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

#326
ikeke
Anything accidental goes out the window with the original diclaimer where they say, that they have financial interest in companies affected by these exploits.
edit: NineWells Capital + Viceroy

amdflaws.com/disclaimer.html
Although we have a good faith belief in our analysis and believe it to be objective and unbiased, you are advised that we may have, either directly or indirectly, an economic interest in the performance of the securities of the companies whose products are the subject of our reports.
Posted on Reply
#327
lexluthermiester
R0H1TIf there's a flaw, chances are ~ it was already known or will be uncovered quickly for those who want to exploit it.
There is one glaring flaw with that logic, Meltdown existed for nearly a decade before being discovered and there are still no known exploits for it, only the potential for such. Spectre was even longer starting in mid-90's with the first Pentium, K6 and ARM CPU's and again no known exploits to date.
ikekeAnything accidental goes out the window with the original disclaimer where they say, that they have financial interest in companies affected by these exploits.
Again, those are the politics of the problems, not the applied technicalities of such.

The reality is that the circumstances of the discovery of these vulnerabilities are irrelevant. The impact of them is the only relevant information we in the tech sector need worry about. Are they real and if so, how bad are they? Will they affect consumers, prosumers, enterprise sectors or perhaps all? Can they be fixed in software or will hardware revisions need to be made? These are the type os questions we need to be asking and concern ourselves with. Any else is just drama and fluff.
Posted on Reply
#328
R0H1T
lexluthermiesterThere is one glaring flaw with that logic, Meltdown existed for nearly a decade before being discovered and there are still no known exploits for it, only the potential for such. Spectre was even longer starting in 1993 with the first Pentium, K6 and ARM CPU's and again no known exploits to date.
Yes because it's nigh impossible to detect spectre or meltdown, surely you remember the dicussion we had? The OS throws no exception, there's no AV red flags or anything else, even when say a rogue JS code is eavesdropping on your passwords.

This exploit basically requires admin privileges, as well as overwriting BIOS (in case of Masterkey) & a whole host of things you'd avoid anyway so far as competent enterprises are concerned. Also wasn't the whole Asmedia backdoor thing known for many years, by CTS?
Posted on Reply
#329
ikeke
Hm, Meltdown and Spectre are not seriuous enough due to there being no known exploits (and after they were discovered all procedures were followed, fixes were in pipeline before the flaws leaked) but "Amdflaws" are really serious since there are no known exploits (but they were revealed without following procedures and informing affected parties beforehand to look for possible fixes).

I struggle to follow the logic.

Asmedia flaw (edit: could possibly) affect (s) tens of millions of Intel motherboards, just FYI.
Posted on Reply
#330
lexluthermiester
R0H1TThis exploit basically requires admin privileges
Again, not as difficult to achieve as one might think.
ikeke(but they were revealed without following procedures and informing affected parties beforehand to look for possible fixes)
Not true. The only things announced to the public were the existence of the vulnerabilities and the conceptual ideas behind them. The technical details were given only to responsible companies/entities to be researched, verified and fixed.
ikekeAsmedia flaw affects tens of millions of Intel motherboards, just FYI.
That is very possible and very worrisome. It's enough of a problem that I'm now actively looking to see if motherboards have AsMedia parts and avoiding them.
Posted on Reply
#331
ikeke
Without CTSlabs giving the headsup and admitting they are to gain from these exploits - i struggle to see beyond FUD as a reason instead of "whoops".

edit: and they did not mess up the timing, they timed it to hit before Ryzen refresh with no headsup to AMD but with enough headsup to Viceroy to write a 20+ page FUD article. I'd say it's timed perfectly, for someone to short AMD.
Posted on Reply
#332
R-T-B
R0H1TAlso wasn't the whole Asmedia backdoor thing known for many years, by CTS?
It's been known by everyone for a while. ASMedia was literally fined over it. They aparently did not learn, and copy-pasted the same code into the Ryzen chipset.
Posted on Reply
#333
Xzibit
R-T-BIt's been known by everyone for a while. ASMedia was literally fined over it. They aparently did not learn, and copy-pasted the same code into the Ryzen chipset.
They still have 2 of the ones CTS-Labs listed on their site.

A lot of the Intel boards carried them as recent as the Z270 series.
Posted on Reply
#334
ikeke
Since CTS-Labs also claim not to have any relation to Viceroy and yet Viceroy had enough headsup to time article perfectly to amdflaws website going public, then i would be very cautios about the claim that the exploits details were not shared with some still currently unknown party who could further profit from it or weaponize it.

Would fit this "security researcher for hire" more to sell 0-day to highest bidder.

