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

#77
W1zzard
TheLostSwedeAs far as I'm aware, it's not very easy to get a signed driver for Windows these days, as Microsoft does a fair amount of testing, especially on drivers from new companies.
Just setup a company and buy a certificate from one of a handful certification companies. Microsoft does no testing of the driver and is not involved.

Driver signature is really just security through bureaucracy and a paywall.
Posted on Reply
#78
TheLaughingMan
How do I join the committee that gets to come up with these names?
Posted on Reply
#79
TheLostSwede
News Editor
W1zzardJust setup a company and buy a certificate from one of a handful certification companies. Microsoft does no testing of the driver and is not involved.

Driver signature is really just security through bureaucracy and a paywall.
So why was there a big issue about this some years ago, with multiple companies complaining that Microsoft's certification was slowing down their driver release schedule? Or this is what we got instead of proper driver testing and signing?
Posted on Reply
#80
W1zzard
TheLostSwedeSo why was there a big issue about this some years ago, with multiple companies complaining that Microsoft's certification was slowing down their driver release schedule? Or this is what we got instead of proper driver testing and signing?
You are confusing WHQL signed drivers (which are tested by MS to some degree) with plain loadable kernel mode drivers that are for no specific device. GPU-Z uses such a driver for example
Posted on Reply
#82
Assimilator
moobI feel like that's how it should have been reported here on TPU as well, with a fair amount of skepticism.

The way it's been reported here you'd never know it's shady as hell.
Let's all hold off on accusing something of being shady until we actually have a fuller picture, shall we?
Posted on Reply
#83
TheLostSwede
News Editor
W1zzardYou are confusing WHQL signed drivers (which are tested by MS to some degree) with plain loadable kernel mode drivers that are for no specific device. GPU-Z uses such a driver for example
Ah, sorry, my bad. That makes more sense now.
Posted on Reply
#84
ssdpro
Guys, we knew AMD was operating on a shoe string budget during Ryzen development. This is not surprising. Even if Intel had a hand in research, that isn't even a crime. Chevy does ads comparing the bed of the F150 with the Silverado steel vs aluminum. It would be negligent to just let AMD market their chips one way when the reality is another. Just analyze it, fix it, and move on. Ryzen is still a great product even if it needs some patches.
Posted on Reply
#85
moob
AssimilatorLet's all hold off on accusing something of being shady until we actually have a fuller picture, shall we?
So you're willing to ignore all the red flags that have already been posted here? Especially the 24 hours notice?

Other tech sites are reporting it with the same amount of skepticism: www.hardocp.com/news/2018/03/13/amd_cpu_attack_vectors_vulnerabilities
And www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-flaws-ryzenfall-masterkey-fallout-chimera,36656.html

Even if the reported "flaws" do exist, the way it's been done has been shady.
Posted on Reply
#86
Veradun
W1zzardThey all require admin rights, I'll clarify in the original post.

For the last: what is not fully verified is whether DMA can write into the fenced off memory, the rest like keylogging and sniffing network is confirmed according to the researchers.

Clarified the original post: "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."
So they can keylog and sniff network when in root mode? They are so good at hacking.

Laughable.
Posted on Reply
#87
Te5lac0il
Amazing how many people comment on the title alone. People need too read an article before commenting. As many other has mentioned, the way the company presented these findings should, too any reasonable person, raise some red flags. But I suspect most people will swallow this hook, line and sinker.
Posted on Reply
#88
CheapMeat
oxzyAlso, this is one of the saltiest forums on the internet. The amount of school girl fanboism is hilarious, I feel bad for the mods. Great site but garbage community, I would ban every salty users and just start from clean lol cause their holding ya back Techpowerup.
Heh, ban yourself while at it. You're the same, newbie.
Posted on Reply
#89
Boatvan
Looking at this from a pure logical standpoint, the implications are massive, but I'd wait for verification of the findings. Also, anyone who didn't expect high sodium levels in this thread are fools.
Posted on Reply
#90
windwhirl
CheapMeatHeh, ban yourself while at it. You're the same, newbie.
I can feel the burn from here
Posted on Reply
#92
Thunderclap
you know, i find this hilarious. not just the sheer bullshit these 2 'stralian kids are trying to do, but people who actually believe it as well.
Posted on Reply
#94
_JP_
ShihabyoooSubjectively speaking, compared to Meltdown attack page, this one has waaaay too many AMD logos. Without reading the text, one might actually mistake it for an ad! Count me up holding a pitchfork if Intel turned out to have a hand in this.

Objectively speaking, smear campaign or no, a vulnerability is a vulnerability. I'm personally quite illiterate on this matter so I'll defer judgement until "for dummies-"style security expert blog posts and articles start popping up.
If proved true, the usual applies.
Common sense running programs and visiting the internet, make sure you have backups (cold ones preferably), patch as soon as possible.
R-T-BWhen it can survive a reinstall it's still a big issue. If these flaws are confirmed they are fairly signifigant.

As I said earlier, 2018 is going to be a rough year for processor security...
Only if it's embedded in firmware, but to reach that far, so much needs to be compromised to begin with...
Posted on Reply
#95
biffzinker
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. We will update this blog as news develops.
ir.amd.com/news-releases/news-release-details/view-our-corner-street-0
Posted on Reply
#97
Boatvan
I kinda agree with AMD's point of view in that news release. If it is truly the case, releasing the CVE's without telling the vendor first seems counterproductive. I wouldn't go as far as to say this is fishy, but like I said earlier, once it ends up on a more official channel, I'll be more inclined to believe it.
Posted on Reply
#98
ShurikN
I like how @FordGT90Concept put more effort in investigating than the TPU editorial that published the article.

On a different note, stock actually rose. Not by much, and it looks stable at the moment, but nonetheless.


Posted on Reply
#99
xkm1948
ShurikNI like how @FordGT90Concept put more effort in investigating than the TPU editorial that published the article.

On a different note, stock actually rose. Not by much, and it looks stable at the moment, but nonetheless.


Agree. This entire thing feels like a huge PR scam from the Isreal based “security” firm.
Posted on Reply
#100
oxidized
kastriotThere always be flaws, there are 2 types, deliberate ones and unnoticed ones....
And we always know that when we're talking about AMD, it's ALWAYS the second. Unlike other companies... :mad:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Jan 23rd, 2025 22:47 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts