New "Plundervolt" Intel CPU Vulnerability Exploits vCore to Fault SGX and Steal Protected Data

[moproblems99]

I mean, you always could with root. Root-requiring vulnerabilities like this bore me, and are being majorly sensationalized.

I get the sentiment but I am still impressed with human ingenuity. That said, it isn't always that difficult to get root once you are there. This just gives you something else to do.

 

[_Flare]

AMD = Cool&Quiet
Intel = Fast&Risky

 

[eidairaman1]

I'm downright tired of these vulnerabilities, especially those that has a microcode patch that results in lower performance.
Can't researchers shut up about these and make them confidental?
Also, I don't care about privacy cr4p at all. Just let me have full performance from the processor, please.

We as consumers have a right to know about these security threats.

 

[r.h.p]

what the hell is going on with intel … are they being targeted by a source ……… im no bond obviously , yet I feel bad fore the them ….

 

[Diverge]

Get ready for Intels fix... They'll probably lock cpu voltage...

 

[newtekie1]

what the hell is going on with intel … are they being targeted by a source ……… im no bond obviously , yet I feel bad fore the them ….

I already addressed this. They literally pay people to find vulnerabilities, that's why vulnerabilities keep getting found. I believe the bounty can be as much as $100,000.

 

[freeagent]

I bet if people start digging they could probably do something similar with an AMD cpu. Or maybe not.. but wow what a shit storm that would be lol.

 

[techguymaxc]

Plundervolt requires root privileges as software that let you tweak vCore require ring-0 access.

And if you have that, you don't need some fancy exploit to gain access to whatever data you want, or worse, delete or encrypt all the data.

 

[moproblems99]

And if you have that, you don't need some fancy exploit to gain access to whatever data you want, or worse, delete or encrypt all the data.

Not necessarily. It sounds like the SgX might be OS agnostic. Else, as you said, you wouldn't need to do this with root access.

 

[Rob94hawk]

Well I think my next rig will be a Ryzen based one. Better get on it before everyone starts price gouging..

 

[Chrispy_]

Wouldn't be great if, JUST ONCE, the first we heard about an Intel CPU vulnerability was when Intel themselves went public, something along the lines of

"Hey, six months ago our bug bounty program helped us to identify and mitigate the flaw. The update was rolled out to board vendors four months ago and we recommend everyone updates to the latest BIOS to ensure your systems are fully-protected"

But no, the first we hear about it is always the NDA deadline coming and going with Intel only promising vague future action at some undetermined point in the future, already being six months too late.

 

[r.h.p]

I bet if people start digging they could probably do something similar with an AMD cpu. Or maybe not.. but wow what a shit storm that would be lol.
[/QUOTEi
i reakon amd is leaps and bounds ahead on old intel core and memory platforms that its become easier for hackers to exploit them ....my 2 cents lol

 

[CityCultivator]

SGX was meant to be a secure enclave where no system code, including root can access the data being processed. Also why UHD-BD requires SGX.
Also in cloud systems, SGX was meant to be the safe place to execute highly confidential data without risk of cloud owners accessing the data.
Root access causing SGX vulnerability undermines the usage of SGX. Thus it is a major vulnerability (to BD players DRM, and cloud services users of SGX)

 

[cyberloner]

intel is hollysh1t now...

 

[R-T-B]

We as consumers have a right to know about these security threats.

Yes, and you also have a right to know about how much of a threat they actually are.

This one is almost nothing.

SGX was meant to be a secure enclave where no system code, including root can access the data being processed. Also why UHD-BD requires SGX.
Also in cloud systems, SGX was meant to be the safe place to execute highly confidential data without risk of cloud owners accessing the data.
Root access causing SGX vulnerability undermines the usage of SGX. Thus it is a major vulnerability (to BD players DRM, and cloud services users of SGX)

It is major if you are a cloud service provider... letting your users run around with root. Maybe.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

There's a party under that IHS!!! BYOV ( Bring your own voltage )

Yes, and you also have a right to know about how much of a threat they actually are.

This one is almost nothing.

I had thought there was a threat scale/chart.

 

[CityCultivator]

It is major if you are a cloud service provider... letting your users run around with root. Maybe.

Its not allowing the client to run as root that SGX tries to help, its preventing the cloud provider services to gain access to client data.
The cloud provider employees can possibly do espionage against a client using this technique.

 

[R-T-B]

Its not allowing the client to run as root that SGX tries to help, its preventing the cloud provider services to gain access to client data.
The cloud provider employees can possibly do espionage against a client using this technique.

Oh, I see.

Yes that is a legit concern. Not something standard users need worry about,but a concern all the same.

 

[r.h.p]

I already addressed this. They literally pay people to find vulnerabilities, that's why vulnerabilities keep getting found. I believe the bounty can be as much as $100,000.

send the Mandalorian ,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[Proedros]

I am surprised how many ignore that it's not so difficult to gain remote root access in a computer even in Linux.
e.g https://www.theinquirer.net/inquire...rus-is-a-total-jerk-even-by-malware-standards
or via software https://www.neowin.net/news/multipl...persky-labs-anti-virus-for-linux-file-server/

 

[Vayra86]

I vaguely remember us saying the timing for these vulnerabilities was in favor of Intel because their 10nm was stalling.

Oh, how the tables have turned.

 

[Zach_01]

One thing that needs to be asked is, are there more vulnerabilities being found on Intel processors because Intel processors are actually less secure OR are their more vulnerabilities being found because Intel pays a bounty to people that find vulnerabilities and AMD doesn't?

It can easily cross my mind that Intel is paying a whole division to find and expose AMD vulnerabilities. We just dont know about it.
Just because that is Intel... a dirty player and we have seen it several times. And the bounty program is just raising dust and disorientation program. Playing the good Company who cares about consumers, oh my laughs... I cannot take it...

 

[Chrispy_]

Yes, and you also have a right to know about how much of a threat they actually are.
This one is almost nothing.
It is major if you are a cloud service provider... letting your users run around with root. Maybe.

Well, even though none of use are cloud service providers with dumb customer policies, those exploits still get OS and microcode patches that hamper the performance of ordinary things like web-browsing, gaming, photo-editing.

It doesn't matter what the vulnerability is, only whether it needs patching. If it needs patching, everyone suffers the performance hit whether the vulnerability is relevant to them or not.

 

[newtekie1]

It can easily cross my mind that Intel is paying a whole division to find and expose AMD vulnerabilities. We just dont know about it.
Just because that is Intel... a dirty player and we have seen it several times. And the bounty program is just raising dust and disorientation program. Playing the good Company who cares about consumers, oh my laughs... I cannot take it...

Yes, wild baseless speculation. That's what we should do!

 

[mcraygsx]

So much for Enhanced Intel SpeedStep and Turbo Boost technology. At this point entire Core Architecture is flawed regardless of the performance it offers. Same goes for their upcoming 10th Gen Comet Lake.

I remember when intel suggested that we stop overclocking our 'K' series Kabylake processors.
“We do not recommend running outside the processor specifications, such as by exceeding processor frequency or voltage specifications, or removing of the integrated heat spreader to avoid high temps. "