Vista - Intel CPU Bugs allow Remote Code Execution

Researcher to Demonstrate Attack Code affecting most Intel Processors

Security researcher and author Kris Kaspersky plans to demonstrate how an attacker can target flaws in Intel's microprocessors to remotely attack a computer using JavaScript or TCP/IP packets, regardless of what operating system the computer is running.

Kaspersky will demonstrate how such an attack can be made in a presentation at the upcoming Hack In The Box (HITB) Security Conference in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, during October. The proof-of-concept attacks will show how processor bugs, called errata, can be exploited using certain instruction sequences and a knowledge of how Java compilers work, allowing an attacker to take control of the compiler.

"I'm going to show real working code...and make it publicly available," Kaspersky said, adding that CPU bugs are a growing threat and malware is being written that targets these vulnerabilities.
Different bugs will allow hackers to do different things on the attacked computers. "Some bugs just crash the system, some allow a hacker to gain full control on the kernel level. Some just help to attack Vista, disabling security protections," he said.
The demonstrated attack will be made against fully patched computers running a range of operating systems, including Windows XP, Vista, Windows Server 2003, Windows Server 2008, Linux and BSD, Kaspersky said, adding that the demonstration of an attack against a Mac is also a possibility.

Processors contain hundreds of millions of transistors and errata in these chips are relatively common. While some errata can affect a chip's ability to function properly -- such as the errata that last year forced Advanced Micro Devices to push back volume shipments of its quad-core Opteron processors -- many others exist unnoticed by users.

For example, the Silverthorne version of Intel's Atom processor, which lies at the heart of the Centrino Atom chip platform, contains 35 errata, according to a June specification update released by Intel.
"It's possible to fix most of the bugs, and Intel provides workarounds to the major BIOS vendors," Kaspersky said, referring to the code that controls the most basic functions of a PC. "However, not every vendor uses it and some bugs have no workarounds."

Source: PC World - Business Center: Researcher to Demonstrate Attack Code for Intel Chips

---According to the Intel Specification Updates... Intel Core 2 has 128 confirmed bugs. Intel Itanium (designed for critical systems) looks more “promising”, carrying over 230 bugs.

---They have all been confirmed by Intel and described in errata section of their specification updates. Some bugs “just” crash the system (under quite rare conditions) while the others give the attackers full control over the machine. In other words, Intel CPUs have exploitable bugs which are vulnerable to both local and remote attacks which works against any OS regardless of the patches applied or the applications which are running.

Full Article here: HITBSecConf2008 - Malaysia » Kris Kaspersky (Independent Network Security Researcher / Author for Xakep Magazine)

My Athlon64 x2 is looking better every day ...













Later Ted

I'm not in favor of publishing stuff like this. IBM recently did a study that shows when security researchers publish their information and do demos of like Kaspersky is doing, that hackers and criminals are quicker to exploit these vulnerabilities.

What people like Kaspersky need to do is keep the information to themselves, report it to said company or companies involved and give them time to fix these vulneratiblities, rather than make them public, and sit back and watch hackers and criminals exploit them faster.

Online threats materializing faster, study shows - Breaking News - Technology - smh.com.au

Does this affect 54xx and higher Xeons?

Yep it does...

If you keep a decent firewall and router configuration, they can't get to your server or computer. Many BIOS rev releases on server boards include errata fixes. So keep your BIOS up to date.

I'm running the latest bios for my Intel D975XBX2, and I do have a router/firewall box running, along with the firewall in Live OneCare.

By firewall, I mean a solid corporate solution like Cisco ASA for companies. Dlink and Linksys are not the best solutions for a corporate network. I use a 2811 router (ACL list), NM-CIDS module, ASA-5520 firewall and CSC-SSM-10 content filtering module. It is a layered system.

Best firewall solution is a separate hardware solution. It is not a good practice to only run firewalls on workstation you are trying to protect. Ghostwall is a great firewall. You can custom configure the rules and policies.

I really don't trust Microsoft to come up with solutions for protection. They either go to far or stop way short. Look at all the holes in XP and Vista being reported. Checkpoint users put it on Solaris instead of Windows Server.

Live OneCare is actually more reliable on the home front than some of the junk firewalls, I've seen in products like Norton AntiVirus which doesn't even have a decent one and Trend Micro's junk. The firewall in LiveOne care is being used primarily for controlling outbound applications, otherwise applications on my system would have free reign to go out and do whatever they wanted on the net, and that I don't need.

My Linksys router does have an SPI firewall in it, and Linksys routers, when properly configured, are great for a home envrionment.

A local computer dealer where I live, won't even bother with Cisco routers in a corporate envrionment, they will install a SonicWall, which from what they said is far better than a Cisco router. If I had the money I would spend it for SonicWall.

Sonicwall are good products. My only issue was some of the older models could get bogged down because of lack of sufficient hardware to handle complex rules. Cisco is getting better at working on enhancements.