(again, since AMD et al were not informed about the possible exploit then i see no other reasoning behind this but to give someone time for using it in the wild)

edit:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hat_(computer_security)
The term "white hat" in Internet slang refers to an ethical computer hacker, or a computer security expert, who specializes in penetration testing and in other testing methodologies to ensure the security of an organization's information systems.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hat
A black hat hacker (or black-hat hacker) is a hacker who "violates computer security for little reason beyond maliciousness or for personal gain"

Tell me, which one describes actions by CTS-labs, currently? Again, as per their own disclaimer..
Posted on Reply
#335
R-T-B
ikekeSince CTS-Labs also claim not to have any relation to Viceroy and yet Viceroy had enough headsup to time article perfectly to amdflaws website going public, then i would be very cautios about the claim that the exploits details were not shared with some still currently unknown party who could further profit from it or weaponize it.

Would fit this "security researcher for hire" more to sell 0-day to highest bidder.

(again, since AMD et al were not informed about the possible exploit then i see no other reasoning behind this but to give someone time for using it in the wild)

edit:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hat_(computer_security)
The term "white hat" in Internet slang refers to an ethical computer hacker, or a computer security expert, who specializes in penetration testing and in other testing methodologies to ensure the security of an organization's information systems.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hat
A black hat hacker (or black-hat hacker) is a hacker who "violates computer security for little reason beyond maliciousness or for personal gain"

Tell me, which one describes actions by CTS-labs, currently? Again, as per their own disclaimer..
Considering they haven't released the bugs to the general public yet, I'd say "grey-hat" if anything, honestly.
XzibitThey still have 2 of the ones CTS-Labs listed on their site.

A lot of the Intel boards carried them as recent as the Z270 series.
True. ASMedia needs a bigger fine, methinks.
Posted on Reply
#336
ikeke
They also said they don't have any affiliation with Viceroy who pushed FUD on this right after amdflaws went public..
edit: general public is not what I said, I said highest bidder for 0-day.

Them possibly making money on this is written on amdflaws disclaimer.

I find it hard to trust someone who lies.
Posted on Reply
#337
R-T-B
ikekeThey also said they don't have any affiliation with Viceroy who pushed FUD on this right after amdflaws went public..
edit: general public is not what I said, I said highest bidder for 0-day.

Them possibly making money on this is written on amdflaws disclaimer.

I find it hard to trust someone who lies.
You can make money and still be "greyhat" or even whitehat. You just can't create a malicious security risk and have to at least have the intent to fix something. There is no hard proof of malicious intent yet, from a security perspective.

I don't know enough about them either way to make any claims, yet.
Posted on Reply
#338
ikeke
I dont know them either, but financial gains due to amdflaws is written into the disclaimer on amdflaws.
Posted on Reply
#339
EarthDog
ikekeI find it hard to trust someone who lies.
Let's strip away the name AMD...aren't they finding these for profit anyway? Someone pays them and they look for exploits for company X. Isn't that a financial gain? I get why people were flagged on the statement, but.... have an open mind. :)
R-T-BWhich could simply be legally covering their ass. It's not proof of a motive or even action.
THIS!!! Its worth sucking up into my post for thanks and reiteration, lol!
Posted on Reply
#340
R-T-B
ikekeI dont know them either, but financial gains due to amdflaws is written into the disclaimer on amdflaws.
Which could simply be legally covering their ass. It's not proof of a motive or even action.
Posted on Reply
#341
ikeke
Viceroy posting FUD right after amdflaws went public, though, is.
Posted on Reply
#342
bug
ikekeViceroy posting FUD right after amdflaws went public, though, is.
Just cool it. It's not like AMD will give free stuff if you kiss their asses enough.
Plus, you're only attacking the messenger here, so it's not like you're making valid arguments.
Posted on Reply
#343
ikeke
How am i kissing AMDs anything here?
Posted on Reply
#344
anubis44
lexluthermiesterThe perspectives offered by "anubis44" focus on the politics of the people making the discoveries rather than the facts and details of the discoveries themselves, which is not helpful or constructive. "abubis44" is also calling out TPU for reporting on the information claiming some sort of bias or defaming effort on their part which is complete rubbish and narrow minded thinking. Again, not helpful or constructive. TPU is reporting information as it comes to light and doing a damn good job keeping updated and up to speed with developments as they occur. "anubis44" also made a veiled "threat" of abandoning the site if they didn't discontinue what "anubis44" considers unacceptable. My response to that sad little remark implied "don't let the door hit you on the way out".

The occurrence of "certain" people "getting outraged" over silly things that ultimately don't matter has been on the rise lately. The staff have had to deal with it even more than us users. Both groups are getting tired of it.

The technical details were not released with the announcement, only the conceptual details. This seems to be a continuing misunderstanding on the part of the general public. The technical details and proof of concept samples were only released to AMD and other responsible party's/entity's to be validated and fixed. The announcement was the only part of this release that was done with only 24hr notice, which CTS Labs admitted they could have handled better. Everything else was handled in a seemingly appropriate manner.

Trying to vilify and berate a group for what is clearly a minor mistake by conjuring up fanciful conspiracies is an effort of foolishness, not objectivity.
Thank you, Intel PR, for your input.

Look, the fact is, leaving this 'story' up on the main page of TechPowerUp lends credibility to the entire hit-piece. It's something like a guy who purports to be a private investigator, who hates somebody famous, going to the press, and accusing the famous person of being a pedophile. So a news site then puts up a story titled 'It looks like so-and-so is a pedophile!' Once the information comes to light that the 'private investigator' is actually not really a private investigator, but someone who hates the famous person for personal reasons, and that they had a vested interest in damaging the reputation of the famous person, AND there's no evidence the famous person IS a pedophile, should the news site continue to leave up the story with that title?

It would be irresponsible for the news site to continue to leave the article up, with the title, 'It looks like so-and-so is a pedophile!' because the accusation itself is disparaging in a manner that is not accurately reflective on the accused. Once the credibility of the accuser/accusations are proven to be false, it's bad journalism to keep the headline implying the now-proven-to-be-false accusation.
Posted on Reply
#345
EarthDog
ikekeViceroy posting FUD right after amdflaws went public, though, is.
Correlation is not causation.
anubis44Thank you, Intel PR, for your input. Look, the fact is, leaving this 'story' up on the main page of TechPowerUp lends credibility to the entire hit-piece. It's something like a guy who pro-ports to be a private investigator, who hates somebody famous accusing the famous person of being a pedophile, and so a news site has a story titled 'Is so-and-so a pedophile?!' Once the information comes to light that the 'private investigator' is actually not a private investigator, and there's no evidence the famous person IS a pedophile, it would be irresponsible for the news site to continue to leave the article up, with the title, 'Is so-and-so a pedophile?!' Once the credibility of the accuser/accusations are proven to be false, it's bad journalism to keep the headline asking the now-proven-to-be-false accusation.
Again, the method of delivery leaves a lot to be desired, they even admitted as such. However, the vulnerabilities are REAL. Perhaps they are not as severe as presented, but that isn't the point here. Look past the trees and see the forest. There will be CVEs, they have said they submitted them. AMD has also yet to make a statement after their findings (remember it took 4-5 days using the exploits to do it). Also, 2 3rd party orgs supported their findings. One a bit dubious indeed, the other, unrelated and found the same things.

While turning a blind eye to things isn't a great idea, neither is sticking your head in the sand and pretending it isn't real. ;)
Posted on Reply
#346
ikeke
Benefit of a doubt goes a long way, it seems.
Posted on Reply
#347
EarthDog
ikekeBenefit of a doubt goes a long way, it seems.
Conspiracy theories run deep, it seems.

Just because you smell smoke, doesn't mean there is currently fire. I agree, it stinks, the delivery... but to completely blow off the security issues is a bit myopic as well.
Posted on Reply
#348
ikeke
How does me concluding on facts and statements by CTS-Labs equal conspiracy?

If it smells like smoke and looks like smoke, then perhaps, there is some smoke somewhere?
Posted on Reply
#349
EarthDog
Because you concluded it was a fact (the financial statement). I just posted this....
EarthDogLet's strip away the name AMD...aren't they finding these for profit anyway? Someone pays them and they look for exploits for company X. Isn't that a financial gain? I get why people were flagged on the statement, but.... have an open mind.
A financial disclaimer in and of itself from a security company isn't anything new. They are FOR PROFIT companies.

We don't SEE smoke. Until we SEE smoke, there isn't a fire. We can smell it... but that doesn't mean there is currently a fire. Surely, it stinks, I feel you. But again, denying there are security issues is just as myopic.

Again, their delivery and things surrounding this are questionable. I think we all get that and are waiting to see how it shakes out. But again, to outright deny there are security issues here which need to be handled is sticking your head in the sand over the issue.

Time will tell. Let's hear AMD's response, let's see these when the come out as CVE's... and so on.
Posted on Reply
#350
ikeke
I've referenced the facts, not much more i can do here.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Jan 24th, 2025 01:36 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts