6 ms·

First Sednit UEFI Rootkit Unveiled [video]

126 points by jonathankoren 8y ago

mises 8y ago
New article, but it's old news: https://www.welivesecurity.com/2018/09/27/lojax-first-uefi-rootkit-found-wild-courtesy-sednit-group/ https://www.welivesecurity.com/2018/09/27/lojax-first-uefi-r...
voltagex_ 8y ago
Writeup: https://www.welivesecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ESET-LoJax.pdf https://www.welivesecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ES... Video: https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9561-first_sednit_uefi_rootkit_unveiled https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9561-first_sednit_uefi_rootkit_u...
gammateam 8y ago
Its interesting that nobody does a SHOW HN on their rootkits on Hackernews Instead third party stuff like this comes very occassionally The name is a misnomer
- hug 8y ago
  Only because you're completely unaware of the history of the word "hacker"; It certainly doesn't just mean someone who breaks into other computers. Reading the old Jargon File entry for the word might clue you in: http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/hacker.html http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/hacker.html
  - gammateam 8y ago
    Nah, that doesnt actually explain whats going on now A) Either people dont post that kind of stuff here, which is still ironic anytime this century B) People do post and it doesn't get upvoted C) People do post and it gets moderated away
    - rbanffy 8y ago
      I don't think it's ironic at all. It's just that most of us may be a different kind of hacker.
      - gammateam 8y ago
        Right...... I get that it was an all encompassing term, but it hasnt been colloquially this entire century But to be fair, the Pedantic News wouldnt be a misnomer
  - self_awareness 8y ago
    Jargon File entries are not really high quality definitions and some of them are simply wrong or deprecated since at least 20 years. I.e. 'cracker' is used for people that 'crack' software protections (games or applications). I've never heard about "warez d00dz", and none of my friends from the "warez scene" did. Also the Jargon files describe crackers in a very pejorative meaning, while in reality the cracker's social circle contain lots of very skilled individuals, as well as is pretty well filtered-out from anyone that doesn't dedicate themselves to the cracker community. Maybe this is the reason why Eric Raymond didn't have much info about this topic. So I wouldn't put much faith in Jargon file entries in the same way I wouldn't trust any other urban dictionary. Maybe it's good to get a general grasp at some subject but taking definitions from it is pretty misleading.
- JetSpiegel 8y ago
  Why do a Show HN for work than can feature on a CCC?
CaliforniaKarl 8y ago
Hmmm, looking at the post from u/voltagex_, I'd suggest changing the URL to https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9561-first_sednit_uefi_rootkit_unveiled https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9561-first_sednit_uefi_rootkit_u..., and changing the title to "First Sednit UEFI Rootkit Unveiled". The original URL (https://threatpost.com/uefi-rootkit-sednit/140420/ https://threatpost.com/uefi-rootkit-sednit/140420/) looks like a short writeup, but I'm not sure if it adds any new content. And given the tendency to link back directly to source, it's probably worth a change.
- dang 8y ago
  Ok, we changed the URL from https://threatpost.com/uefi-rootkit-sednit/140420/ https://threatpost.com/uefi-rootkit-sednit/140420/. Looks like this work was discussed a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18090651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18090651
CaliforniaKarl 8y ago
Ah, interesting video! Now I've got something to watch/listen to while I'm on the bus today.
atswimtwobirds 8y ago
Will this rootkit run on Linux?
- na85 8y ago
  This comment was flag killed but I've vouched for it because I think it is a legitimate question posed by someone without domain expertise. To someone who perhaps does not fully understand the implications of a uefi rootkit, the article might seem to imply that it wouldn't work on anything but windows.
- bcl 8y ago
  The UEFI payload would work on Linux systems, yes. But the delivery system described would not.
  - atswimtwobirds 8y ago
    >> It abuses platforms that do not implement the BIOS Write Lock mechanism incorrectly I agree that post-boot the BIOS should be read-only. > The UEFI payload would work on Linux systems, yes. But the delivery system described would not. There was a case of rm -rf / erasing UEFI variables on linux system, rendering the system unbootable. Mapping the BIOS into the file-system doesn't strike me as too clever, but then again what do I know.
- jasonjayr 8y ago
  According to the video, the root kit discussed does not work on Linux, it involves a dropper that writes a Windows service .exe to the NTFS volume. They have not seen a version that runs on Linux Or MacOS. "Secure Boot" mode also doesn't protect against the rootkit, because it considers the contents of the UEFI Bios in the SPI Flash the root of trust, and does not do any verification at that stage. It only verifies the bootloader, which loads the OS. It abuses platforms that do not implement the BIOS Write Lock mechanism incorrectly. (the BIOS is supposed to be write protected after UEFI Boot services hands stuff over to the Operating system) Incidentally, (according to the video) BitLocker disk encryption can defeat it, though the legitimate LoJack system has a way of working with BitLocker. I think the implication is that a more advanced version of the rootkit may, in the future, work with BitLocker.
lelandgaunt 8y ago
> The purpose of the legitimate LoJack software is to help victims of a stolen laptop be able to access their PC without tipping off the bad guys who stole it. Promise?
cjhanks 8y ago
I hope it's not too off topic. But on Linux systems with NVIDIA drivers - is it even possible/reasonable to re-enable secure boot?
- mjg59 8y ago
  Yes, you can add a key with mokutik and sign your locally built drivers.
  - bubblethink 8y ago
    But does it buy you any real security at that point ? If the private key is stored on the file system, a local root exploit can just as easily use the key to sign whatever it wants. I don't even see the benefit or the threat model of secureboot on regular linux disros.
    - Xylakant 8y ago
      Don’t store the private key on the local filesystem then. Use a USB stick or build and sign the modules on a separate machine. Depending on your threat model, a strong passphrase on the signing key might already go a long way.
      - bubblethink 8y ago
        I'm no so sure about that. Unless you are using an android/chromeos like system, secureboot alone itself is quite ineffective to begin with because your filesystem is writable. And keeping the private key elsewhere, while possible in theory, would just add too much friction. For instance, apt install nvidia-xxx won't work.
        cjhanks 8y ago
        Yeah, sounds like it's possible but an unreasonably high burden (imo).
        Xylakant 8y ago
ddevault 8y ago
UEFI is perhaps the single most egregious pile of garbage ever concieved by humans. I don't think it's possible to overstate how awful it truly is. Here's how BIOS works: basically, the computer loads the first 512 bytes of disk into memory and jumps to it. The OS takes over from there and does whatever it needs to, like bootstrapping stage 2 and loading the kernel from the filesystem. The spec[0] is 46 pages long and you are granted the rights to reproduce, distribute, and implement it free of charge. Want to know how UEFI works? The spec[1] is a 2,899 page PDF which you have to pay to use in any way, including writing an implementation. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20110715081320/http://www.phoenix.com/resources/specs-bbs101.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20110715081320/http://www.phoeni... [1] https://uefi.org/specifications https://uefi.org/specifications Every copy of this specification should be found and burned. The ashes should be buried deep in a dark place and the earth above salted. Anyone who thinks this is the first rootkit made for it is completely insane. This thing was probably explicitly designed with rootkits in mind.
- the8472 8y ago
  Have you heard about the intel management engine?
  - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
    At least the code is presumably sane. Minix is a good system.
- janci 8y ago
  > UEFI is perhaps the single most egregious pile of garbage ever concieved by humans Don't forget systemd.
- userbinator 8y ago
  which you have to pay to use in any way, including writing an implementation You may be misleading here, AFAIK the spec is free to implement (which helped spread its adoption) or else things like this would not exist or be sued out of existence: https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/Coreboot_UEFI_payload https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/Corebo... On the other hand, I agree with you and Linus on the actual spec itself: https://yarchive.net/comp/linux/efi.html https://yarchive.net/comp/linux/efi.html
aortega 8y ago
Isn't this computrace repurposed? this research is about 10 years old. https://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-usa-09/ORTEGA/BHUSA09-Ortega-DeactivateRootkit-PAPER.pdf https://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-usa-09/ORTEGA/BHUS...

