Robert Buhren

Felicitas Hetzelt, Martin Radev, Robert Buhren et al.

Both AMD and Intel have presented technologies for confidential computing in cloud environments. The proposed solutions - AMD SEV (-ES, -SNP) and Intel TDX - protect Virtual Machines (VMs) against attacks from higher privileged layers through memory encryption and integrity protection. This model of computation draws a new trust boundary between virtual devices and the VM, which in so far lacks thorough examination. In this paper, we therefore present an analysis of the virtual device interface and discuss several attack vectors against a protected VM. Further, we develop and evaluate VIA, an automated analysis tool to detect cases of improper sanitization of input recieved via the virtual device interface. VIA improves upon existing approaches for the automated analysis of device interfaces in the following aspects: (i) support for virtualization relevant buses, (ii) efficient Direct Memory Access (DMA) support and (iii) performance. VIA builds upon the Linux Kernel Library and clang's libfuzzer to fuzz the communication between the driver and the device via MMIO, PIO, and DMA. An evaluation of VIA shows that it performs 570 executions per second on average and improves performance compared to existing approaches by an average factor of 2706. Using VIA, we analyzed 22 drivers in Linux 5.10.0-rc6, thereby uncovering 50 bugs and initiating multiple patches to the virtual device driver interface of Linux. To prove our findings criticality under the threat model of AMD SEV and Intel TDX, we showcase three exemplary attacks based on the bugs found. The attacks enable a malicious hypervisor to corrupt the memory and gain code execution in protected VMs with SEV-ES and are theoretically applicable to SEV-SNP and TDX.

Robert Buhren, Hans Niklas Jacob, Thilo Krachenfels et al.

AMD Secure Encrypted Virtualization (SEV) offers protection mechanisms for virtual machines in untrusted environments through memory and register encryption. To separate security-sensitive operations from software executing on the main x86 cores, SEV leverages the AMD Secure Processor (AMD-SP). This paper introduces a new approach to attack SEV-protected virtual machines (VMs) by targeting the AMD-SP. We present a voltage glitching attack that allows an attacker to execute custom payloads on the AMD-SPs of all microarchitectures that support SEV currently on the market (Zen 1, Zen 2, and Zen 3). The presented methods allow us to deploy a custom SEV firmware on the AMD-SP, which enables an adversary to decrypt a VM's memory. Furthermore, using our approach, we can extract endorsement keys of SEV-enabled CPUs, which allows us to fake attestation reports or to pose as a valid target for VM migration without requiring physical access to the target host. Moreover, we reverse-engineered the Versioned Chip Endorsement Key (VCEK) mechanism introduced with SEV Secure Nested Paging (SEV-SNP). The VCEK binds the endorsement keys to the firmware version of TCB components relevant for SEV. Building on the ability to extract the endorsement keys, we show how to derive valid VCEKs for arbitrary firmware versions. With our findings, we prove that SEV cannot adequately protect confidential data in cloud environments from insider attackers, such as rogue administrators, on currently available CPUs.

Robert Buhren, Christian Werling, Jean-Pierre Seifert

Customers of cloud services have to trust the cloud providers, as they control the building blocks that form the cloud. This includes the hypervisor enabling the sharing of a single hardware platform among multiple tenants. AMD Secure Encrypted Virtualization (SEV) claims a new level of protection in cloud scenarios. AMD SEV encrypts the main memory of virtual machines with VM-specific keys, thereby denying the higher-privileged hypervisor access to a guest's memory. To enable the cloud customer to verify the correct deployment of his virtual machine, SEV additionally introduces a remote attestation protocol.This paper analyzes the firmware components that implement the SEV remote attestation protocol on the current AMD Epyc Naples CPU series. We demonstrate that it is possible to extract critical CPU-specific keys that are fundamental for the security of the remote attestation protocol.Building on the extracted keys, we propose attacks that allow a malicious cloud provider a complete circumvention of the SEV protection mechanisms. Although the underlying firmware issues were already fixed by AMD, we show that the current series of AMD Epyc CPUs, i.e., the Naples series, does not prevent the installation of previous firmware versions. We show that the severity of our proposed attacks is very high as no purely software-based mitigations are possible. This effectively renders the SEV technology on current AMD Epyc CPUs useless when confronted with an untrusted cloud provider. To overcome these issues, we also propose robust changes to the SEV design that allow future generations of the SEV technology to mitigate the proposed attacks.

Robert Buhren, Shay Gueron, Jan Nordholz et al.

Adversaries with physical access to a target platform can perform cold boot or DMA attacks to extract sensitive data from the RAM. In response, several main-memory encryption schemes have been proposed to prevent such attacks. Also hardware vendors have acknowledged the threat and already announced respective hardware extensions. Intel's SGX and AMD's SME will provide means to encrypt parts of the RAM to protect security-relevant assets that reside there. Encrypting the RAM will protect the user's content against passive eavesdropping. However, the level of protection it provides in scenarios that involve an adversary who is not only able to read from RAM but can also change content in RAM is less clear. Obviously, encryption offers some protection against such an "active" adversary: from the ciphertext the adversary cannot see what value is changed in the plaintext, nor predict the system behaviour based on the changes. But is this enough to prevent an active adversary from performing malicious tasks? This paper addresses the open research question whether encryption alone is a dependable protection mechanism in practice when considering an active adversary. To this end, we first build a software based memory encryption solution on a desktop system which mimics AMD's SME. Subsequently, we demonstrate a proof-of-concept fault attack on this system, by which we are able to extract the private RSA key of a GnuPG user. Our work suggests that transparent memory encryption is not enough to prevent active attacks.

Felicitas Hetzelt, Robert Buhren

Cloud computing has become indispensable in today's computer landscape. The flexibility it offers for customers as well as for providers has become a crucial factor for large parts of the computer industry. Virtualization is the key technology that allows for sharing of hardware resources among different customers. The controlling software component, called hypervisor, provides a virtualized view of the computer resources and ensures separation of different guest virtual machines. However, this important cornerstone of cloud computing is not necessarily trustworthy. To mitigate this threat AMD introduced Secure Encrypted Virtualization, short SEV. SEV is a processor extension that encrypts guest memory in order to prevent a potentially malicious hypervisor from accessing guest data. In this paper we analyse whether the proposed features can resist a malicious hypervisor and discuss the trade-offs imposed by additional protection mechanisms. To do so, we developed a model of SEV's security capabilities based on the available documentation as actual silicon implementations are not yet on the market. We found that the currently proposed version of SEV is not up to the task owing to three design shortcomings. First, as with standard AMD-V, under SEV, the virtual machine control block is not encrypted and handled directly by the hypervisor, allowing him to bypass VM memory encryption by executing conveniently chosen gadgets. Secondly, the general purpose registers are not encrypted upon vmexit, leaking potentially sensitive data. Finally, the control of the nested pagetables allows a malicious hypervisor to closely control the execution of a VM and attack it with memory replay attacks.