatures, further block malicious resets by ensuring only trusted components initialize the system. Full memory encryption provides a robust technical barrier by rendering any extracted RAM contents unintelligible without the decryption key. Hardware-based solutions like Intel Software Guard Extensions (SGX) isolate sensitive code and data in encrypted enclaves, protecting against cold boot extraction through automatic memory encryption that withstands physical attacks on DRAM. In software, tools such as VeraCrypt version 1.24 and later incorporate RAM encryption for master keys and headers, ensuring that even if memory is dumped, the data cannot be decrypted without additional computation that obscures the contents from forensic analysis. These mechanisms address vulnerabilities in unencrypted RAM where encryption keys for full disk systems reside in plaintext, making post-extraction recovery infeasible. Secure erasure techniques actively eliminate residual data from memory during power transitions, minimizing the window for attack. Automatic on shutdown or suspend involves overwriting sensitive regions—such as keys—with random data across multiple passes, effectively destroying remanent bits before they can be cooled and read. Volatile key storage complements this by housing keys in components that discharge upon power loss, such as CPU caches or registers, ensuring no persistent traces remain in for extraction. Systems implementing these methods, often integrated into operating system shutdown routines, reduce data retention times to seconds, rendering cold boot recovery unreliable even under optimal cooling conditions. External key storage shifts cryptographic material away from vulnerable during the and phases, leveraging tamper-resistant to maintain , though additional protections are needed post-unlock. Hardware modules like tokens can store factors externally via USB, avoiding exposure of full keys during initial access but not eliminating loading during ongoing encryption operations. Trusted Platform Modules (TPMs) with anti-extraction features, such as sealed storage and physical binding to the , protect keys from unauthorized release during and include mechanisms to clear volatile states on power cycles, but decrypted keys are loaded into after unlock, requiring complementary measures like wiping. The TRESOR project, introduced in 2011, exemplifies CPU-bound encryption by confining keys to processor registers rather than main memory, withstanding cold boot attacks on while supporting full disk encryption like . These approaches ensure keys remain isolated where possible, forcing attackers to compromise the token itself, which incorporates additional safeguards like PIN protection and physical tamper detection.

Ineffective Approaches

One common misconception is that strong password protection, such as screen locks or user , suffices to secure encryption keys in against cold boot attacks. However, these measures fail because an attacker who gains physical access can power off the device, remove the modules, and read the contents directly, bypassing any software-based entirely. Simple memory clearing techniques, including single-pass wipes performed by operating systems or applications, prove insufficient due to the phenomenon of in , where residual charge allows partial recovery of information even after attempted erasure. Similarly, OS hibernation to disk offers no protection unless it incorporates an external secret, as the RAM contents can still be imaged before the process completes, enabling key extraction. Relying solely on natural heat-induced decay at to eliminate sensitive from is also ineffective, as attackers can significantly extend the retention window by cooling the memory modules—for instance, to -50°C, where fewer than 1% of bits may decay after 10 minutes, or even to -196°C with , retaining 99.83% of after an hour. This cooling approach directly counters assumptions about rapid, unavoidable . Software updates and patches, while valuable for mitigating remote exploits, do not address the physical nature of cold boot attacks and thus provide no defense against RAM dumping by an adversary with hardware access. In contrast, more robust strategies like key obfuscation or hardware-enforced memory isolation offer better protection.

Modern Contexts

Smartphones

Cold boot attacks can be adapted to smartphones by exploiting the residual data in following battery removal or forced restarts, which expose memory contents for potential extraction. On devices, this vulnerability is more pronounced due to relatively easier physical access to components compared to , where the operating system more aggressively wipes keys and user partitions upon power loss or sleep. Encryption keys, such as those used in Android's File-Based (FBE) scheme, are often stored temporarily in during active sessions, making them recoverable if attacked promptly. Recovery is typically achieved within seconds using techniques like debugging interfaces or chip-off forensics, where the memory chip is physically removed and read on specialized . However, smartphones present unique challenges that limit the attack's feasibility compared to desktops. Soldered integration in most modern mobile devices prevents straightforward module removal, necessitating destructive methods like chip-off that risk damaging the . Additionally, features such as auto-lock mechanisms erase sensitive keys more rapidly upon inactivity, further reducing the window for successful extraction; tests from the reported nearly 100% success rates for byte retrieval under controlled conditions on devices like the Samsung Galaxy S4. Practical examples include successful demonstrations on devices, such as the Galaxy S4 and , where the FROST tool enabled recovery of encrypted data like contacts and photos after freezing the device to preserve . Older iPhones showed lower due to iOS's , though limited attacks were explored in forensic contexts.

Recent Developments

In 2023, security researcher Ang Cui presented an automated cold boot attack system at the REcon , utilizing a low-cost to chill and extract data from soldered DDR3 chips in devices such as PLCs and phones. The setup, built around a modified $500 CNC machine and an FPGA reader, costs about $2,000 overall and enables rapid chip removal and dumping of remanent data like encryption keys without manual intervention, exploiting brief windows of CPU inactivity for timing the extraction. A 2023 study introduced warm boot variants of cold boot attacks, demonstrating that partial reboots on modern DDR4 SODIMM modules—without full power cycling—can recover up to 94% of data by leveraging reduced remanence decay during non-cold restarts. This approach exploits timing differences in memory refresh cycles, making it feasible for attackers with brief physical access to powered-on systems. Advancements in defenses include a 2024 ACM GLSVLSI proposal for "amnesiac memory" using self-destructive polymorphic latches and registers that intentionally degrade stored keys under cold boot remanence conditions, ensuring data becomes unrecoverable upon cooling and power loss. Complementing hardware innovations, the Tails operating system maintains an open development ticket for enhanced video RAM erasure on shutdown, aimed at preventing framebuffer recovery in cold boot scenarios, with discussions highlighting its ongoing relevance as of 2025. Research in 2023 has also examined cold boot vulnerabilities in , particularly key recovery attacks on block ciphers used in schemes like the signature algorithm, where partial key leakage from remanent enables of secrets using and quantum search algorithms. Research in late 2024 to early 2025 by 3mdeb confirmed that cold boot attacks remain viable on modern DDR4 and DDR5 modules, with allowing recovery of sensitive information under cooled conditions, underscoring the continued threat despite hardware advancements.

References

  1. [1]
    [PDF] Lest We Remember: Cold Boot Attacks on Encryption Keys - USENIX
    We present a suite of attacks that exploit DRAM re- manence effects to recover cryptographic keys held in memory. They pose a particular threat to laptop users ...
  2. [2]
    [PDF] An In-Depth Analysis of the Cold Boot Attack - DTIC
    Jan 1, 2011 · ... cold boot attack will vary according to system, platform and architecture. In general, time is very important and the physical memory.
  3. [3]
    [PDF] Low temperature data remanence in static RAM
    In the 1980s, it was realised that low temperatures can increase the data retention time of SRAM to many seconds or even minutes. With the devices available at ...
  4. [4]
    [PDF] Lest We Forget: Cold-Boot Attacks on Scrambled DDR3 Memory
    Now we know which addresses in physical memory map to an acquired image file offset, but we do not yet know about the scrambling behavior of the device under ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  5. [5]
    [PDF] An Experimental Study of Data Retention Behavior in Modern DRAM ...
    DRAM cells store data in the form of charge on a capacitor. This charge leaks off over time, eventually causing data to be lost. To pre- vent this data loss ...Missing: remanence decay
  6. [6]
  7. [7]
    [PDF] An in-depth analysis of the cold boot attack - Forensic Focus
    The purpose of this technical memorandum is to examine the technical characteristics behind the cold boot attack technique and to understand when and how ...
  8. [8]
    [PDF] Cold Boot Attack on Encrypted Containers for Forensic Investigations
    Alex Halderman et al., “Lest we remember: Cold boot attacks on encryption keys,” in Proc. of. 17th USENIX Secur. Symp., pp. 45–58, 2008. [4] K. Hausknecht, D ...
  9. [9]
    Frozen Secrets: Cold Boot Attacks Unlock RAM's Hidden Data
    May 9, 2025 · Cold boot attacks allow attackers to extract sensitive data, like encryption keys and passwords, from RAM after a machine has been powered off.Missing: applications | Show results with:applications
  10. [10]
    [PDF] GUIDELINES FOR DIGITAL FORENSICS FIRST RESPONDERS
    This guide aims to offer support and advice to Digital Forensic practitioners from law enforcement ... Cold Boot Attacks on Encryption Keys”, appeared in Proc.
  11. [11]
    The Evolution of Russian Physical-Cyber Espionage - Trellix
    Oct 6, 2025 · The first known wave of Russian state-sponsored close access activity unfolded during the 2016 Rio Olympics. APT28 spear-phished officials ...
  12. [12]
    Lest We Remember: Cold-Boot Attacks on Encryption Keys
    May 1, 2009 · Otherwise, an attacker could reboot into a malicious ... attacks presents serious threats that security researchers are only beginning to ...
  13. [13]
    Cold Boot Attacks Against Disk Encryption - Schneier on Security
    Feb 21, 2008 · Assuming the attacker has no way to open the case before you either power off or reboot, the attack can be mitgated with a custom firmware. The ...
  14. [14]
    The Chilling Reality of Cold Boot Attacks | WithSecure™ Labs
    Sep 13, 2018 · Cold boot attacks are a known method of obtaining encryption keys from devices. But the reality is that attackers can get their hands on all kinds of ...
  15. [15]
    Physical Access Cyberattacks: How Can You Protect Yourself?
    May 14, 2025 · ... threats, physical access remains one of the most powerful attack vectors. ... Few systems are resilient against Cold Boot attacks and Evil Maid ...
  16. [16]
    Lock Up Your Laptops: Cold Boot Attacks Are Back - Dark Reading
    Lock Up Your Laptops: Cold Boot Attacks Are Back · About the Author · During this event, we'll examine the most prolific threat actors in cybercrime and cyber ...Missing: intrusion | Show results with:intrusion
  17. [17]
    [PDF] Intel® Software Guard Extensions (Intel® SGX) – Key Management ...
    Intel SGX encrypts memory to help protect against memory bus snooping and cold boot attacks for enclave code and data in host DRAM. Figure 1: Intel® SGX ...
  18. [18]
    Securely erase master key in RAM on Windows shutdown for fully ...
    Jul 27, 2023 · RAM Encryption: This is a specific countermeasure to protect against cold boot attacks. When enabled, the master keys of all encrypted volumes, ...
  19. [19]
    TIL BitLocker + YubiKey = ❤️ - Cloudbrothers
    Mar 22, 2021 · Under normal circumstances, a computer encrypted with BitLocker is safe until an attacker gains access to the data with a cold boot attack.
  20. [20]
    Full Disk Encryption with TPM, not subject to cold boot attack
    Mar 14, 2013 · This configuration [...] is particularly vulnerable to our attack, because the disk encryption keys can be extracted with our attacks even if ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  21. [21]
    [PDF] TRESOR Runs Encryption Securely Outside RAM - USENIX
    On hardware level, TRESOR with- stands cold boot attacks against both main memory and. CPU registers. This does only hold for real hardware, but running ...
  22. [22]
    Android and iOS Encryption | Science of Security Virtual Organization
    2014.8 As recently shown in 2013, Android-driven smartphones and tablet PCs are vulnerable to so-called cold boot attacks. With physical access to an Android ...
  23. [23]
    A flexible framework for mobile device forensics based on cold boot ...
    Aug 11, 2016 · Research on mitigating cold boot attacks mainly focuses on protecting the FDE key against the attack [23–26]. In [24], the authors relocate the ...
  24. [24]
    FROST: forensic recovery of scrambled telephones
    We show that it is possible to perform cold boot attacks against Android smartphones and to retrieve valuable information from RAM.
  25. [25]
    Android phones susceptible to freezing cold boot attacks - CNET
    Mar 8, 2013 · Android phones susceptible to freezing cold boot attacks. A new FROST method can help would-be thieves access data on password protected and ...
  26. [26]
    Robot can rip the data out of RAM chips with chilling technology
    Jun 9, 2023 · The original cold boot attack, Cui said, involved freezing a laptop's memory by inverting a can of compressed air to chill the computer's DRAM.Missing: USENIX | Show results with:USENIX
  27. [27]
  28. [28]
    Warm-Boot Attack on Modern DRAMs - IEEE Xplore
    Jun 2, 2023 · Based on our experiments, the “warm boot” attack can achieve as high as 94% data recovery rate from SODIMM DDR4 memory. Published in: 2023 ...
  29. [29]
    A Self-Destructive Polymorphic Mechanism Against Cold Boot Data ...
    Jun 12, 2024 · This paper proposes a self-destructive latch extending to amnesiac register, protecting sensitive data when temperature goes to freezing conditions.Missing: effective | Show results with:effective
  30. [30]
    Erase video memory on shutdown (#5356) · Issue · tails/tails - GitLab
    Jul 18, 2013 · Shut down Tails using the shutdown button in the top-right corner of the interface; Wait for complete shutdown; Remove Tails USB stick ...Missing: cold | Show results with:cold
  31. [31]
    On recovering block cipher secret keys in the cold boot attack setting
    This paper presents a general strategy to recover a block cipher secret key in the cold boot attack setting. More precisely, we propose a keyrecovery method ...