Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday May 02 2017, @12:51AM   Printer-friendly
from the infirmware dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story taken from The Register:

For the past nine years, millions of Intel desktop and server chips have harbored a security flaw that can exploited to remotely control and infect vulnerable systems with spyware.

Specifically, the bug is in Intel's Active Management Technology (AMT), Standard Manageability (ISM) and Small Business Technology (SBT) firmware versions 6 to 11.6. According to Chipzilla, the security hole allows "an unprivileged attacker to gain control of the manageability features provided by these products."

That means hackers exploiting the flaw can log into a vulnerable computer's hardware – right under the nose of the operating system – and silently snoop on users, read and make changes to files, install virtually undetectable malware, and so on. This is potentially possible across the network because AMT has direct access to the network hardware, and with local access.

These management features have been available in various Intel chipsets for nearly a decade, starting with the Nehalem Core i7 in 2008, all the way up to Kaby Lake Core parts in 2017. Crucially, the vulnerability lies at the very heart of a machine's silicon, out of sight of the running operating system, applications and any antivirus.

It can only be fully fixed with a firmware-level update, and it is present in millions of chips. It is effectively a backdoor into computers all over the world.

Intel's vulnerable AMT service [is] part of the vPro suite of processor features. If vPro is present and enabled on a system, and AMT is provisioned, unauthenticated miscreants on your network can access the at-risk computer and hijack it. If AMT isn't provisioned, a logged-in user can still potentially exploit it.

Intel reckons this vulnerability basically affects business and server boxes, because they tend to have vPro and AMT present and enabled, and not systems aimed at ordinary consumers, which typically don't. You can follow this document to check if your system has AMT switched on.

Basically, if you're using a machine with vPro features enabled, you are at risk.

According to Intel today, this critical security vulernability, labeled CVE-2017-5689, was reported in March by Maksim Malyutin at Embedi. To get the patch to close the hole, you'll have to pester your machine's manufacturer for a firmware update, or try the mitigations here. These updates are hoped to arrive within the next few weeks, and should be installed ASAP.

[...] For years now, engineers and infosec types have been warning that, since all code has bugs, at least one remotely exploitable programming blunder must be present in Intel's AMT software, and the ME running it, and thus there must be a way to fully opt out of it: to buy a chipset with it not present at all, rather than just disabled or disconnected by a hardware fuse.

Finding such a bug is like finding a hardwired, unremovable and remotely accessible administrator account, with the username and password 'hackme', in Microsoft Windows or Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Except this Intel flaw is in the chipset, running out of reach of your mortal hands, and now we wait for the cure to arrive from the computer manufacturers.

Also see the story at semiaccurate.

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 02 2017, @03:30AM (6 children)

    Wow. You really know fuck-all and yet spew with great enthusiasm. NAT hasn't stopped anything but script-kiddies in twenty years.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @06:51AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @06:51AM (#502709)

    NAT and Firewall are innately links for many people, since most peoples routers run linux, and the linux network stack has the firewall and NAT support inextricably linked. I am not sure about other parties solutions, but that could certainly make many think NAT and firewalls are the same thing.

    Having said that, for a NAT to keep you secure you cannot have port-punched any holes with insecure apps that have network facing security exploits, and you additionally need outbound filtering to keep exploits on a system inside the nat from being able to 'phone home' out of it, thus rendering NAT obscuration of the devices addresses moot.

    • (Score: 1) by Scrutinizer on Tuesday May 02 2017, @07:26AM

      by Scrutinizer (6534) on Tuesday May 02 2017, @07:26AM (#502717)

      A bigger problem are Man-In-The-Middle attacks, which per information provided by Ed Snowden, were used by the NSA to attack Tor users [schneier.com]. If the NSA is able to use these sorts of attacks against mesh-like darknets, you can bet your britches that similar MITM attacks are common on the surface web.

  • (Score: 1) by shrewdsheep on Tuesday May 02 2017, @08:44AM (3 children)

    by shrewdsheep (5215) on Tuesday May 02 2017, @08:44AM (#502731)

    I am honestly wondering how you would go about it. I am setting up an idle machine behind a NAT, giving you the root password (with root login enabled). I would not tell you the local network configuration. How would you get in?

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 02 2017, @10:28AM (2 children)

      Start reading here [samy.pl] then let google lead you onwards [google.com]. I had to learn all this by listening and asking questions on IRC then figuring it out for myself back in the day. I was not always the fine, upstanding, security conscious admin that I am nowadays.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 1) by shrewdsheep on Tuesday May 02 2017, @11:00AM (1 child)

        by shrewdsheep (5215) on Tuesday May 02 2017, @11:00AM (#502748)

        Thank you for the links. They do confirm to me though that NAT *does* provide an additional level of security. I do recommend NAT as an additional level of security and I believe that we will see NATed networks in the IPv6 age for good reasons. The most amazing piece of NAT-hacking to me is https://samy.pl/pwnat/ [samy.pl] BTW.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 02 2017, @11:53AM

          It does, just not an especially effective one against a knowledgeable attacker. Relying on it instead of an actual firewall is foolish in the extreme but it doesn't do any harm and does leave you at least protected from casual scans.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.