Source Link Privacy.

Privacy test result

https://themarkup.org/blacklight?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tarlogic.com%2Fnews%2Fbackdoor-esp32-chip-infect-ot-devices%2F&device=mobile&location=us-ca&force=false

Tarlogic Security has detected a backdoor in the ESP32, a microcontroller that enables WiFi and Bluetooth connection and is present in millions of mass-market IoT devices. Exploitation of this backdoor would allow hostile actors to conduct impersonation attacks and permanently infect sensitive devices such as mobile phones, computers, smart locks or medical equipment by bypassing code audit controls.

Update: The ESP32 “backdoor” that wasn’t.

  • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    206
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    Well… Shit.

    There are so, so, so, many ESP32’s in not just my house, but practically everyone I know.

    There outta be fines for this BS.

    • cogman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      171
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 day ago

      You’re fine. This isn’t something that can be exploited over wifi. You literally need physical access to the device to exploit it as it’s commands over USB that allow flashing the chip.

      This is a security firm making everything sound scary because they want you to buy their testing device.

        • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 hours ago

          This is about silicon. Undocumented instructions have just been found in it but they are not executable unless the ESP32’s firmware uses them. Firmware cannot be edited to use them unless you have an existing vulnerability such as physical access or insecure OTA in existing firmware (as far as researchers know).

        • cogman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          74
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          I just re-read the article and yes, you still need physical access.

          The exploit is one that bypasses OS protections to writing to the firmware. In otherwords, you need to get the device to run a malicious piece of code or exploit a vulnerability in already running code that also interacts with the bluetooth stack.

          The exploit, explicitly, is not one that can be carried out with a drive-by Bluetooth connection. You also need faulty software running on the device.

          • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            21
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            23 hours ago

            “Depending on how Bluetooth stacks handle HCI commands on the device, remote exploitation of the backdoor might be possible via malicious firmware or rogue Bluetooth connections.”

            I of course don’t know details but I’m basing my post on that sentence. “Backdoor may be possible via … rogue Bluetooth connections.”

            • haleywm@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              71
              ·
              23 hours ago

              Looking at the article, the exploit requires you to be able to send arbitrary data to the Bluetooth device over a physical connection. This means that a properly secure application will be protected from drive by connections, but if the application has an exploit that either lets an attacker write arbitrary values to the Bluetooth controller, or more likely contains a general arbitrary code execution exploit, then you could use this to rewrite values to the chip that would let you “persist” certain changes to the Bluetooth chip that would be difficult to notice.

              I would consider this a moderate concern, as this will definitely increase your options if you’re looking to be able to make an attack that targets a specific device and this gives you a few additional persistence options, but any attack would have to be designed for a particular program running connected to a Bluetooth chip.

              A more likely concern in my opinion would be the possibility of a supply chain attack, where someone compromises a Bluetooth chip that they know will be used to construct a particular part.

              I don’t think that it’s super likely that either of these will affect the average person, only corporations and governments where espionage is an actual threat, as if you can find a Bluetooth IOT device that you want to mess with, like a Bluetooth enabled door lock, then you’re more likely to be able to find an arbitrary code execution attack which causes it to unlock immediately. Being able to spoof a different Bluetooth device isn’t likely to give you that big of an advantage when you’re working with a device that was already vulnerable for a different reason.

              • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                15 hours ago

                Thank you for the analysis, very insightful!

                Do you reckon this is more of an oversight or bug in the BT stack, or a deliberately places backdoor as the title seems to suggest?

                • haleywm@startrek.website
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  13 hours ago

                  From what I can tell from looking at it, this seems like something deliberately left in, but not for malicious reasons. The op codes referenced simply give access to lower level parts of the boards programming. ESP32’s are already a user programmable board, a valid use case is to run your entire application on one if the code being run is lightweight enough to not interfere with the Bluetooth code. Either during development, or during runtime, these undocumented codes are likely used to run specific commands on the board.

                  The actual issue as far as I can tell, since normally it’s valid usage to rewrite the board over USB, is that ESP32 boards also offer ways to encrypt device code, and require it to be signed, and you are presumably able to mess with this in order to dump code that was expected to be securely encrypted, and overwrite code on devices that was intended to require signing. (https://docs.espressif.com/projects/esp-idf/en/latest/esp32s3/security/secure-boot-v2.html#background)

                  Proving what someone was thinking when they programmed something is extremely difficult unless you can find written evidence of someone specifically saying if they did something or not, but this all seems like a legitimate minor exploit in a device that wasn’t built by, or intended for, people who are working against highly resourced attackers. This is still not a concern for normal people who aren’t concerned about being attacked by spies, and if a nation state wanted to hide a vulnerability in something then there are far easier paths to take than one that only works if you can steal a microcontroller so you can connect to it over USB.

        • IllNess@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          30
          ·
          1 day ago

          Depending on how Bluetooth stacks handle HCI commands on the device, remote exploitation of the backdoor might be possible via malicious firmware or rogue Bluetooth connections.

          I really wish these articles just tell us what these scenarios are. I understand companies need publicity or need to sell software but if it isn’t replicatable and the article says “might be possible” it kind of sounds like a secuity sales pitch.

          This is especially the case if an attacker already has root access, planted malware, or pushed a malicious update on the device that opens up low-level access.

          This part basically sounds more like a software issue where the attacker has a way in already. The system is already vulernable at this point before using the exploit found.

          I don’t think there’s enough information out yet.

          It is very interesting though.

      • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 day ago

        I do have a few outside. Probably not the best security-wise. