• _edge@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    142
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    There are several ways to exploit LogoFAIL. Remote attacks work by first exploiting an unpatched vulnerability in a browser, media player, or other app and using the administrative control gained to replace the legitimate logo image processed early in the boot process with an identical-looking one that exploits a parser flaw. The other way is to gain brief access to a vulnerable device while it’s unlocked and replace the legitimate image file with a malicious one.

    In short, the adversary requires elevated access to replace a file on the EFI partition. In this case, you should consider the machine compromised with or without this flaw.

    You weren’t hoping that Secure Boot saves your ass, were you?

    • deadcade@lemmy.deadca.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      1 year ago

      Since the EFI partition is unencrypted, physical access would do the trick here too, even with every firmware/software security measure.

    • blindsight@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The idea is also that a compromised system will remains compromised after all storage drives are removed.

    • InnerScientist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      replace a file on the EFI partition.

      Doesn’t this mean that secure boot would save your ass? If you verify that the boot files are signed (secure boot) then you can’t boot these modified files or am I missing something?

      • _edge@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, not an expert. We learned now that logos are not signed. I’m not sure the boot menu config file is not either. So on a typical linux setup you can inject a command there.

      • fl42v@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If it can execute in ram (as far as I understand, they’ve been talking about fileless attacks, so… Possible?), it can just inject whatever

        Addit: also, sucure boot on most systems, well, sucks, unless you remove m$ keys and flash yours, at least. The thing is, they signed shim and whatever was the alternative chainable bootloader (mako or smth?) effectively rendering the whole thing useless; also there was a grub binary distributed as part of some kaspersky’s livecd-s with unlocked config, so, yet again, load whatever tf you want

        • InnerScientist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Last time I enabled secure boot it was with a unified kernel image, there was nothing on the EFI partition that was unsigned.

          Idk about the default shim setup but using dracut with uki, rolled keys and luks it’d be secure.

          After this you’re protected from offline attacks only though, unless you sign the UKI on a different device any program with root could still sign the modified images itself but no one could do an Evil Maid Attack or similar.

          • fl42v@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The point with m$ keys was that you should delete them as they’re used to sign stuff that loads literally anything given your maid is insistent enough.

            [note: it was mentioned in the arch wiki that sometimes removing m$ keys bricks some (which exactly wasn’t mentioned) devices]

      • hottari@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        If I can replace a file in your EFI, how hard would it be to sign the same file.

    • falsem@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yeah, if someone has write access to your boot partition then you’re kind of already screwed.

  • Yewb@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Fyi if someone had physical access / administration access due to another vulnerability to your machine they can exploit it, news at 11:00

      • fl42v@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        More like reflashing entirely or just changing the image. Alternatively, you can often disable showing the.logo somewhere in the settings.

        What’s known as resetting bios is more like removing the stuff saved in CMOS, AFAIK

        • Nyfure@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Most fastboot options dont show the logo until windows bootloader comes along.
          Though i am not sure how or why the logo is displayed when windows loads? Is that the same image? Loaded and displayed again or just didnt clear the display?

          • fl42v@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            I think so, but there can probably be some vendor-specific differences, like storing the image in a place that doesn’t get overwritten. For example, thinkpads provide a way to supply your own image, and when installing updates after that you’re asked if you want to keep it. But yeah, the update should neuter it anyways

  • JakenVeina@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Did anyone really think that making UEFI systems the equivalent of a mini OS was a good idea? Or having them be accessible to the proper OS? Was there really no pushback, when UEFI was being standardized, to say “images that an OS can write to are not critical to initializing hardware functionality, don’t include that”? Was that question not asked for every single piece of functionality in the standard?

    • gerdesj@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Did anyone really think that making UEFI systems the equivalent of a mini OS was a good idea

      UEFI and Secure Boot were pushed forcibly by MS. That’s why FAT32 is the ESP filesystem.

      If I had to guess, a brief was drafted at MS to improve on BIOS, which is pretty shit, it has to be said. It was probably engineering led and not an embrace, extinguish thing. A budget and dev team and a crack team of lawyers would have been whistled up and given a couple of years to deliver. The other usual suspects (Intel and co) would be strong armed in to take whatever was produced and off we trot. No doubt the best and brightest would have been employed but they only had a couple of years and they were only a few people.

      UEFI and its flaws are testament to the sheer arrogance of a huge company that thinks it can put a man on the moon with a Clapham omnibus style budget and approach. Management identify a snag and say “fiat” (let it be). Well it was and is and it has a few problems.

      The fundamental problem with UEFI is it was largely designed by one team. The wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFI is hilarious in describing it as open. Yes it is open … per se … provided you decide that FAT32 (patent encumbered) is a suitable file system for the foundations of an open standard.

      I love open, me.

      • evranch@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        UEFI is flawed for sure, but there’s no way that any remaining patents on FAT32 haven’t expired by now.

    • interceder270@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Less is more. I feel we’ve forgotten that so worthless designers can justify their useless existences.

      • Shareni@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah, the designers were lobbying to force showing hardware ads during boot…

        Less is more.

        Listen to your own maxim.

    • HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It breaks the cardinal rule of executing privileged code: Only code that absolutely needs to be privilaged should be privileged.

      If they really wanted to have their logo in the boot screen, why can’t they just provide the image to the OS and request through some API that they display it? The UEFI and OS do a ton of back and fourth communication at boot so why can’t this be apart of that? (It’s not because then the OS and by extension the user can much more easily refuse to display what is essentially an ad for the hardware vendor right? They’d never put “features” in privileged code just to stop the user from doing anything about it… right?)

  • HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’ve never been a fan of the UEFI logo inserting itself into the boot screen. It’s basically just an advertisement for the hardware vendor because they’re jealous of the OS having the spotlight. And it’s an ad that, like so many other ads before it, screws over the security and privacy of the advertisee because fuck you that’s why.

    • ddkman@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t know. It looks more aesthetically consistent. Your computer has to display something. Average users would be scared if it dumped logs on the display. so the vendor logo makes sense. It COULD just say loading, but this is a bit pedantic I think.

      • Nik282000@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        When it comes to security, particularly at boot time, fuck the user. Users don’t interact with devices at boot time so it doesn’t matter if it shows a blank screen, a mile of logs or a screaming clown penis. If it was up to users no device or service would have a password or security of any kind, and every byte of information about your life would be owned by 'The Cloud." Let the marketing wanks insert their logo into the Windows boot process,

        • 0xD@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I want to insert my own logo into the boot process, and I want these ducking vendors to properly validate and assess their mother ducking software. But nooo, penetration tests and any remediations are too expensive for these pieces of bit. Why do it when you can just stick your dick in everyone’s face, right?

          Fuck.

  • Melllvar@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

    As its name suggests, LogoFAIL involves logos, specifically those of the hardware seller that are displayed on the device screen early in the boot process, while the UEFI is still running. Image parsers in UEFIs from all three major IBVs are riddled with roughly a dozen critical vulnerabilities that have gone unnoticed until now. By replacing the legitimate logo images with identical-looking ones that have been specially crafted to exploit these bugs, LogoFAIL makes it possible to execute malicious code at the most sensitive stage of the boot process, which is known as DXE, short for Driver Execution Environment.

    So, does disabling the boot logo prevent the attack, or would it only make the attack obvious?

    • lazylion_ca@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you have access to replace the logo file, you probably have access to enable it as well.

      • fl42v@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not necessarily, I guess. They’re talking about a firmware upgrade of sorts, and, at least on the machines I own(ed), performing it didn’t reset user settings (which disabling the logo is)

      • Melllvar@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Usually you can, though the setting might be listed under something like “show diagnostic during boot”.

  • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    As its name suggests, LogoFAIL involves logos, specifically those of the hardware seller that are displayed on the device screen early in the boot process, while the UEFI is still running.

    Me using an old PC with BIOS instead of UEFI: 😏

  • HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The article didn’t mention this, but would disabling the UEFI logo in the boot screen mitigate the vulnerability until proper patches get rolled out? (Or honestly at this point, I’d keep it disabled even after it’s patched in case they didn’t patch it right. UEFI’s are all proprietary so it’s not like you can check.) Since the vulnerability is in the image parser, would bypassing that be enough?

    Do they even let you disable it?

  • palordrolap@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s rare that I get to feel anything remotely comforting about not being able to afford new hardware, but if I understand correctly, my BIOS-only dinosaur can’t be exploited.

    Still vulnerable to thousands of other exploits no doubt, but not this one.

  • const_void@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    We need more machines that support coreboot. These proprietary firmware vendors have been getting rich off making our machines worse for too long.

  • LainOfTheWired@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wonder if this effects coreboot builds like heads as they allow you to use external devices like a nitrokey for verification when you boot

  • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    So, does this affect dual boot systems, if e.g. Windows is compromised, now that malware in the efi partition can compromise the Linux system next time it boots? Yikes!

    I suppose in principle malware from one OS can attack the other anyway, even if the other is fully encrypted and/or the first OS doesn’t have drivers for the second’s filesystems: because malware can install said drivers and attack at least the bootloader - though that night have been protected by secure boot if it weren’t for this new exploit?

    • elscallr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      It would effect any UEFI based system regardless of OS from one of the affected manufacturers (which is basically all of them).

      • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        But I mean, this attack can go cross-OS? I.e. a successful attack on one OS on the dual boot machine can, via UEFI infect the other OS?

        • Nyfure@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, it can execute code regardless of OS installed because it persists on the Mainboard and loads before any OS, making it possible to inject code into any OS.

  • Caveman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    On Linux/Mac you have no use sudo. For sudo you need a password.

    This thing will make it very easy to make a rubber ducky though.

    • HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Would be pretty easy to pull off if you had hardware access. Just boot from a flash drive and drop the exploit from there.

      Even if their OS is full disk encrypted, this can easily inject a backdoor or just keylog the bootup password prompt.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Hundreds of Windows and Linux computer models from virtually all hardware makers are vulnerable to a new attack that executes malicious firmware early in the boot-up sequence, a feat that allows infections that are nearly impossible to detect or remove using current defense mechanisms.

    The attack—dubbed LogoFAIL by the researchers who devised it—is notable for the relative ease in carrying it out, the breadth of both consumer- and enterprise-grade models that are susceptible, and the high level of control it gains over them.

    LogoFAIL is a constellation of two dozen newly discovered vulnerabilities that have lurked for years, if not decades, in Unified Extensible Firmware Interfaces responsible for booting modern devices that run Windows or Linux.

    The participating companies comprise nearly the entirety of the x64 and ARM CPU ecosystem, starting with UEFI suppliers AMI, Insyde, and Phoenix (sometimes still called IBVs or independent BIOS vendors); device manufacturers such as Lenovo, Dell, and HP; and the makers of the CPUs that go inside the devices, usually Intel, AMD or designers of ARM CPUs.

    As its name suggests, LogoFAIL involves logos, specifically those of the hardware seller that are displayed on the device screen early in the boot process, while the UEFI is still running.

    LogoFAIL is a newly discovered set of high-impact security vulnerabilities affecting different image parsing libraries used in the system firmware by various vendors during the device boot process.


    The original article contains 663 words, the summary contains 232 words. Saved 65%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

      • Amju Wolf@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because there really isn’t one, lol.

        By the time an attacker has a write access to your boot permission everything else is kinda fucked already.

        • NaN@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This is worse than many, since it persists across reinstalls and even potentially drive swaps, and fools systems such as secure boot.

          • wmassingham@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            If it’s only on the ESP, it won’t persist across reinstalls, and definitely not drive swaps.

            But I do see mentions of attacking via firmware capsule. If that works, then yes, that will persist.

            • NaN@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              ESP is usually not cleared on a reinstall unless somebody takes the extra step to do so. Since each OS has its own directory within the ESP their installers don’t push it. I was mostly referring to modification in firmware though.

        • Chewy@discuss.tchncs.deOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, an attacker with write access to boot already compromised the entire OS and data. Usually replacing the storage or reinstalling the OS would get rid of the attacker. But this exploit happens early in the boot process, before the OS even loads.

          This means the only way to ensure a network remains uncompromised after an attack is physically destroying any infected devices or replacing their mainboard.

          There are major benefits to this approach. One is that no executable code ever touches the hard drive, a technique known as fileless malware that hampers detection by antivirus and other types of endpoint protection software. Another benefit: Once the image is in place, it ensures a device remains infected even when an operating system is reinstalled or the main hard drive is replaced.