Friday, August 16th 2024

"Sinkclose" Vulnerability Affects Every AMD CPU Dating Back to 2006

A critical security flaw known as "Sinkclose" (CVE-2023-31315) has been identified in all AMD processors dating back to 2006, potentially affecting hundreds of millions of devices worldwide. This vulnerability allows malicious actors to exploit the chip architecture, leading to unauthorized access to sensitive data. Researchers Enrique Nissim and Krzysztof Okupski, researchers from the security firm IOActive, have revealed that the vulnerability can be exploited through various methods, enabling attackers to extract confidential information from affected systems, including passwords and personal data. The issue is especially concerning, given that it is present in all AMD CPUs made in the last 18 years and their widespread use in both consumer and enterprise environments. However, to exploit this vulnerability, an attacker must possess access to system's kernel. Downloading of malware-infused files can trigger it, so general safety measures are recommended.

The Sinkclose method exploits a little-known capability in AMD processors called TClose. This name is a blend of "TClose" and "Sinkhole," with the latter referring to a previous vulnerability found in Intel's System Management Mode in 2015. AMD chips employ a protective mechanism named TSeg, which blocks operating systems from accessing a specific memory area reserved for System Management Mode (SMM), known as System Management Random Access Memory (SMRAM). However, the TClose feature is designed to maintain backward compatibility with older hardware that might use the same memory addresses as SMRAM. It does this by remapping memory when activated. The security experts discovered that they could manipulate this TClose remapping function using only standard operating system permissions. By doing so, they could deceive the SMM into retrieving altered data, enabling them to redirect the processor and run their own instructions with the high-level privileges of SMM. This technique essentially allows attackers to bypass standard security measures and execute malicious code at one of the most privileged levels of the processor, potentially compromising the entire system.
In response to the discovery, AMD has initiated a patching process for its critical chip lines, aiming to mitigate the risks associated with this flaw. The company works closely with hardware manufacturers and software developers to ensure that updates are deployed swiftly and effectively. Enrique Nissim and Krzysztof Okupski agreed not to publish any proof-of-concept code for the vulnerability to ensure that the patches aren't rushed and systems are not getting exploited. AMD already issued patched for most of its models, and you should check out the official website for your specific mitigation firmware update. The enterprise EPYC CPUs and Instinct accelerators have been a first-priority products with patches implemented in May, while consumer desktop/laptop 4000/5000/7000/8000 series CPUs received a fix in August. No fixes are planned for 3000 series Ryzen CPUs. Workstation-grade CPUs have also received an update to mitigate this issue.

Update 08:20 UTC: AMD confirmed that the Ryzen 3000 series "Matisse" processors are getting an update planned for August 20, 2024.
Sources: Wired, AMD
Add your own comment

124 Comments on "Sinkclose" Vulnerability Affects Every AMD CPU Dating Back to 2006

#51
R-T-B
Qwerty101This is getting ridiculous!

AMD and Intel both working against the second hand market and product longevity. Completely by accident of course…….

Intel: Your second hand PC might have a faulty CPU, that starts to fail due to mysterious degradation.

AMD: Your second hand PC might be compromised in a stealth mode, where no clean OS reinstall will help you.
Just install the bios update and forget about it. Seriously. This isn't some grand conspiracy.

Although, it is pretty bad they drop support for 3000 and below, admitedly, but thats an AMD exclusive thing, pretty much...
Posted on Reply
#52
RJARRRPCGP
jpvalverde85There are Zen2 processors that will get the upgrade
Matisse is Zen 2. So that means lots of chips bought during the very-early pandemic, are considered obsolete now!
R-T-BRootkits are not the same as ring -2. They typically cannot survive a reinstall.
Yeah, ones that survive a drive wipe, are a BIOS-rootkit!
Posted on Reply
#53
Visible Noise
What people are missing is because of the incompleteness of this article.

This vulnerability - which AMD themselves have rated as high severity - allows undetectable persistence of UEFI malware. Once that occurs it’s throw out the machine time.
Posted on Reply
#54
RJARRRPCGP
Visible Noiseallows undetectable persistence of UEFI malware. Once that occurs it’s throw out the machine time.
That's what the Coffee Lake-and-earlier CSME bug was, and I have been wondering if just a packet received while connected to the internet, results in a contaminated UEFI-BIOS.
Doesn't affect Comet Lake and later.

The current AMD bug found, only affects ring-0 access.
Posted on Reply
#55
R-T-B
RJARRRPCGPThat's what the Coffee Lake-and-earlier CSME bug was, and I have been wondering if just a packet received while connected to the internet, results in a contaminated UEFI-BIOS.
Doesn't affect Comet Lake and later.

The current AMD bug found, only affects ring-0 access.
I mean its all bad. Whataboutism serves no one here.
Posted on Reply
#56
RJARRRPCGP
R-T-BJust install the bios update and forget about it.
Warning: BIOS update currently not available for ASRock B550 PG Velocita
Posted on Reply
#57
Solaris17
Super Dainty Moderator
Damn, time to put my 3600+ brisbane to sleep. /salute
Posted on Reply
#58
Vincero
Solaris17Damn, time to put my 3600+ brisbane to sleep. /salute
This does make me think there should be a buy back system in place. People could still buy (as new) Ryzen 3000 series products less than 3 years ago - technically you are still in warranty (brand new unsold items sitting on the shelf still get the same end user warranty period) - if you're not gonna support it then should be forced to offer a buy back.... I bet the support teams will miraculously offer BIOS updates as that little bit of work would cost far less.

AMD have said they probably will not offer updates for R3000 chips but I suspect it's more likely a case of getting little interest from motherboard/system OEM's also, and at the end of the day, nearly every AM4 motherboard would need to have the BIOS updates offered to fix this so why not just roll the patch to cover them also...??
To their credit, Intel did actually do patches for the Spectre/Meltdown CPU microcode all the way back to Nehalem (1st gen Core-i3/5/7 from 2008/2009) but the lazy motherboard manufacturers did nothing for them - I can count on one hand the amount of BIOS updates for systems that old that appeared - in the consumer/enthusiast components mainstream the newest platform I ever saw with BIOS updates for it was Haswell (LGA1150) - anything Ivy Bridge or earlier with patches is pretty rare.
Posted on Reply
#59
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
VinceroNot until you run a command that does and then you get the UAC prompt...
That's the point, I need to tell it.
Posted on Reply
#60
AusWolf
The article mentions CVE-2023-31315 vulnerability. According to AMD's website, AGESA 1.2.0.1 will patch it for Ryzen 7000. According to my motherboard's support page, the latest BIOS with AGESA 1.2.0.0a patches CVE-2024-31315. Are these the same thing?
Posted on Reply
#61
Chrispy_
R-T-BRootkits are not the same as ring -2. They typically cannot survive a reinstall.
Yeah, I think my heavy-handed, scorched earth approach to anything AV can't tackle means that rootkits and ring -2 are identical to me. Both need BIOS reflash and disks secure-erased before a reinstall.
Posted on Reply
#62
R-T-B
Chrispy_Yeah, I think my heavy-handed, scorched earth approach to anything AV can't tackle means that rootkits and ring -2 are identical to me. Both need BIOS reflash and disks secure-erased before a reinstall.
At ring -2 you can't even necessarily trust bios reflash. Not unless using a hardware flasher anyways. Its serious suck level stuff.
Posted on Reply
#63
Visible Noise
AusWolfThe article mentions CVE-2023-31315 vulnerability. According to AMD's website, AGESA 1.2.0.1 will patch it for Ryzen 7000. According to my motherboard's support page, the latest BIOS with AGESA 1.2.0.0a patches CVE-2024-31315. Are these the same thing?
I think your motherboard support page is wrong, this is a 2023 vulnerability.
Chrispy_Yeah, I think my heavy-handed, scorched earth approach to anything AV can't tackle means that rootkits and ring -2 are identical to me. Both need BIOS reflash and disks secure-erased before a reinstall.
Malware installed this way can survive a reflash. For example that’s how pc anti-theft software works. Reflash, reinstall Windows, and it just gets reinstalled from the protected UEFI region.

www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/call-action-bolster-uefi-cybersecurity-now
Posted on Reply
#64
persondb
VinceroIts 'critical' in terms of direct impact - its impossible to class it based on risk as everyone works differently. For sure the risk is high of someone inadvertently loading it. For those with locked down devices and effective endpoint security, the risk is probably quite low, but the impact wouldn't be any different if it somehow was triggered.
That is why actual security professionals use vector strings to describe the attacks and not 'critical'.

For this one it's:

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H

Which Translating it means, Attack Vector is Local, Attack Complexity is High, Privileges Required is High, User Interaction is None, Scope is Changed, Confidentiality Impact is High, Integrity Impact is High and Availability Impact is High.

While the attack is hard to execute, the impact of a successful execution is very high which is why it ends up with being a serious threat.

If I am not mistaken, I don`t think there has ever really been a Spectre and Meltdown exploit in the wild too, but everyone rushed to fix those. Spectre allowed you to read any memory at something like kilobytes per second(I don't remember if it could modify it too).
Posted on Reply
#65
Darmok N Jalad
Kinda feels like we need a ROM bios with basic recovery features as a fallback, and a secondary flashable BIOS that can be wiped from orbit by the ROM BIOS. Or will that not even work?
Posted on Reply
#66
remixedcat
The timing of this whole thing is sus...

Intel hired them to cover up the 1314gate
Posted on Reply
#67
Vincero
Darmok N JaladKinda feels like we need a ROM bios with basic recovery features as a fallback, and a secondary flashable BIOS that can be wiped from orbit by the ROM BIOS. Or will that not even work?
Yep, it could be done... maybe on a removable chip just in case it needs to be reprogrammed to include new product support, etc...
Posted on Reply
#68
Visible Noise
remixedcatThe timing of this whole thing is sus...

Intel hired them to cover up the 1314gate
Can’t tell if serious.
Posted on Reply
#69
Hecate91
Darmok N JaladKinda feels like we need a ROM bios with basic recovery features as a fallback, and a secondary flashable BIOS that can be wiped from orbit by the ROM BIOS. Or will that not even work?
Having a ROM chip in a socket would be nice also, and I miss when even cheaper boards had dual BIOS. I wonder if dual BIOS would work if the secondary BIOS could only be used with a physical switch.
Posted on Reply
#70
remixedcat
Visible NoiseCan’t tell if serious.
do you know what's going on w intel right?
Darmok N JaladKinda feels like we need a ROM bios with basic recovery features as a fallback, and a secondary flashable BIOS that can be wiped from orbit by the ROM BIOS. Or will that not even work?
dual bios is doable. even routers have that... my meraki has a rapid failover in case the other is corrupted or doesn't boot it boots from the prev version.
kondaminThe concern for your average user with administrator privileges, which is like 99.9% of home users is very much there.
Especially if they use pirated software or cheat software which makes you turn off your anti virus software
I've even seen legitimate printer drivers trigger antivirus warnings forcing me to turn off protection to be able to install the device.

So, yes it's important this patch gets pushed and I hope it happens automatically trough a windows update or something so tech illiterate's machines get patched too.
ppl should have rejected those anti cheats to begin with they were always a bad idea and people were too desperate to play some games they complied.
Posted on Reply
#71
Vincero
The only real issue with removable BIOSimplementations these days would probably revolve around TPM/secure boot, etc.
Arguably, you could have a removable TPM/BIOS chip seeing as both have a 'secure enclave' which could be rewritten via unknown malicious means - if mistakingly removed as long as it's restored back to the board/boot device it would work as normal.
Posted on Reply
#72
R-T-B
persondbI don`t think there has ever really been a Spectre and Meltdown exploit in the wild too, but everyone rushed to fix those.
The answer as to why is in the second portion of your sentence.

Meltdown was a shockingly easy form of privledge escalation. The only reason it wasn't exploited more was widespread patching.
Posted on Reply
#73
Visible Noise
remixedcatdo you know what's going on w intel right?
So you’re saying Intel had the foresight to leak this vulnerability to a security company back in October, knowing that AMD would announce it right when Intel is releasing voltage patches the following August.

congrats, you’ve left me speechless.
Posted on Reply
#74
remixedcat
Visible NoiseSo you’re saying Intel had the foresight to leak this vulnerability to a security company back in October, knowing that AMD would announce it right when Intel is releasing voltage patches the following August.

congrats, you’ve left me speechless.
The media made the stink about it at the same time
Posted on Reply
#75
INFERNUS
I don't think the average gamer, who maybe bought their PC pre-built and only wants to play games and maybe stream are even going to even acknowledge this BIOS update.
Hell, I'm pretty sure most never even updated their BIOS once, so these patches from AMD fall on deaf ears. I'm just putting it out there. :D As for myself, I'm using a ASRock x470 Taichi BIOS 5.10 with a 5800X3D. The newest BIOS is 10.13 (beta) I'm not going to even touch any beta BIOS, plus the newer ones after mine had some issues I read on Reddit with people saying their PC will not post with BIOS 10.10 or 10.11 (beta). Also just read this on the ASRock forum "x470 Taichi bricked after update to 10.10" yeah I'm not going to update anymore. I should because I umm torrent things ;) But I just don't trust any more updates, I will take my chances. If anyone was interested on the BIOS issues here is the forum post: forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=34491&title=x470-taichi-bricked-after-update-to-10-10
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Jan 6th, 2025 08:35 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts