...which along with the already publicly-known microarchitecture of the C3 makes this statement sound like total nonsense:
The rosenbridge backdoor is a small, non-x86 core embedded alongside the main x86 core in the CPU
I remember laughing at this with a few others knowledgeable in x86 when it first came out; a self-proclaimed "security researcher" who somehow failed to RTFM.
"It's documented in the datasheet" is such a weak excuse for a backdoor.
Documenting a backdoor doesn't make it not a backdoor, just means it's not a hidden backdoor.
The fact that a number of machines shipped with the backdoor accidentally enabled, and nobody noticed for over a decade shows just how dangerous even a documented backdoor can be. The oversight wasn't even detected by someone reading the manual, it was detected by a security researcher who wrote a generic tool to fuzz out such backdoors.
backdoor means a secondary access point that defeats the security features of the primary. In the door analogy, the home owner spends a ton on a lock and camera for the front door but doesn't even have a deadbolt on the back.
Every definition of a “backdoor” in computing implicitly or explicitly considers it hidden/covert.
In the house analogy you don’t see the backdoor when approaching the front. If it was just “an alternative everyone knows about and can be broken easier than the front door” then it probably would have been called “a window”.
Nobody calls the SMS 2FA or password reset fallback on a login form a backdoor just because it’s weaker than what you normally use.
It's not as clear cut as you describe it here. In the other old thread you linked there was no real consensus if this should be considered a backdoor or not.
this is pretty old by now but still very relevant. people dont look at this enough but with rising chip complexities for TPU units etc. and a shift towards poorly documented hardware like NVIDIA gives this problem new fuel.
Domas (and maybe his team or colleagues?) has put out shit tons of very interesting materials over the past years on advanced malware, implants and things like Cantor Dust which are amazing things to dive into.
using his own cpu fuzzer, msr fuzzing techniques etc. he has found, reversed and implemented attacks through hardware bugs and backdoors.
It cant be confirmed if a backdoor is malicious or for debugging but essentially the capabilities gained through them are what is important.
These techniques he shows throughout his videos are not super tricky to replicate and I can recommend people who have interest to dive into it, reproduce things and try to help in this domain to raise awareness and findings.
Another good avenu is:
Defcon 21 - Decapping Chips The Strike Easy Hard Way
People speak about supply chain issues in NPM and Pip etc. but these are much more severe and hard to detect.
Almost no one looks at it.
Most vendors totally ignore it because you cannot sell products against it. (if ud detect it u need to trash the hw so its not handy... for sales...)
This shows that large companies making closed-source CPUs cannot be trusted. No doubt they would add whatever the government asks them to add.
What can be done to mitigate this? One option would be to buy a large FPGA and flash it with an open-source CPU. Another would be to emulate a CPU, working with encrypted data and commands, so that even if the backdoor in a host CPU tries to overwrite memory, it would only crash the emulated OS. One more option would be to run the code in a Virtual Machine like QEMU which translates the code and prevents issuing unknown instructions.
So is it apparent that this backdoor was intentionally added by VIA for nefarious purposes? Or is there any other reasonable explanation for its existence?
I was wondering the same, this is an ancient CPU by now, having been introduced in 2001. During development and at the introduction, most people were still running Windows 95/98/ME, which had more serious security issues (like every user essentially being admin). It may just have been a handy (debugging?) feature?
Yes there is a harmless explanation. The VIA C3 is a fairly simple CPU design that cracks x86 instructions into an internal simpler instruction format. Some complex x86 behaviour is normally implemented by lengthy microcode or complex state machines. VIA wanted to make their CPU simpler than Intel and AMD. To do that they exposed this internal instruction set to the BIOS to let it handle hardware initialisation and documented how to lock this feature safely away afterward. Some BIOS authors didn't read/understand the full specification. shrug.
IIRC there are also a few hints they at least considered exposing this alternative instruction set at runtime to get more performance out of the CPU core e.g. more useable registers, more three operand instructions, saturating and packed math for DSP workloads, etc.
http://datasheets.chipdb.org/VIA/Nehemiah/VIA%20C3%20Nehemia... (page 82)
...which along with the already publicly-known microarchitecture of the C3 makes this statement sound like total nonsense:
The rosenbridge backdoor is a small, non-x86 core embedded alongside the main x86 core in the CPU
I remember laughing at this with a few others knowledgeable in x86 when it first came out; a self-proclaimed "security researcher" who somehow failed to RTFM.
There's even a Wikipedia article about it now, with a link to the alternate instruction set documentation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_Instruction_Set
Documenting a backdoor doesn't make it not a backdoor, just means it's not a hidden backdoor.
The fact that a number of machines shipped with the backdoor accidentally enabled, and nobody noticed for over a decade shows just how dangerous even a documented backdoor can be. The oversight wasn't even detected by someone reading the manual, it was detected by a security researcher who wrote a generic tool to fuzz out such backdoors.
In the house analogy you don’t see the backdoor when approaching the front. If it was just “an alternative everyone knows about and can be broken easier than the front door” then it probably would have been called “a window”.
Nobody calls the SMS 2FA or password reset fallback on a login form a backdoor just because it’s weaker than what you normally use.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140130160743/http://datasheets...
sandsifter was lots of noisy PR, but no new encoding findings
Domas (and maybe his team or colleagues?) has put out shit tons of very interesting materials over the past years on advanced malware, implants and things like Cantor Dust which are amazing things to dive into.
using his own cpu fuzzer, msr fuzzing techniques etc. he has found, reversed and implemented attacks through hardware bugs and backdoors.
It cant be confirmed if a backdoor is malicious or for debugging but essentially the capabilities gained through them are what is important.
These techniques he shows throughout his videos are not super tricky to replicate and I can recommend people who have interest to dive into it, reproduce things and try to help in this domain to raise awareness and findings.
Another good avenu is: Defcon 21 - Decapping Chips The Strike Easy Hard Way
People speak about supply chain issues in NPM and Pip etc. but these are much more severe and hard to detect.
Almost no one looks at it. Most vendors totally ignore it because you cannot sell products against it. (if ud detect it u need to trash the hw so its not handy... for sales...)
What can be done to mitigate this? One option would be to buy a large FPGA and flash it with an open-source CPU. Another would be to emulate a CPU, working with encrypted data and commands, so that even if the backdoor in a host CPU tries to overwrite memory, it would only crash the emulated OS. One more option would be to run the code in a Virtual Machine like QEMU which translates the code and prevents issuing unknown instructions.
IIRC there are also a few hints they at least considered exposing this alternative instruction set at runtime to get more performance out of the CPU core e.g. more useable registers, more three operand instructions, saturating and packed math for DSP workloads, etc.
Almost exactly 8 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17727140