126 points by jonathankoren 8y ago

New article, but it's old news: https://www.welivesecurity.com/2018/09/27/lojax-first-uefi-rootkit-found-wild-courtesy-sednit-group/ https://www.welivesecurity.com/2018/09/27/lojax-first-uefi-r...

voltagex_ 8y ago

Writeup: https://www.welivesecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ESET-LoJax.pdf https://www.welivesecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ES... Video: https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9561-first_sednit_uefi_rootkit_unveiled https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9561-first_sednit_uefi_rootkit_u...

gammateam 8y ago

Its interesting that nobody does a SHOW HN on their rootkits on Hackernews Instead third party stuff like this comes very occassionally The name is a misnomer

hug 8y ago
Only because you're completely unaware of the history of the word "hacker"; It certainly doesn't just mean someone who breaks into other computers. Reading the old Jargon File entry for the word might clue you in: http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/hacker.html http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/hacker.html
- gammateam 8y ago
  Nah, that doesnt actually explain whats going on now A) Either people dont post that kind of stuff here, which is still ironic anytime this century B) People do post and it doesn't get upvoted C) People do post and it gets moderated away
  - rbanffy 8y ago
    I don't think it's ironic at all. It's just that most of us may be a different kind of hacker.
    - gammateam 8y ago
      Right...... I get that it was an all encompassing term, but it hasnt been colloquially this entire century But to be fair, the Pedantic News wouldnt be a misnomer
- self_awareness 8y ago
  Jargon File entries are not really high quality definitions and some of them are simply wrong or deprecated since at least 20 years. I.e. 'cracker' is used for people that 'crack' software protections (games or applications). I've never heard about "warez d00dz", and none of my friends from the "warez scene" did. Also the Jargon files describe crackers in a very pejorative meaning, while in reality the cracker's social circle contain lots of very skilled individuals, as well as is pretty well filtered-out from anyone that doesn't dedicate themselves to the cracker community. Maybe this is the reason why Eric Raymond didn't have much info about this topic. So I wouldn't put much faith in Jargon file entries in the same way I wouldn't trust any other urban dictionary. Maybe it's good to get a general grasp at some subject but taking definitions from it is pretty misleading.
JetSpiegel 8y ago
Why do a Show HN for work than can feature on a CCC?

CaliforniaKarl 8y ago

Hmmm, looking at the post from u/voltagex_, I'd suggest changing the URL to https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9561-first_sednit_uefi_rootkit_unveiled https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9561-first_sednit_uefi_rootkit_u..., and changing the title to "First Sednit UEFI Rootkit Unveiled". The original URL (https://threatpost.com/uefi-rootkit-sednit/140420/ https://threatpost.com/uefi-rootkit-sednit/140420/) looks like a short writeup, but I'm not sure if it adds any new content. And given the tendency to link back directly to source, it's probably worth a change.

dang 8y ago
Ok, we changed the URL from https://threatpost.com/uefi-rootkit-sednit/140420/ https://threatpost.com/uefi-rootkit-sednit/140420/. Looks like this work was discussed a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18090651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18090651

CaliforniaKarl 8y ago

Ah, interesting video! Now I've got something to watch/listen to while I'm on the bus today.

atswimtwobirds 8y ago

Will this rootkit run on Linux?

na85 8y ago
This comment was flag killed but I've vouched for it because I think it is a legitimate question posed by someone without domain expertise. To someone who perhaps does not fully understand the implications of a uefi rootkit, the article might seem to imply that it wouldn't work on anything but windows.
bcl 8y ago
The UEFI payload would work on Linux systems, yes. But the delivery system described would not.
- atswimtwobirds 8y ago
  >> It abuses platforms that do not implement the BIOS Write Lock mechanism incorrectly I agree that post-boot the BIOS should be read-only. > The UEFI payload would work on Linux systems, yes. But the delivery system described would not. There was a case of rm -rf / erasing UEFI variables on linux system, rendering the system unbootable. Mapping the BIOS into the file-system doesn't strike me as too clever, but then again what do I know.
jasonjayr 8y ago
According to the video, the root kit discussed does not work on Linux, it involves a dropper that writes a Windows service .exe to the NTFS volume. They have not seen a version that runs on Linux Or MacOS. "Secure Boot" mode also doesn't protect against the rootkit, because it considers the contents of the UEFI Bios in the SPI Flash the root of trust, and does not do any verification at that stage. It only verifies the bootloader, which loads the OS. It abuses platforms that do not implement the BIOS Write Lock mechanism incorrectly. (the BIOS is supposed to be write protected after UEFI Boot services hands stuff over to the Operating system) Incidentally, (according to the video) BitLocker disk encryption can defeat it, though the legitimate LoJack system has a way of working with BitLocker. I think the implication is that a more advanced version of the rootkit may, in the future, work with BitLocker.

lelandgaunt 8y ago

> The purpose of the legitimate LoJack software is to help victims of a stolen laptop be able to access their PC without tipping off the bad guys who stole it. Promise?

cjhanks 8y ago

I hope it's not too off topic. But on Linux systems with NVIDIA drivers - is it even possible/reasonable to re-enable secure boot?

mjg59 8y ago
Yes, you can add a key with mokutik and sign your locally built drivers.
- bubblethink 8y ago
  But does it buy you any real security at that point ? If the private key is stored on the file system, a local root exploit can just as easily use the key to sign whatever it wants. I don't even see the benefit or the threat model of secureboot on regular linux disros.
  - Xylakant 8y ago
    Don’t store the private key on the local filesystem then. Use a USB stick or build and sign the modules on a separate machine. Depending on your threat model, a strong passphrase on the signing key might already go a long way.
    - bubblethink 8y ago
      I'm no so sure about that. Unless you are using an android/chromeos like system, secureboot alone itself is quite ineffective to begin with because your filesystem is writable. And keeping the private key elsewhere, while possible in theory, would just add too much friction. For instance, apt install nvidia-xxx won't work.
      - cjhanks 8y ago
        Yeah, sounds like it's possible but an unreasonably high burden (imo).
      - Xylakant 8y ago

ddevault 8y ago

UEFI is perhaps the single most egregious pile of garbage ever concieved by humans. I don't think it's possible to overstate how awful it truly is. Here's how BIOS works: basically, the computer loads the first 512 bytes of disk into memory and jumps to it. The OS takes over from there and does whatever it needs to, like bootstrapping stage 2 and loading the kernel from the filesystem. The spec[0] is 46 pages long and you are granted the rights to reproduce, distribute, and implement it free of charge. Want to know how UEFI works? The spec[1] is a 2,899 page PDF which you have to pay to use in any way, including writing an implementation. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20110715081320/http://www.phoenix.com/resources/specs-bbs101.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20110715081320/http://www.phoeni... [1] https://uefi.org/specifications https://uefi.org/specifications Every copy of this specification should be found and burned. The ashes should be buried deep in a dark place and the earth above salted. Anyone who thinks this is the first rootkit made for it is completely insane. This thing was probably explicitly designed with rootkits in mind.

the8472 8y ago
Have you heard about the intel management engine?
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  At least the code is presumably sane. Minix is a good system.
janci 8y ago
> UEFI is perhaps the single most egregious pile of garbage ever concieved by humans Don't forget systemd.
userbinator 8y ago
which you have to pay to use in any way, including writing an implementation You may be misleading here, AFAIK the spec is free to implement (which helped spread its adoption) or else things like this would not exist or be sued out of existence: https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/Coreboot_UEFI_payload https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/Corebo... On the other hand, I agree with you and Linus on the actual spec itself: https://yarchive.net/comp/linux/efi.html https://yarchive.net/comp/linux/efi.html

aortega 8y ago

Isn't this computrace repurposed? this research is about 10 years old. https://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-usa-09/ORTEGA/BHUSA09-Ortega-DeactivateRootkit-PAPER.pdf https://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-usa-09/ORTEGA/BHUS...