Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2018 00:33:12 -0800 From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com> To: "freebsd-security@freebsd.org" <freebsd-security@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Intel hardware bug Message-ID: <2594.1515141192@segfault.tristatelogic.com> In-Reply-To: <736a2b77-d4a0-b03f-8a6b-6a717f5744d4@metricspace.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <736a2b77-d4a0-b03f-8a6b-6a717f5744d4@metricspace.net>, Eric McCorkle <eric@metricspace.net> wrote: >The attack looks like this: > >1) Fetch kernel/other process memory, which eventually faults >2) Do a bit-shift/mask operation to pluck out one bit of the fetched >value. This gets executed speculatively on the fetched value in (1). >3) Execute fetches of two different addresses depending on some bit in >the fetched value in (1) (say, 0x100000 for 0 vs 0x200000 for 1). This >also gets executed speculatively despite the fact that (1) ends up faulting. >4) Recover from fault in (1) >5) Measure performance of accesses to the two addresses to determine >which one is cached. I must say, that's one hell of a round-about way to read just one bit that you wern't supposed to have access to. But of course, that doesn't really matter if you are an attacker. If the above steps can be repeated, programatically, ad infinitum, to read bits from "protected" memory... and I see no reason why they can't be... then yea, this bug is every bit as bad as the media is making it out to be, and maybe even worse. All your secrets are belong to us! Time to invest in abacuses... or is that abacai? Regards, rfg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2594.1515141192>