Breaking Trusted Execution Environments via DDR5 Memory Bus Interposition
TEE.fail:
Breaking Trusted Execution Environments via DDR5 Memory Bus Interposition
With the increasing popularity of remote computation like cloud computing, users are increasingly losing control over their data, uploading it to remote servers that they do not control. Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) aim to reduce this trust, offering users promises such as privacy and integrity of their data as well as correctness of computation. With the introduction of TEEs and Confidential Computing features to server hardware offered by Intel, AMD, and Nvidia, modern TEE implementations aim to provide hardware-backed integrity and confidentiality to entire virtual machines or GPUs, even when attackers have full control over the system's software, for example via root or hypervisor access. Over the past few years, TEEs have been used to execute confidential cryptocurrency transactions, train proprietary AI models, protect end-to-end encrypted chats, and more.
In this work, we show that the security guarantees of modern TEE offerings by Intel and AMD can be broken cheaply and easily, by building a memory interposition device that allows attackers to physically inspect all memory traffic inside a DDR5 server. Making this worse, despite the increased complexity and speed of DDR5 memory, we show how such an interposition device can be built cheaply and easily, using only off the shelf electronic equipment. This allows us for the first time to extract cryptographic keys from Intel TDX and AMD SEV-SNP with Ciphertext Hiding, including in some cases secret attestation keys from fully updated machines in trusted status. Beyond breaking CPU-based TEEs, we also show how extracted attestation keys can be used to compromise Nvidia's GPU Confidential Computing, allowing attackers to run AI workloads without any TEE protections. Finally, we examine the resilience of existing deployments to TEE compromises, showing how extracted attestation keys can potentially be used by attackers to extract millions of dollars of profit from various cryptocurrency and cloud compute services.
Ars Technica, Dan Goodin – 30 sept. 2025 22:25
The chipmakers say physical attacks aren’t in the threat model. Many users didn’t get the memo.
In the age of cloud computing, protections baked into chips from Intel, AMD, and others are essential for ensuring confidential data and sensitive operations can’t be viewed or manipulated by attackers who manage to compromise servers running inside a data center. In many cases, these protections—which work by storing certain data and processes inside encrypted enclaves known as TEEs (Trusted Execution Enclaves)—are essential for safeguarding secrets stored in the cloud by the likes of Signal Messenger and WhatsApp. All major cloud providers recommend that customers use it. Intel calls its protection SGX, and AMD has named it SEV-SNP.
Over the years, researchers have repeatedly broken the security and privacy promises that Intel and AMD have made about their respective protections. On Tuesday, researchers independently published two papers laying out separate attacks that further demonstrate the limitations of SGX and SEV-SNP. One attack, dubbed Battering RAM, defeats both protections and allows attackers to not only view encrypted data but also to actively manipulate it to introduce software backdoors or to corrupt data. A separate attack known as Wiretap is able to passively decrypt sensitive data protected by SGX and remain invisible at all times.
Attacking deterministic encryption
Both attacks use a small piece of hardware, known as an interposer, that sits between CPU silicon and the memory module. Its position allows the interposer to observe data as it passes from one to the other. They exploit both Intel’s and AMD’s use of deterministic encryption, which produces the same ciphertext each time the same plaintext is encrypted with a given key. In SGX and SEV-SNP, that means the same plaintext written to the same memory address always produces the same ciphertext.
Deterministic encryption is well-suited for certain uses, such as full disk encryption, where the data being protected never changes once the thing being protected (in this case, the drive) falls into an attacker’s hands. The same encryption is suboptimal for protecting data flowing between a CPU and a memory chip because adversaries can observe the ciphertext each time the plaintext changes, opening the system to replay attacks and other well-known exploit techniques. Probabilistic encryption, by contrast, resists such attacks because the same plaintext can encrypt to a wide range of ciphertexts that are randomly chosen during the encryption process.
“Fundamentally, [the use of deterministic encryption] is a design trade-off,” Jesse De Meulemeester, lead author of the Battering RAM paper, wrote in an online interview. “Intel and AMD opted for deterministic encryption without integrity or freshness to keep encryption scalable (i.e., protect the entire memory range) and reduce overhead. That choice enables low-cost physical attacks like ours. The only way to fix this likely requires hardware changes, e.g., by providing freshness and integrity in the memory encryption.”
Daniel Genkin, one of the researchers behind Wiretap, agreed. “It’s a design choice made by Intel when SGX moved from client machines to server,” he said. “It offers better performance at the expense of security.” Genkin was referring to Intel’s move about five years ago to discontinue SGX for client processors—where encryption was limited to no more than 256 MB of RAM—to server processors that could encrypt terabytes of RAM. The transition required Intel to revamp the encryption to make it scale for such vast amounts of data.
“The papers are two sides of the same coin,” he added.
While both of Tuesday’s attacks exploit weaknesses related to deterministic encryption, their approaches and findings are distinct, and each comes with its own advantages and disadvantages. Both research teams said they learned of the other’s work only after privately submitting their findings to the chipmakers. The teams then synchronized the publish date for Tuesday. It’s not the first time such a coincidence has occurred. In 2018, multiple research teams independently developed attacks with names including Spectre and Meltdown. Both plucked secrets out of Intel and AMD processors by exploiting their use of performance enhancement known as speculative execution.
AMD declined to comment on the record, and Intel didn’t respond to questions sent by email. In the past, both chipmakers have said that their respective TEEs are designed to protect against compromises of a piece of software or the operating system itself, including in the kernel. The guarantees, the companies have said, don’t extend to physical attacks such as Battering RAM and Wiretap, which rely on physical interposers that sit between the processor and the memory chips. Despite this limitation, many cloud-based services continue to trust assurances from the TEEs even when they have been compromised through physical attacks (more about that later).
Intel on Tuesday published this advisory. AMD posted one here.
Battering RAM
Battering RAM uses a custom-built analog switch to act as an interposer that reads encrypted data as it passes between protected memory regions in DDR4 memory chips and an Intel or AMD processor. By design, both SGX and SEV-SNP make this ciphertext inaccessible to an adversary. To bypass that protection, the interposer creates memory aliases in which two different memory addresses point to the same location in the memory module.
The Battering-RAM interposer, containing two analog switches (bottom center), is controlled by a microcontroller (left). The switches can dynamically either pass through the command signals to the connected DIMM or connect the respective lines to ground.
The Battering-RAM interposer, containing two analog switches (bottom center), is controlled by a microcontroller (left). The switches can dynamically either pass through the command signals to the connected DIMM or connect the respective lines to ground. Credit: De Meulemeester et al.
“This lets the attacker capture a victim's ciphertext and later replay it from an alias,” De Meulemeester explained. “Because Intel's and AMD's memory encryption is deterministic, the replayed ciphertext always decrypts into valid plaintext when the victim reads it.” The PhD researcher at KU Leuven in Belgium continued:
When the CPU writes data to memory, the memory controller encrypts it deterministically, using the plaintext and the address as inputs. The same plaintext written to the same address always produces the same ciphertext. Through the alias, the attacker can't read the victim's secrets directly, but they can capture the victim's ciphertext. Later, by replaying this ciphertext at the same physical location, the victim will decrypt it to a valid, but stale, plaintext.
This replay capability is the primitive on which both our SGX and SEV attacks are built.
In both cases, the adversary installs the interposer, either through a supply-chain attack or physical compromise, and then runs either a virtual machine or application at a chosen memory location. At the same time, the adversary also uses the aliasing to capture the ciphertext. Later, the adversary replays the captured ciphertext, which, because it's running in the region the attacker has access to, is then replayed as plaintext.
Because SGX uses a single memory-encryption key for the entire protected range of RAM, Battering RAM can gain the ability to write or read plaintext into these regions. This allows the adversary to extract the processor’s provisioning key and, in the process, break the attestation SGX is supposed to provide to certify its integrity and authenticity to remote parties that connect to it.
AMD processors protected by SEV use a single encryption key to produce all ciphertext on a given virtual machine. This prevents the ciphertext replaying technique used to defeat SGX. Instead, Battering RAM captures and replays the cryptographic elements that are supposed to prove the virtual machine hasn’t been tampered with. By replaying an old attestation report, Battering RAM can load a backdoored Virtual machine that still carries the SEV-SNP certification that the VM hasn’t been tampered with.
The key benefit of Battering RAM is that it requires equipment that costs less than $50 to pull off. It also allows active decryption, meaning encrypted data can be both read and tampered with. In addition, it works against both SGX and SEV-SNP, as long as they work with DDR4 memory modules.
Wiretap
Wiretap, meanwhile, is limited to breaking only SGX working with DDR4, although the researchers say it would likely work against the AMD protections with a modest amount of additional work. Wiretap, however, allows only for passive decryption, which means protected data can be read, but data can’t be written to protected regions of memory. The cost of the interposer and the equipment for analyzing the captured data also costs considerably more than Battering RAM, at about $500 to $1,000.
Like Battering RAM, Wiretap exploits deterministic encryption, except the latter attack maps ciphertext to a list of known plaintext words that the ciphertext is derived from. Eventually, the attack can recover enough ciphertext to reconstruct the attestation key.
Genkin explained:
Let’s say you have an encrypted list of words that will be later used to form sentences. You know the list in advance, and you get an encrypted list in the same order (hence you know the mapping between each word and its corresponding encryption). Then, when you encounter an encrypted sentence, you just take the encryption of each word and match it against your list. By going word by word, you can decrypt the entire sentence. In fact, as long as most of the words are in your list, you can probably decrypt the entire conversation eventually. In our case, we build a dictionary between common values occurring within the ECDSA algorithm and their corresponding encryption, and then use this dictionary to recover these values as they appear, allowing us to extract the key.
The Wiretap researchers went on to show the types of attacks that are possible when an adversary successfully compromises SGX security. As Intel explains, a key benefit of SGX is remote attestation, a process that first verifies the authenticity and integrity of VMs or other software running inside the enclave and hasn’t been tampered with. Once the software passes inspection, the enclave sends the remote party a digitally signed certificate providing the identity of the tested software and a clean bill of health certifying the software is safe.
The enclave then opens an encrypted connection with the remote party to ensure credentials and private data can’t be read or modified during transit. Remote attestation works with the industry standard Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm, making it easy for all parties to use and trust.
Blockchain services didn’t get the memo
Many cloud-based services rely on TEEs as a foundation for privacy and security within their networks. One such service is Phala, a blockchain provider that allows the drafting and execution of smart contracts. According to the company, computer “state”—meaning system variables, configurations, and other dynamic data an application depends on—are stored and updated only in the enclaves available through SGX, SEV-SNP, and a third trusted enclave available in Arm chips known as TrustZone. This design allows these smart contract elements to update in real time through clusters of “worker nodes”—meaning the computers that host and process smart contracts—with no possibility of any node tampering with or viewing the information during execution.
“The attestation quote signed by Intel serves as the proof of a successful execution,” Phala explained. “It proves that specific code has been run inside an SGX enclave and produces certain output, which implies the confidentiality and the correctness of the execution. The proof can be published and validated by anyone with generic hardware.” Enclaves provided by AMD and Arm work in a similar manner.
The Wiretap researchers created a “testnet,” a local machine for running worker modes. With possession of the SGX attestation key, the researchers were able to obtain a cluster key that prevents individual nodes from reading or modifying contract state. With that, Wiretap was able to fully bypass the protection. In a paper, the researchers wrote:
We first enter our attacker enclave into a cluster and note it is given access to the cluster key. Although the cluster key is not directly distributed to our worker upon joining a cluster, we initiate a transfer of the key from any other node in the cluster. This transfer is completed without on-chain interaction, given our worker is part of the cluster. This cluster key can then be used to decrypt all contract interactions within the cluster. Finally, when our testnet accepted our node’s enclave as a gatekeeper, we directly receive a copy of the master key, which is used to derive all cluster keys and therefore all contract keys, allowing us to decrypt the entire testnet.
The researchers performed similar bypasses against a variety of other blockchain services, including Secret, Crust, and IntegriTEE. After the researchers privately shared the results with these companies, they took steps to mitigate the attacks.
Both Battering RAM and Wiretap work only against DDR4 forms of memory chips because the newer DDR5 runs at much higher bus speeds with a multi-cycle transmission protocol. For that reason, neither attack works against a similar Intel protection known as TDX because it works only with DDR5.
As noted earlier, Intel and AMD both exclude physical attacks like Battering RAM and Wiretap from the threat model their TEEs are designed to withstand. The Wiretap researchers showed that despite these warnings, Phala and many other cloud-based services still rely on the enclaves to preserve the security and privacy of their networks. The research also makes clear that the TEE defenses completely break down in the event of an attack targeting the hardware supply chain.
For now, the only feasible solution is for chipmakers to replace deterministic encryption with a stronger form of protection. Given the challenges of making such encryption schemes scale to vast amounts of RAM, it’s not clear when that may happen.
Dan Goodin is Senior Security Editor at Ars Technica, where he oversees coverage of malware, computer espionage, botnets, hardware hacking, encryption, and passwords. In his spare time, he enjoys gardening, cooking, and following the independent music scene. Dan is based in San Francisco. Follow him at here on Mastodon and here on Bluesky. Contact him on Signal at DanArs.82.
Intel Corporation (INTC) www.intc.com Aug 22, 2025 • 4:53 PM EDT
U.S. Government to make $8.9 billion investment in Intel common stock as company builds upon its more than $100 billion expansion of resilient semiconductor supply chain
SANTA CLARA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Intel Corporation today announced an agreement with the Trump Administration to support the continued expansion of American technology and manufacturing leadership. Under terms of the agreement, the United States government will make an $8.9 billion investment in Intel common stock, reflecting the confidence the Administration has in Intel to advance key national priorities and the critically important role the company plays in expanding the domestic semiconductor industry.
The government’s equity stake will be funded by the remaining $5.7 billion in grants previously awarded, but not yet paid, to Intel under the U.S. CHIPS and Science Act and $3.2 billion awarded to the company as part of the Secure Enclave program. Intel will continue to deliver on its Secure Enclave obligations and reaffirmed its commitment to delivering trusted and secure semiconductors to the U.S. Department of Defense. The $8.9 billion investment is in addition to the $2.2 billion in CHIPS grants Intel has received to date, making for a total investment of $11.1 billion.
“As the only semiconductor company that does leading-edge logic R&D and manufacturing in the U.S., Intel is deeply committed to ensuring the world’s most advanced technologies are American made,” said Lip-Bu Tan, CEO of Intel. “President Trump’s focus on U.S. chip manufacturing is driving historic investments in a vital industry that is integral to the country’s economic and national security. We are grateful for the confidence the President and the Administration have placed in Intel, and we look forward to working to advance U.S. technology and manufacturing leadership.”
“Intel is excited to welcome the United States of America as a shareholder, helping to create the most advanced chips in the world,” said Howard Lutnick, United States Secretary of Commerce. “As more companies look to invest in America, this administration remains committed to reinforcing our country’s dominance in artificial intelligence while strengthening our national security.”
Under the terms of today’s announcement, the government agrees to purchase 433.3 million primary shares of Intel common stock at a price of $20.47 per share, equivalent to a 9.9 percent stake in the company. This investment provides American taxpayers with a discount to the current market price while enabling the U.S. and existing shareholders to benefit from Intel’s long-term business success.
The government’s investment in Intel will be a passive ownership, with no Board representation or other governance or information rights. The government also agrees to vote with the Company’s Board of Directors on matters requiring shareholder approval, with limited exceptions.
The government will receive a five-year warrant, at $20 per share for an additional five percent of Intel common shares, exercisable only if Intel ceases to own at least 51% of the foundry business.
The existing claw-back and profit-sharing provisions associated with the government’s previously dispersed $2.2 billion grant to Intel under the CHIPS Act will be eliminated to create permanency of capital as the company advances its U.S. investment plans.
Investing in America’s Future
Intel has continued to strategically invest in research, development and manufacturing in the United States since the company’s founding in 1968. Over the last five years, Intel has invested $108 billion in capital and $79 billion in R&D, the majority of which were dedicated to expanding U.S.-based manufacturing capacity and process technology.
Intel is currently undertaking a significant expansion of its domestic chipmaking capacity, investing more than $100 billion to expand its U.S. sites. The company’s newest chip fabrication site in Arizona is expected to begin high-volume production later this year, featuring the most advanced semiconductor manufacturing process technology on U.S. soil.
Since joining the company as CEO in March, Tan has taken swift actions to strengthen Intel’s financial position, drive disciplined execution and revitalize an engineering-first culture. Today’s agreement supports the company’s broader strategy to position Intel for the future.
Strengthening the U.S. Technology Ecosystem
Intel’s U.S. investments come as many leading technology companies support President Trump’s agenda to achieve U.S. technology and manufacturing leadership.
Intel is deeply engaged with current and potential customers and partners who share its commitment to building a strong and resilient U.S. semiconductor supply chain.
Satya Nadella, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Microsoft: “The decades-long partnership between Microsoft and Intel has pioneered new frontiers of technology and showcased the very best of American ingenuity and innovation. Intel’s continued investment in strengthening the U.S. semiconductor supply chain, supported by President Trump’s bold strategy to rebuild this critical industry on American soil, will benefit the country and broader technology ecosystem for years to come.”
Michael Dell, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Dell Technologies: “The industry needs a strong and resilient U.S. semiconductor industry, and no company is more important to this mission than Intel. It’s great to see Intel and the Trump Administration working together to advance U.S. technology and manufacturing leadership. Dell fully supports these shared priorities, and we look forward to bringing a new generation of products to market powered by American-designed and manufactured Intel chips.”
Enrique Lores, President and CEO, HP: “We share Intel’s and the Trump Administration’s deep commitment to building a strong, resilient and secure U.S. semiconductor industry. Intel’s continued investment in domestic R&D and manufacturing is integral to future innovation and will strengthen the partnership between HP and Intel for years come. This is a defining moment for great American companies to lead the world in cutting-edge technologies that will shape the future.”
Matt Garman, AWS CEO: “Leading-edge semiconductors are the bedrock of every AI technology and cloud platform, making U.S. investment in this critical industry one of the most important technological, economic and national security imperatives of our time. Intel plays a vital role as one of the country’s leading chip manufacturers, and we applaud the Trump administration’s efforts to usher in a new era of American innovation in partnership with American companies.”
PJT Partners acted as Intel’s exclusive financial advisor in connection with this investment agreement.
About Intel
Intel (Nasdaq: INTC) is an industry leader, creating world-changing technology that enables global progress and enriches lives. Inspired by Moore’s Law, we continuously work to advance the design and manufacturing of semiconductors to help address our customers’ greatest challenges. By embedding intelligence in the cloud, network, edge and every kind of computing device, we unleash the potential of data to transform business and society for the better. To learn more about Intel’s innovations, go to newsroom.intel.com and intel.com.
Forward-Looking Statements
This release contains forward-looking statements, including with respect to: the agreement with the U.S. government and its expected benefits, including the anticipated timing of closing and impacts to Intel’s existing agreements with the U.S. government under the CHIPS Act; Intel’s investment plans, including in manufacturing expansion projects and R&D; and the anticipated production using Intel’s latest semiconductor process technology in Arizona later this year. Such statements involve many risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied, including those associated with: uncertainties as to the timing of the consummation of the transaction and the receipt of funding; Intel’s ability to effectively use the proceeds and realize and utilize the other anticipated benefits of the transaction as contemplated thereby; the availability of appropriations from the legislative branch of the U.S. government and the ability of the executive branch of the U.S. government to obtain funding and support contemplated by the transaction; the determination by the legislative, judicial or executive branches of the U.S. government that any aspect of the transaction was unauthorized, void or voidable; Intel’s ability to obtain additional or replacement financing, as needed; Intel’s ability to effectively assess, determine and monitor the financial, tax and accounting treatment of the transaction, together with Intel’s and the U.S. government’s obligations thereunder; litigation related to the transaction or otherwise; potential adverse reactions or changes to business relationships resulting from the announcement or completion of the transaction; the timing and achievement of expected business milestones; Intel’s ability to effectively comply with the broader legal and regulatory requirements and heightened scrutiny associated with government partnerships and contracts; the high level of competition and rapid technological change in the semiconductor industry; the significant long-term and inherently risky investments Intel is making in R&D and manufacturing facilities that may not realize a favorable return; the complexities and uncertainties in developing and implementing new semiconductor products and manufacturing process technologies; Intel’s ability to time and scale its capital investments appropriately; changes in demand for Intel’s products; macroeconomic conditions and geopolitical tensions and conflicts, including geopolitical and trade tensions between the U.S. and China, the impacts of Russia's war on Ukraine, tensions and conflict affecting Israel and the Middle East, and rising tensions between mainland China and Taiwan; the evolving market for products with AI capabilities; Intel’s complex global supply chain supporting its manufacturing facilities and incorporating external foundries, including from disruptions, delays, trade tensions and conflicts, or shortages; recently elevated geopolitical tensions, volatility and uncertainty with respect to international trade policies, including tariffs and export controls, impacting Intel’s business, the markets in which it competes and the world economy; product defects, errata and other product issues, particularly as Intel develops next-generation products and implements next-generation manufacturing process technologies; potential security vulnerabilities in Intel’s products; increasing and evolving cybersecurity threats and privacy risks; IP risks including related litigation and regulatory proceedings; the need to attract, retain, and motivate key talent; Intel’s debt obligations and its ability to access sources of capital; complex and evolving laws and regulations across many jurisdictions; fluctuations in currency exchange rates; changes in Intel’s effective tax rate; catastrophic events; environmental, health, safety, and product regulations; and other risks and uncertainties described in this release and Intel’s 2024 Form 10-K, Q1 2025 Form 10-Q, Q2 2025 Form 10-Q, and other filings with the SEC. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date they were first made. Intel does not undertake, and expressly disclaims any duty, to update such statements, whether as a result of new information, new developments, or otherwise, except to the extent that disclosure may be required by law.
eaton-works.com 2025/08/18 - Hardcoded credentials, pointless encryption, and generous APIs exposed details of every employee and made it possible to break into internal websites.
Key Points / Summary
...
Intel’s Response and Timeline
Intel’s bug bounty program has been around a while and is well-known. There are some great rewards too – up to $100k. After discovering multiple critical website vulnerabilities, I was excited about the potential rewards I would get. Then I read the fine print:
Credentials: Username, password, account identifier, keys, certificates, or other credentials that have been published, leaked, or exposed in some way should be reported to this program to ensure they can be properly investigated, cleaned up, and secured. Credentials are out of Scope for rewards.
Is Intel’s Web Infrastructure, i.e.*.intel.com in scope? Intel’s web infrastructure, i.e., website domains owned and/or operated by Intel, fall out of Scope. Please send security vulnerability reports against Intel.com and/or related web presence to external.security.research@intel.com.
Obviously disappointing, but the right thing to do was to still report the vulnerabilities, and that is what I did.
That is the only official correspondence I ever received from Intel. The good news is that everything was fixed, so while the email inbox was essentially a one-way black hole, at least the reports got to the right people eventually.
The full timeline:
October 14, 2024: Business Card vulnerability report sent.
October 29, 2024: Hierarchy Management and Product Onboarding vulnerability reports sent.
November 11, 2024: Follow-up email sent on the Hierarchy Management and Product Onboarding thread with more information as to what specific steps should be taken to fix the vulnerabilities.
November 12, 2024: SEIMS vulnerability report sent.
December 2, 2024: Follow-up email sent on the Hierarchy Management and Product Onboarding thread letting them know they must rotate the leaked credentials.
February 28, 2025: At this point, it has been more than 90 days since my first report and all vulnerabilities have been resolved. A new email was sent to alert Intel about the intent to publish.
August 18, 2025: Published.
The good news is that Intel has recently expanded their bug bounty coverage to include services. Hopefully they will include blanket coverage for *.intel.com in the future for bug bounty rewards.
Computer scientists at ETH Zurich discover new class of vulnerabilities in Intel processors, allowing them to break down barriers between different users of a processor using carefully crafted instruction sequences. Entire processor memory can be read by employing quick, repeated attacks.
All Intel processors since 2018 are affected by Branch Privilege Injection.
In brief
Discover how the 'Indirector' attack threatens Intel CPUs and learn about the 'TIKTAG' vulnerability in Arm processors.
China has introduced guidelines to phase out U.S. microprocessors from Intel (INTC.O), opens new tab and AMD (AMD.O), opens new tab from government personal computers and servers, the Financial Times reported on Sunday.
The procurement guidance also seeks to sideline Microsoft's (MSFT.O), opens new tab Windows operating system and foreign-made database software in favour of domestic options, the report said.
Among other things, bug allows code running inside a VM to crash hypervisors.
A new CPU vulnerability, ‘Reptar,’ found by Google researchers, has been patched by Google and Intel. Here’s what you need to know.
...
The impact of this vulnerability is demonstrated when exploited by an attacker in a multi-tenant virtualized environment, as the exploit on a guest machine causes the host machine to crash resulting in a Denial of Service to other guest machines running on the same host. Additionally, the vulnerability could potentially lead to information disclosure or privilege escalation.
We have a CPU mystery! We found a way to cause some processors to enter a glitch state where the normal rules don’t apply, but what does that mean…?
If you’re interested what can go wrong inside modern CPUs, read on!
The vulnerability could allow attackers to take advantage of an information leak to steal sensitive details like private messages, passwords, and encryption keys.
While Intel is still investigating the incident, the security industry is bracing itself for years of potential firmware insecurity if the keys indeed were exposed.
The potential leak from MSI Gaming of signing keys for an important security feature in Intel-based firmware could cast a shadow on firmware security for years to come and leave devices that use the keys highly vulnerable to cyberattacks, security experts say.
Binarly is the world's most advanced automated firmware supply chain security platform. Using cutting-edge machine-learning techniques, Binary identifies both known and unknown vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and malicious code in firmware and hardware components.
A recent breach in MSI's servers exposed Intel's BootGuard keys and has now put the security of various devices at risk.
Major MSI Breach Affects The Security of Various Intel Devices
Last month, a hacker group by the name of Money Message revealed that they had breached MSI's servers and stolen 1.5 TBs of data from the company's servers including source code amongst a list of various files that are important to the integrity of the company. The group asked MSI to pay $4.0 million in ransom to avert them from releasing the files to the public but MSI refused the payment.
Intel confirms that 6GB of proprietary BIOS source code for its Alder Lake processors was leaked to the public.
Hertzbleed attack targets power-conservation feature found on virtually all modern CPUs.
The Biden administration has broken with precedent by using declassified intelligence in an information war against Russia — even intel that isn’t rock solid.
