Analysis of the Security Design, Engineering, and Implementation of the SecureDNA System

dc.contributor.authorSherman, Alan T.
dc.contributor.authorRomano, Jeremy Romanik
dc.contributor.authorZieglar, Edward
dc.contributor.authorGolaszewski, Enis
dc.contributor.authorFuchs, Jonathan D.
dc.contributor.authorByrd, William E.
dc.date.accessioned2026-01-22T16:18:59Z
dc.date.issued2025-12-10
dc.description.abstractWe analyze security aspects of the SecureDNA system regarding its system design, engineering, and implementation. This system enables DNA synthesizers to screen order requests against a database of hazards. By applying novel cryptography, the system aims to keep order requests and the database of hazards secret. Discerning the detailed operation of the system in part from source code (Version 1.0.8), our analysis examines key management, certificate infrastructure, authentication, and rate-limiting mechanisms. We also perform the first formal-methods analysis of the mutual authentication, basic request, and exemption-handling protocols. Without breaking the cryptography, our main finding is that SecureDNA's custom mutual authentication protocol SCEP achieves only one-way authentication: the hazards database and keyservers never learn with whom they communicate. This structural weakness violates the principle of defense in depth and enables an adversary to circumvent rate limits that protect the secrecy of the hazards database, if the synthesizer connects with a malicious or corrupted keyserver or hashed database. We point out an additional structural weakness that also violates the principle of defense in depth: inadequate cryptographic bindings prevent the system from detecting if responses, within a TLS channel, from the hazards database were modified. Consequently, if a synthesizer were to reconnect with the database over the same TLS session, an adversary could replay and swap responses from the database without breaking TLS. Although the SecureDNA implementation does not allow such reconnections, it would be stronger security engineering to avoid the underlying structural weakness. We identify these vulnerabilities and suggest and verify mitigations, including adding strong bindings. Software Version 1.1.0 fixes SCEP with our proposed SCEP+ protocol.
dc.description.sponsorshipThis work builds in part on three student projects at UMBC: two [44], [45] from Sherman’s fall 2024 INSuRE cybersecurity research course [46], [47] and one [48] from Sherman’s cryptology class. Sherman was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under DGE grants 1753681 (SFS) and 2138921 (SaTC). Sherman, Golaszewski, and Romano were supported in 2024–2025 by the UMBC cybersecurity exploratory grant program. Fuchs was supported in 2024–2025 by a UMBC cybersecurity graduate fellowship. We thank Leonard Foner of the SecureDNA team for helpful discussions, and we thank Kathleen Romanik for editorial suggestions.
dc.description.urihttp://arxiv.org/abs/2512.09233
dc.format.extent30 pages
dc.genrejournal articles
dc.genrepreprints
dc.identifierdoi:10.13016/m2ycj1-a1sk
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2512.09233
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11603/41526
dc.language.isoen
dc.relation.isAvailableAtThe University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC)
dc.relation.ispartofUMBC Student Collection
dc.relation.ispartofUMBC Computer Science and Electrical Engineering Department
dc.relation.ispartofUMBC Faculty Collection
dc.rightsCC0 1.0 Universal
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
dc.subjectUMBC Cyber Defense Lab (CDL)
dc.subjectComputer Science - Cryptography and Security
dc.titleAnalysis of the Security Design, Engineering, and Implementation of the SecureDNA System
dc.typeText
dcterms.creatorhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-1130-4678
dcterms.creatorhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-0814-9956
dcterms.creatorhttps://orcid.org/0009-0003-8031-3188

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
2512.09233v1.pdf
Size:
1.21 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format