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
Manchester United Suffers Cyberattack
Dark Reading Staff 11/23/2020
As 'Anywhere Work' Evolves, Security Will Be Key Challenge
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  11/23/2020
Cloud Security Startup Lightspin Emerges From Stealth
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  11/24/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win an Amazon Gift Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-20934
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-28
An issue was discovered in the Linux kernel before 5.2.6. On NUMA systems, the Linux fair scheduler has a use-after-free in show_numa_stats() because NUMA fault statistics are inappropriately freed, aka CID-16d51a590a8c.
CVE-2020-29368
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-28
An issue was discovered in __split_huge_pmd in mm/huge_memory.c in the Linux kernel before 5.7.5. The copy-on-write implementation can grant unintended write access because of a race condition in a THP mapcount check, aka CID-c444eb564fb1.
CVE-2020-29369
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-28
An issue was discovered in mm/mmap.c in the Linux kernel before 5.7.11. There is a race condition between certain expand functions (expand_downwards and expand_upwards) and page-table free operations from an munmap call, aka CID-246c320a8cfe.
CVE-2020-29370
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-28
An issue was discovered in kmem_cache_alloc_bulk in mm/slub.c in the Linux kernel before 5.5.11. The slowpath lacks the required TID increment, aka CID-fd4d9c7d0c71.
CVE-2020-29371
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-28
An issue was discovered in romfs_dev_read in fs/romfs/storage.c in the Linux kernel before 5.8.4. Uninitialized memory leaks to userspace, aka CID-bcf85fcedfdd.