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

#351
EarthDog
You've extrapolated your belief from their financial disclaimer. If you believe what you said there was a fact, then you are correct, there isn't much more you can do here for your mind is already made up.

We'll see you when AMD responds and the CVEs come out. :)
Posted on Reply
#352
lexluthermiester
anubis44Thank you, Intel PR, for your input.
That's it? You're just going to call me a fanboy?
anubis44Look, the fact is, leaving this 'story' up on the main page of TechPowerUp lends credibility to the entire hit-piece.
Not fact, opinion. It is your opinion, and only your opinion. That opinion is based on assumptions that have no credibility.

I'm not going to remark on the rest of that drivel. Let it go, seriously.
Posted on Reply
#353
ikeke
Theres more behind the "belief" than the financial disclaimer.
Again, im not denying the possible exploits, im saying that these exploits, based on information currently available, are very specific and require very specific sets of requirements to be filled in order for someone to exploit them.

They are not what CTS-Labs is saying they are.
Posted on Reply
#354
EarthDog
ikekeare very specific and require very specific sets of requirements to be filled in order for someone to exploit them.
Que? This isn't new. CTS-labs didn't say any dick, tom, or jane could do it...what lines are you reading between? I'm not trying to be an ass, but, I am not seeing what you are saying...



And completely unrelated... for some reason, TPU isn't on their front page linking back to the other thread as they were a week ago.....................................................why?
Posted on Reply
#355
ikeke
You need to have admin and the system has to be on baremetal install of Windows, as per current information. Also, currently "validated" on 2 motherboards for Epyc.

I'd say thats quite specific.

vs

Am I affected?
Any consumer or organization purchasing AMD Servers, Workstations, or Laptops are affected by these vulnerabilities.

amdflaws.com/
Posted on Reply
#356
EarthDog
So, nothing new. CTS didn't say it was easy... not sure how you believe they are doing so...

2 validations... in two tests... right? They only sent it out to two groups so far who have tested and confirmed? Isn't that batting 1.000? What do the motherboards have to do with it anyway? Didn't TPU just post a video of PoC? Was that one of the two boards you are talking about? Can you link to me the two boards this was confirmed on?
Posted on Reply
#358
EarthDog
2/2 it seems...and again, CTS didn't say it was easy, so isn't that point bunk?

I'm sorry the information wasn't all vomited out at once. Perhaps that would have helped those thinking these aren't true? No idea.
Posted on Reply
#359
lexluthermiester
ikekeim saying that these exploits, based on information currently available, are very specific and require very specific sets of requirements to be filled in order for someone to exploit them.
True, but then again, so is everything else these days. Meltdown & Spectre require even more specific conditions to be exploited. And those are taken seriously. The main reasons certain groups of people are calling foul is that these are mostly AMD specific vulnerabilities coming out of an Intel friendly country from an unknown group who made a mistake concerning the announcement. The same kind of group kept bashing Intel over Meldown & Spectre calling them flaws of design, which they are not. Then it came to light that Spectre affected every CPU made, with few exceptions, since 1993. Then those same people stopped whining and looked at the problems for what they were. Now we have information that shows Intel platforms are affected to some degree by these new vulnerabilities.

What the people complaining seem to be missing is that these discoveries are beneficial to everyone. It doesn't matter who likes what company, who profits from them, who made a mistake in timing of announcement or what level of specific expertise is needed to pull off an effective exploit. What matters is the knowledge we all gain from these discoveries and the benefit from that knowledge for future advancements.
Posted on Reply
#360
Veradun
lexluthermiesterTrue, but then again...
Read again the headline of this thread. Done? Good.

I wouldn't say that a vulnerability that needs an already deeply exploited system to be exposed is to be considered "major".
Posted on Reply
#361
lexluthermiester
VeradunI wouldn't say that a vulnerability that needs an already deeply exploited system to be exposed is to be considered "major".
But 13 of them is. And like Meltdown & Spectre this situation turning into something much larger.
Posted on Reply
#362
ikeke
lexluthermiesterTrue, but then again, so is everything else these days. Meltdown & Spectre require even more specific conditions to be exploited. And those are taken seriously. The main reasons certain groups of people are calling foul is that these are mostly AMD specific vulnerabilities coming out of an Intel friendly country from an unknown group who made a mistake concerning the announcement. The same kind of group kept bashing Intel over Meldown & Spectre calling them flaws of design, which they are not. Then it came to light that Spectre affected every CPU made, with few exceptions, since 1993. Then those same people stopped whining and looked at the problems for what they were. Now we have information that shows Intel platforms are affected to some degree by these new vulnerabilities.

What the people complaining seem to be missing is that these discoveries are beneficial to everyone. It doesn't matter who likes what company, who profits from them, who made a mistake in timing of announcement or what level of specific expertise is needed to pull off an effective exploit. What matters is the knowledge we all gain from these discoveries and the benefit from that knowledge for future advancements.
Incorrect, it's the way these were communicated that people are calling foul.

Meltdown and Spectre allow for unprivileged account on a VM to read from host memory. I'd say thats almost a universal exploit.

blog.acolyer.org/2018/01/15/meltdown/
blog.acolyer.org/2018/01/16/spectre-attacks-exploiting-speculative-execution/
Posted on Reply
#363
Veradun
lexluthermiesterBut 13 of them is. And like Meltdown & Spectre this situation turning into something much larger.
If you give me your car keys I can:
- open you car
- get inside
- remap your control unit
- turn on the engine
- drive it to end of the world
- steal the contents
- damage the interiors
- install a remotely controlled microphone
- install a remotely controlled camera
- tinker with the seat so that in case of a crash you get killed
- fart on your seat

So your car has major security issues.
Posted on Reply
#364
lexluthermiester
ikekeIncorrect, it's the way these were communicated that people are calling foul.
Then their complaining about nothing. There are no legal requirements anywhere in the world that state those making a discovery of a vulnerability have to give the manufacturers any heads up at all. So therefore any warning at all, even if a bit sloppy, is better than nothing.
VeradunIf you give me your car keys I can:
- open you car
- get inside
- remap your control unit
- turn on the engine
- drive it to end of the world
- steal the contents
- damage the interiors
- install a remotely controlled microphone
- install a remotely controlled camera
- tinker with the seat so that in case of a crash you get killed
- fart on your seat

So your car has major security issues.
There is one flaw in your logic. You don't need the car keys for that. Every car, even the newest ones, can be hot wired or tricked into operating without the key. Likewise, PC's, regardless of the OS, can be tricked into operating without the proper "keys", giving full access to the device. It is then a trivial effort to exploit them, just like a car.
Posted on Reply
#365
Veradun
lexluthermiesterThen their complaining about nothing. There are no legal requirements anywhere in the world that state those making a discovery of a vulnerability have to give the manufacturers any heads up at all. So therefore any warning at all, even if a bit sloppy, is better than nothing.
No. The goal of warning the involved companies far before going public is to protect first and foremost whoever is affected by the vulnerabilities since they would be fixed before there is notice of those vulnerabilities. If you go public, even without a full disclosure, you give wannabe attackers a direction on where to look for the holes. So definitely no, it's not better this way.
Posted on Reply
#366
EarthDog
Listen, I can't do much about the front door of the house already being broken open, however, I can lock down the bedrooms. ;)
Posted on Reply
#367
lexluthermiester
VeradunNo. The goal of warning the involved companies far before going public is to protect first and foremost whoever is affected by the vulnerabilities since they would be fixed before there is notice of those vulnerabilities. If you go public, even without a full disclosure, you give wannabe attackers a direction on where to look for the holes. So definitely no, it's not better this way.
Ok, you're just trolling. Let it go.
Posted on Reply
#368
ikeke
lexluthermiesterThen their complaining about nothing. There are no legal requirements anywhere in the world that state those making a discovery of a vulnerability have to give the manufacturers any heads up at all. So therefore any warning at all, even if a bit sloppy, is better than nothing.


There is one flaw in your logic. You don't need the car keys for that. Every car, even the newest ones, can be hot wired or tricked into operating without the key. Likewise, PC's, regardless of the OS, can be tricked into operating without the proper "keys", giving full access to the device. It is then a trivial effort to exploit them, just like a car.
No legal requirement is a slippery slope. Lets not go there.

It's standard procedure in the industry, though.

Also, to add, it's increasingly difficult, without access to specific exploits, to run a car without key. Theres a whole industry who works tirelessly to find the exploits, though. But we call them thieves.
Posted on Reply
#369
lexluthermiester
ikekeNo legal requirement is a slippery slope. Lets not go there. It's standard procedure in the industry, though.
The point is, they have no obligations. No one does. Therefore the fact that they disclosed the technical details only to responsible parties was a good thing and they followed a proceedure, even if it wasn't perfect.
ikekeAlso, to add, it's increasingly difficult, without access to specific exploits, to run a car without key. Theres a whole industry who works tirelessly to find the exploits, though. But we call them thieves.
Yes, and that is the kind of people we have to worry about with technology as well. PC's, much like cars, have varying levels of difficulty in cracking.
Posted on Reply
#370
ikeke
Responsible parties is something I can't agree with. Purely based on the fact that Viceroy was one of the first to publish on this issue after CTS-Labs.
Posted on Reply
#371
lexluthermiester
ikekeResponsible parties is something I can't agree with. Purely based on the fact that Viceroy was one of the first to publish on this issue after CTS-Labs.
Semantics and nitpicking. I was referring to AMD.
Posted on Reply
#372
ikeke
You cant say that they disclosed them to responsible parties, since for fact they provided information on these to Viceroy well in advance (25 page report Viceroy published 3h after CTS-Labs went public suggest they had time to prepare).

If information was for sale then how can you assume that the exploits werent?
Posted on Reply
#373
anubis44
lexluthermiesterThat's it? You're just going to call me a fanboy?

Not fact, opinion. It is your opinion, and only your opinion. That opinion is based on assumptions that have no credibility.

I'm not going to remark on the rest of that drivel. Let it go, seriously.
So, having an article posted on a high traffic tech journal website with the title: "Vulnerabilities discovered in AMD Zen, including backdoors" doesn't lend credibility to the baseless accusations of 'vulnerabilties' in AMD Zen CPUs? That's NOT a fact? Hmmm. Perhaps you also don't think it's true that a headline in an otherwise credible newspaper that says 'Alien contact made' implies that we've made contact with aliens? Very interesting idea of yours there on what is a fact and what isn't.

Also, your failure to remark on the rest of my post doesn't make it drivel. That's just your opinion. :) As for letting this go, well, I own shares of AMD, and I'm not too thrilled with the idea of a website posting bogus allegations that serve to damage AMD's share value as a news item. So no, I'm not going to just 'let it go.'
Posted on Reply
#374
EarthDog
anubis44baseless accusations of 'vulnerabilties' in AMD Zen CPUs?
Oh, it isnt ikekekekeke, its anubis that belives they don't exist...apologies ikeke

...sweet baby jebus people... :(
Posted on Reply
#375
anubis44
EarthDogOh, it isnt ikekekekeke, its anubis that belives they don't exist...apologies ikeke
...sweet baby jebus people... :(
Oh, you mean the 'vulnerability' that exists if you:
1) Have the administrator password
2) Are personally at the machine
3) Can flash the BIOS

You mean THAT crazy vulnerability? The one that EVERY computer ever made has? Yeah, that's a really BIG news item. Nobody in tech EVER suspected that you could take control of a computer and install malware on it if you personally flashed the bios with a corrupt one. That was a vulnerability we were talking about in the 1980s, people. It's not NEWS. It's common knowledge. It's like saying: NEWSFLASH! Humans need BLOOD in their bodies or they DIE! Quick! It's an EMERGENCY! We've JUST FIGURED THIS OUT!!! It's not that it isn't true, it's that it's not true that it's some kind of newly discovered vulnerability. It's not NEWS. It's like saying: "Warning! Your car could be stolen if somebody breaks the window and the keys are in the car! Everybody needs to hear this! It's NEWS!!!" No, it isn't news.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Jan 24th, 2025 01:36 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts