• NetSpectre — a remote Spectre v1 attack

    Home » Forums » Newsletter and Homepage topics » NetSpectre — a remote Spectre v1 attack

    Tags:

    Author
    Topic
    #207857

    Michael Heller reports on TechTarget: Researchers developed a new proof-of-concept attack on Spectre variant 1 that can be performed remotely (say, vi
    [See the full post at: NetSpectre — a remote Spectre v1 attack]

    Viewing 8 reply threads
    Author
    Replies
    • #207869

      Back in the real world, a malicious organisation repeatedly tries to get me to download and install potential malware that could render my computer unusable. This happens on the second Tuesday of every month.

      Windows 10 Home 22H2, Acer Aspire TC-1660 desktop + LibreOffice, non-techie

      • #207890

        But look at it this way: you are charged real money for it when you pay for their main product. What is being discussed here can be yours entirely for free.

        Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

        MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
        Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
        macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

      • #207945

        @samak: Any further  commentary would only detract from the supreme simplicity and beauty of your observation, but I’ll do it anyway:

        Bullseye, direct hit below the waterline at the ammo bunker.

        Whoom!

        Win7 Pro SP1 64-bit, Dell Latitude E6330 ("The Tank"), Intel CORE i5 "Ivy Bridge", 12GB RAM, Group "0Patch", Multiple Air-Gapped backup drives in different locations. Linux Mint Newbie
        --
        "The more kinks you put in the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the pipes." -Scotty

    • #207871

      15 bits an hour eh? I wonder if your serial port needs to be set to 8 – None and 1 also? 🙂

      Red Ruffnsore

      2 users thanked author for this post.
      • #207877

        You will need to have a parity bit set to verify incoming data.

        • #207891

          Yeah but if you verify the data it will slow down the process. 🙂

          Red Ruffnsore

    • #207873

      Who funds this research?

      Disclosing a way to take advantage of an already published vulnerability seems pretty close to malicious.

      Really makes you wonder who’s profiting from this.

      IntelStockPrice

      -Noel

      • #207946

        …and, gee, we didn’t even get a “dead cat bounce” out of it…

        Win7 Pro SP1 64-bit, Dell Latitude E6330 ("The Tank"), Intel CORE i5 "Ivy Bridge", 12GB RAM, Group "0Patch", Multiple Air-Gapped backup drives in different locations. Linux Mint Newbie
        --
        "The more kinks you put in the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the pipes." -Scotty

      • #208021

        According to FBN, that dip in your chart was caused by delays in delivery of new chips. No clue whether these chips eliminate the Spectre/Meltdown vulnerabilities without performance impacts. No clue either when new machines will be available which aren’t full of holes. 🙁 Will need to replace this Zbook 17 workstation before Win 7 EOL I guess… Never see this mentioned anywhere.

        Pity the OEMs can’t get together and form a corporation which writes and updates a desktop O/S which runs Windows programs and lacks bloat and useless “features”. Would be worse than herding cats of course. But Win X must be driving OEM support people totally mad!

    • #207880

      At 15 bits per hour, this is a proof of concept, the experimental test of an idea. The questions I would ask: (a) is this true? (b) is this scalable to, let’s say, kilobytes or megabytes per second? (c) have the details been published and, if (c) is true, then (d) I would echo Noel Carboni’s own question (  #207873  ).

      To me, hearing of the kernel possibly being hacked using the infamous Intel chip set vulnerability, without the need to have enabling malware installed previously via a common infecting hack that can be defeated with normal antimalware procedures, is seriously disturbing.

      Also on my mind: just as in mathematics, proof of one theorem might open the way to proving others on some different areas of study, so showing this is possible at all might spur black hats to develop other, more efficient types of malware that also do not need to have a piece of enabling malware inserted in advance of the actual infection to exploit known chipset’s vulnerabilities.

      Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

      MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
      Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
      macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

      1 user thanked author for this post.
    • #207887

      Eventually someone will put all the pieces together. Computer epidemic — comdemic.

      On permanent hiatus {with backup and coffee}
      offline▸ Win10Pro 2004.19041.572 x64 i3-3220 RAM8GB HDD Firefox83.0b3 WindowsDefender
      offline▸ Acer TravelMate P215-52 RAM8GB Win11Pro 22H2.22621.1265 x64 i5-10210U SSD Firefox106.0 MicrosoftDefender
      online▸ Win11Pro 22H2.22621.1992 x64 i5-9400 RAM16GB HDD Firefox116.0b3 MicrosoftDefender
    • #207889

      There is attacks to be worried about, this isn’t one of them. But I am still amazed how much “sky is falling” headlines come about with this Spectre/Meltdown stuff.

      2 users thanked author for this post.
    • #207903

      Back in the real world, a malicious organisation repeatedly tries to get me to download and install potential malware that could render my computer unusable. This happens on the second Tuesday of every month.

      This seems to be happening on every second day of the week lately. My head is still spinning trying to work out what is going on with all of these .NET patches for starters…

    • #207911

      Or is everyone just having a total Meltdown over the Spectre thing?!  🙂

      • #208088

        It goes into my low-key-keep-this-in-mind bin. I’m going remain aware and alert. We need more wares and lerts.

        On permanent hiatus {with backup and coffee}
        offline▸ Win10Pro 2004.19041.572 x64 i3-3220 RAM8GB HDD Firefox83.0b3 WindowsDefender
        offline▸ Acer TravelMate P215-52 RAM8GB Win11Pro 22H2.22621.1265 x64 i5-10210U SSD Firefox106.0 MicrosoftDefender
        online▸ Win11Pro 22H2.22621.1992 x64 i5-9400 RAM16GB HDD Firefox116.0b3 MicrosoftDefender
    • #208048

      15 bits per hour. Yeah, really slow. Remember, this is POC code and nothing more at this point. It is theorized that in about 2 hours, an attacker might gain enough info to break ALSR. This remote POC code could alternatively be used to cause buffer overflows when the CPU speculatively executes instructions, allowing the attacker to use Spectre to write code to memory which the attacker could then execute. Either scenario is a legitimate concern.

      2 users thanked author for this post.
      • #208083

        Remember, this is POC code and nothing more at this point.

        It’s also a blueprint.

        On permanent hiatus {with backup and coffee}
        offline▸ Win10Pro 2004.19041.572 x64 i3-3220 RAM8GB HDD Firefox83.0b3 WindowsDefender
        offline▸ Acer TravelMate P215-52 RAM8GB Win11Pro 22H2.22621.1265 x64 i5-10210U SSD Firefox106.0 MicrosoftDefender
        online▸ Win11Pro 22H2.22621.1992 x64 i5-9400 RAM16GB HDD Firefox116.0b3 MicrosoftDefender
        • #208085

          For designing future bigger, nastier blueprints.

          Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

          MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
          Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
          macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

    Viewing 8 reply threads
    Reply To: NetSpectre — a remote Spectre v1 attack

    You can use BBCodes to format your content.
    Your account can't use all available BBCodes, they will be stripped before saving.

    Your information: