Leak of Intel Boot Guard Keys May Have Safety Repercussions for Years

The potential leak from MSI Gaming of signing keys for an essential safety function in Intel-based firmware may solid a shadow on firmware safety for years to return and depart units that use the keys extremely weak to cyberattacks, safety specialists say.

Intel remains to be “actively investigating” an alleged leak of Intel Boot Guard personal keys for 116 MSI merchandise, the corporate instructed Darkish Studying. The investigation comes after a declare by Alex Matrosov, CEO of firmware provide chain safety platform Binarly, that leaked supply code from a March 2023 cyberattack on MSI contains this information, in addition to image-signing personal keys for 57 MSI merchandise.

“Confirmed, Intel OEM personal key leaked, inflicting an affect on your complete ecosystem. It seems that Intel BootGuard might not be efficient on sure units based mostly on the eleventh Tiger Lake, twelfth Adler Lake, and thirteenth Raptor Lake” processors, he tweeted.

The alleged leak comes a few month after an rising ransomware gang tracked as “Cash Message” hit Taiwan-based MSI with a double extortion ransomware assault, claiming to have stolen 1.5TB of information throughout the assault, together with firmware, supply code, and databases.

When the $4 million ransom the group demanded was not paid, the attackers started posting information stolen within the assault on their leak website. Final week, MSI’s stolen information—together with supply code for firmware utilized by the corporate’s motherboards—turned up on that website.

Why It Issues

Intel Boot Guard is a hardware-based safety know-how aimed to guard computer systems towards executing tampered-with, non-genuine Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) firmware, “which may occur in case a attainable attacker has bypassed safety towards modification of BIOS,” Binarly efiXplorer Crew defined in a weblog submit revealed final November.

That submit got here in response to an October leak of UEFI BIOS of Alder Lake, Intel’s code identify for its newest processor, in addition to the important thing pairs required by Boot Guard throughout provisioning stage.

If risk actors pay money for the MSI-related Intel Boot Guard signing keys, they probably may load weak firmware onto affected units—which embrace MSI motherboards—that seem like signed by the seller and thus official.

Furthermore, the BIOS runs even earlier than a tool’s OS, which suggests the weak code is current on the most simple system stage and thus troublesome to patch or defend towards, complicating the state of affairs even additional, notes one safety professional.

“As a result of nature of how these keys are embedded and used, the same old recommendation of putting in safety patches might not be attainable,” Darren Guccione, CEO and co-founder of cybersecurity software program agency Keeper Safety, stated in an e-mail to Darkish Studying.

To treatment the problem, safety groups probably must implement “non-standard controls to observe for breaches if malware begins utilizing these keys,” he notes. “With out a easy safety answer, this may very well be a dangerous assault vector in the long run,” Guccione says.

Future Firmware Woes

Certainly, the long run is what worries safety specialists concerning the leak. They are saying it is probably risk actors would pounce on the provision of the Intel Boot Guard signing keys, presenting a serious firmware safety downside for years to return.

“Stealing signing keys, particularly for one thing that may solely be up to date in firmware (which suggests few folks will do it), normally entails an extended tail of incidents years after the disclosure,” warned John Bambenek, principal risk hunter at Netenrich, a safety and operations analytics SaaS agency.

His remark brings up level: the inherent vulnerability of outdated system firmware, which regularly will get neglected in patching cycles and thus, if weak, represents a big and harmful assault floor, notes Matt Mullins, senior safety researcher at Cybrary.

“Contemplating that most individuals don’t apply patches to UEFI or firmware normally, the people impacted will in all probability not know to patch these units appropriately,” he says. “The entry supplied to malicious actors in regard to that is in some methods worse than getting a SYSTEM or root shell.”

It’s because with entry to the signing keys, system protections like driver signatures or detections of malicious exercise at kernel stage or beneath “will in essence be null and void as a result of the malicious bootkit can load prior/beneath that,” Mullins says.

“By loading beneath that, it could hijack or bypass essential course of related to system integrity (resembling I/O operations) and successfully render itself everlasting with out the suitable flash and reload of firmware,” he says.

Defending Firmware

Whereas the scenario could seem dire, one safety professional tried to quell fears which have surfaced over information of the leak by noting that the general risk to affected MSI units “is comparatively low due to the steps a risk actor would wish to undergo” to take advantage of the keys.

“As a distinction, think about IoT/OT units which regularly lack digital signatures for firmware and exist at a massively greater scale than MSI units,” says Bud Broomhead, CEO at Viakoo, a supplier of automated IoT cyber hygiene.

That stated, there are methods to mitigate or defend towards any dangers from the incident, specialists say.

An excellent begin is to make sure you have a trusted course of for all digital belongings together with IoT/OT, Broomhead says. In the meantime, utilizing different types of safety, resembling monitoring and community entry management, ought to assist to stop exploitation of the leaked keys “from trigger a a lot bigger exploitation,” he provides.

The most recent leak additionally ought to function a reminder to organizations that firmware and different personal keys ought to be saved separate from code as a lot as attainable to mitigate the chance of theft, Bambenek notes.

Different mitigations that organizations can take to defend towards firmware assaults embrace the plain utility of patches, whereas typically neglected, “is primarily the very best protection towards this potential future assault,” Mullins says.

Related Articles


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest Articles