Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Endpoint Security

12/16/2019
10:05 AM
Larry Loeb
Larry Loeb
Larry Loeb
50%
50%

With Plundervolt, an Intel Processor's Secure Enclave Is No Longer Secure

Major hardware vulnerability can allow the changing of information that is supposedly stored as secure in the chip's Secure Enclave.

International researchers have discovered a major hardware vulnerabilitythat they call Plundervolt in most of the modern Intel processors from Skylake onward. It can allow the changing of information that is supposedly stored as secure in the chip's Secure Enclave.

The researchers have a web page with a snazzy logo (designed by Mike Stimpson) dedicated to the vulnerability (CVE-2019-11157) where they attempt to answer some general questions about it.

The vulnerability has been known since June by the group who then informed Intel. It's taken Intel until now to get a patch out to mitigate things. Admittedly, the problems that Intel had to navigate in a solution composed of both microcode (CPU firmware) and BIOS updates were non-trivial.

The method used in the attack is similar to how a gamer might "overclock" a CPU for faster performance in that it uses a privileged power/clock management feature (the CPU's Dynamic Voltage and Frequency Scaling) to do its dirty work: inject faults into a trusted execution environment. These faults can then be actively exploited later by the attacker once the malware program leaves the enclave and is running in its normal space. Thus Plundervolt does not break the SGX in the usual sense, instead it poisons the output.

By the way, this is just the opposite of recent speculative-style SGX attacks like Foreshadow or Spectre. Those methods allow the attacker to read data from SGX enclave memory (i.e. attacks the confidentiality). As the researchers note, "Plundervolt achieves the complementary operation, namely changing values in SGX-protected memory (i.e. attacks the integrity)".

The problem affects many users, not just those using SGX for cryptography programs for example. The group says that Plundervolt can also cause memory safety misbehavior in certain scenarios. For example, the paper finds that out-of-bounds accesses may arise when an attacker faults multiplications emitted by the compiler for array element indices or pointer arithmetic.

They conclude that Plundervolt can break a processor's integrity guarantees, affecting even securely written code. They also claim to show that Plundervolt may affect SGX's attestation functionality, which undermines the building blocks underpinning the security of Intel's SGX ecosystem. The Gang of Six says that, "this represents the first practical attack that directly breaches the integrity guarantees in the Intel SGX security architecture."

Yow.

But there is a bit of upside to all of this. Evidently, Plundervolt can't be exploited remotely. Pointing the victim to malware with JavaScript in it won't get the vulnerability to work.

Plundervolt also doesn't work from within virtualized environments, such as virtual machines and cloud computing services, because that vector was considered by Intel in the design of the SGX architecture. At least in this version of Plundervolt (which doesn't break that architecture), it prevents that kind of exploit.

So, those wanting to close off SGX's possible corruption should patch both the CPU microcode and the BIOS of a machine. Nothing less than that will mitigate the vulnerability.

— Larry Loeb has written for many of the last century's major "dead tree" computer magazines, having been, among other things, a consulting editor for BYTE magazine and senior editor for the launch of WebWeek.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
News
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
Commentary
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Enterprise Cybersecurity Plans in a Post-Pandemic World
Download the Enterprise Cybersecurity Plans in a Post-Pandemic World report to understand how security leaders are maintaining pace with pandemic-related challenges, and where there is room for improvement.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-41393
PUBLISHED: 2021-09-18
Teleport before 4.4.11, 5.x before 5.2.4, 6.x before 6.2.12, and 7.x before 7.1.1 allows forgery of SSH host certificates in some situations.
CVE-2021-41394
PUBLISHED: 2021-09-18
Teleport before 4.4.11, 5.x before 5.2.4, 6.x before 6.2.12, and 7.x before 7.1.1 allows alteration of build artifacts in some situations.
CVE-2021-41395
PUBLISHED: 2021-09-18
Teleport before 6.2.12 and 7.x before 7.1.1 allows attackers to control a database connection string, in some situations, via a crafted database name or username.
CVE-2021-3806
PUBLISHED: 2021-09-18
A path traversal vulnerability on Pardus Software Center's "extractArchive" function could allow anyone on the same network to do a man-in-the-middle and write files on the system.
CVE-2021-41392
PUBLISHED: 2021-09-17
static/main-preload.js in Boost Note through 0.22.0 allows remote command execution. A remote attacker may send a crafted IPC message to the exposed vulnerable ipcRenderer IPC interface, which invokes the dangerous openExternal Electron API.