Tuesday, March 13th 2018

13 Major Vulnerabilities Discovered in AMD Zen Architecture, Including Backdoors

Security researchers with Israel-based CTS-Labs, have discovered a thirteen security vulnerabilities for systems based on AMD Zen processors. The thirteen new exploits are broadly classified into four groups based on the similarity in function of the processor that they exploit: "Ryzenfall," "Masterkey," "Fallout," and "Chimera."

The researchers "believe that networks that contain AMD computers are at a considerable risk," and that malware can "survive computer reboots and re-installations of the operating system, while remaining virtually undetectable by most endpoint security solutions," such as antivirus software. They also mention that in their opinion, "the basic nature of some of these vulnerabilities amounts to complete disregard of fundamental security principles. This raises concerning questions regarding security practices, auditing, and quality controls at AMD."
Since this story went up some follow ups were posted:1. "Masterkey": This is an exploit of the Secure Boot feature, which checks if nothing has been tampered with on your machine while it was powered down (i.e. changes in firmware, hardware, or the last software state before shutdown). The Masterkey vulnerability gets around this environment integrity check by using an infected system BIOS, which can be flashed even from within Windows (with administrative privileges). This does not mean that the user has to modify and flash the BIOS manually before becoming vulnerable, the malware can do that on the fly once it is running. Theoretically, Secure Boot should validate the integrity of the BIOS, but apparently this can be bypassed, exploiting bugs in the Secure Processor's metadata parsing. Once the BIOS signature is out of the way, you can put pretty much any ARM Cortex A5 compatible code into the modified BIOS, which will then execute inside the ARM-based Secure Processor - undetectable to any antivirus software running on the main CPU, because the antivirus software running on the CPU has no way to scan inside the Secure Processor.

2. "Ryzenfall" is a class of vulnerabilities targeting Secure Processor, which lets a well-designed malware stash its code into the Secure Processor of a running system, to get executed for the remainder of the system's up-time. Again, this attack requires administrative privileges on the host machine, but can be performed in real-time, on the running system, without modifying the firmware. Secure Processor uses system RAM, in addition to its own in-silicon memory on the processor's die. While this part of memory is fenced off from access by the CPU, bugs exist that can punch holes into that protection. Code running on the Secure Processor has complete access to the system; Microsoft Virtualization-based Security (VBS) can be bypassed and additional malware can be placed into system management storage, where it can't be detected by traditional antivirus software. Windows Defender Credentials Guard, a component that stores and authenticates passwords and other secure functions on the machine, can also be bypassed and the malware can spread over the network to other machines, or the firmware can be modified to exploit "Masterkey", which persists through reboots, undetectable.

3. "Fallout": This class of vulnerabilities affects only AMD EPYC servers. It requires admin privileges like the other exploits, and has similar effects. It enables an attacker to gain access to memory regions like Windows Isolated User Mode / Kernel Mode (VTL1) and Secure Management RAM of the CPU (which are not accessible, even with administrative privileges). Risks are the same as "Ryzenfall", the attack vector is just different.

4. "Chimera": This class of vulnerabilities is an exploitation of the motherboard chipset (e.g. X370 also known as Promontory). AMD outsourced design of their Ryzen chipsets to Taiwanese ASMedia, which is a subsidiary of ASUS. You might know the company from the third-party USB 3.0 and legacy PCI chips on many motherboards. The company has been fined for lax security practices in the past, and numerous issues were found in their earlier controller chips. For the AMD chipset, it looks like they just copy-pasted a lot of code and design, including vulnerabilities. The chipset runs its own code that tells it what to do, and here's the problem: Apparently a backdoor has been implemented that gives any attacker knowing the right passcode full access to the chipset, including arbitrary code execution inside the chipset. This code can now use the system's DMA (direct memory access) engine to read/write system memory, which allows malware injection into the OS. To exploit this attack vector, administrative privileges are required. Whether DMA can access the fenced off memory portions of the Secure Processor, to additionally attack the Secure Processor through this vulnerability, is not fully confirmed, however, the researchers verified it works on a small number of desktop boards. Your keyboard, mouse, network controllers, wired or wireless, are all connected to the chipset, which opens up various other attack mechanisms like keyloggers (that send off their logs by directly accessing the network controller without the CPU/OS ever knowing about these packets), or logging all interesting network traffic, even if its destination is another machine on the same Ethernet segment. As far as we know, the tiny 8-pin serial ROM chip is connected to the CPU on AMD Ryzen platform, not to the chipset or LPCIO controller, so infecting the firmware might not be possible with this approach. A second backdoor was found that is implemented in the physical chip design, so it can't be mitigated by a software update, and the researchers hint at the requirement for a recall.

AMD's Vega GPUs use an implementation of the Secure Processor, too, so it is very likely that Vega is affected in a similar way. An attacker could infect the GPU, and then use DMA to access the rest of the system through the attacks mentioned above.

The researchers have set up the website AMDFlaws.com to chronicle these findings, and to publish detailed whitepapers in the near future.

AMD provided us with the following statement: "We have just received a report from a company called CTS Labs claiming there are potential security vulnerabilities related to certain of our processors. We are actively investigating and analyzing its findings. This company was previously unknown to AMD and we find it unusual for a security firm to publish its research to the press without providing a reasonable amount of time for the company to investigate and address its findings. At AMD, security is a top priority and we are continually working to ensure the safety of our users as potential new risks arise."

Update March 14 7 AM CET: It seems a lot of readers misunderstand the BIOS flashing part. The requirement is not that the user has to manually flash a different BIOS first before becoming vulnerable. The malware itself will modify/flash the BIOS once it is running on the host system with administrative privileges. Also, the signed driver requirement does not require a driver from any specific vendor. The required driver (which is not for an actual hardware device and just provides low-level hardware access) can be easily created by any hacker. Signing the driver, so Windows accepts it, requires a digital signature which is available from various SSL vendors for a few hundred dollars after a fairly standard verification process (requires a company setup with bank account). Alternatively an already existing signed driver from various hardware utilities could be extracted and used for this purpose.
Source: Many Thanks to Earthdog for the tip
Add your own comment

482 Comments on 13 Major Vulnerabilities Discovered in AMD Zen Architecture, Including Backdoors

#276
mtcn77
W1zzardCan't be done, unless they completely forbid device drivers and manually approve every single one. This will turn Windows into iOS
I'm on W7 for this reason, no need for permanent test mode.
Posted on Reply
#277
mcraygsx
W1zzardWe've had our own (rented) servers for at least a decade now, at various hosting companies. If you are curious and want to know more, open a new thread or send me a pm.
W1zzard, what is your take on credibility of CTS Labs?
Posted on Reply
#278
bug
mcraygsxW1zzard, what is your take on credibility of CTS Labs?
They don't have any. They're a newly established group that handled this terribly.
Their credibility, however, is of little importance.
Posted on Reply
#279
lexluthermiester
mcraygsxW1zzard, what is your take on credibility of CTS Labs?
Based on what he's said already, my guess is that he is likely dubious of the company itself but takes the vulnerabilities seriously, which is wise. That happens to be my position as well. CTS may be shady as hell, but the threats must be taken seriously until either proven invalid or verified and fixed.
Posted on Reply
#281
GoldenX
lexluthermiesterBased on what he's said already, my guess is that he is likely dubious of the company itself but takes the vulnerabilities seriously, which is wise. That happens to be my position as well. CTS may be shady as hell, but the threats must be taken seriously until either proven invalid or verified and fixed.
Same here, but if this is proved to be by Intel's hand... Man they would be the lowest. "Performance over price and any kind of integrity!"
Posted on Reply
#282
lexluthermiester
GoldenXSame here, but if this is proved to be by Intel's hand... Man they would be the lowest. "Performance over price and any kind of integrity!"
I'm not buying that. Even if true, should the vulnerabilities be real, they're real and need to be addressed regardless of the motives and methods of discovery.
Posted on Reply
#283
GoldenX
Yeah, I want a fast response from AMD, backstab or not, they have to fix this, or confirm that it's a fraud, whatever the truth may be.
Posted on Reply
#284
badtaylorx
This absolutely REEKS like a group of Intel insiders that hatched a plan to short AMD shares after the big "meltdown/spectre" scare last June.

Geeks don't always make the best criminals though....
Posted on Reply
#285
arterius2
Why do these exploits have such kickass names?
Posted on Reply
#286
techy1
sadly, but we live in "alternative facts" age where PObox companies (that did not exist few months ago) with shutter stock photo/video backgrounds can make such a noise in a split second and weather that PObox company will exists after few weeks or not - that does not matter - damage (to multibillion company) will be done for next few Quartals to come.
Posted on Reply
#287
delshay
lexluthermiesterThat doesn't always happen as it is triggered by a flag in the update process. If that flag is not set, the settings are not reset to defaults.


Holy crap! You'd think something like that would be locked down..
I will be looking at PDF documentation W/P pin of a BIOS chip to see if I can do anything in hardware, locking my BIOS chip in either software or hardware.
Posted on Reply
#289
SRB151
lexluthermiesterThis is specific to AMD Ryzen CPU's. No other CPU's are affected.
Actually, that is not known. Intel uses asmedia chips as well, and CTS never bothered to test this on any other processors.
Posted on Reply
#290
W1zzard
SRB151Actually, that is not known. Intel uses asmedia chips as well.
Good point.
Posted on Reply
#291
Aderbas
My impression or techpowerup still believes this news as true?
Posted on Reply
#292
EarthDog
CVEs should be released about them in the coming days. Additional 3rd party validation (we have one sketchy source and one that for now seems legit) we should see perhaps Friday or Monday as they have said it took 3rd party 4-5 days to validate their findings.
Posted on Reply
#293
Rauelius
You all understand this is likely fake and possible stock manipulation? CTS Labs themselves state they may have a financial interest in these results.
Posted on Reply
#294
EarthDog
Loving the people that joined the conversation hundreds of posts in like we haven't discussed that possibility ad nauseam in the past two days, LOL!
Posted on Reply
#295
bug
RaueliusYou all understand this is likely fake and possible stock manipulation? CTS Labs themselves state they may have a financial interest in these results.
If the news was about a possible vulnerability at VISA what would you do till VISA either confirms or denies it? Would you say "hey, this is likely fake, trying to make VISA look bad" or would you keep an eye on your transactions, just in case?
In any case, at this point I'd say this is likely not fake since, as poorly as this has been handled, CTS Labs say they have proof of concept attacks and they've submitted them for review.
Posted on Reply
#296
Casecutter
Would be good to have a Poll on this... or did I miss that?
Posted on Reply
#297
bug
CasecutterWould be good to have a Poll on this... or did I miss that?
Poll on what? Do we now decide whether a CVE is warranted by taking polls on TPU?
Posted on Reply
#298
Casecutter
Oh IDK... like is this a proper business practice from a company that intends to be about "protecting the world from vulnerabilities".

I just say if they creditably want to protect me/you they would offer any company a judicious amount of time to both confirm and reply to such accusation. And, I'm not saying 90 days, more like 7 full working days, before making it public, and then provide the opportunity to interact in a relationship that plugs the holes, all while perhaps consigns that company some form of reimbursement for their work in helping.

This remind me of the one thing that nationality fears more than anything... being labeled a "Freier". In this case they appear to be..., or they tried to ransom AMD and the response was we are not working with extortionists.

In this way they did a bunch of work and aren't recouping anything, at least that we're privy too!
Posted on Reply
#299
mtcn77
bugPoll on what? Do we now decide whether a CVE is warranted by taking polls on TPU?
We had one before, but there wasn't any naming names. This one, however, should be more conspicuous about the offender of the obvious fandom.
Posted on Reply
#300
bug
CasecutterOh IDK... like is this a proper business practice from a company that intends to be about "protecting the world from vulnerabilities".

I just say if they creditably want to protect me/you they would offer any company a judicious amount of time to both confirm and reply to such accusation. And, I'm not saying 90 days, more like 7 full working days, before making it public, and then provide the opportunity to interact in a relationship that plugs the holes, all while perhaps consigns that company some form of reimbursement for their work in helping.

This remind me of the one thing that nationality fears more than anything... being labeled a "Freier". In this case they appear to be..., or they tried to ransom AMD and the response was we are not working with extortionists.

In this way they did a bunch of work and aren't recouping anything, at least that we're privy too!
Ah, so of all this thread your beef is with the whistleblower. I get it now.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Jan 24th, 2025 01:44 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts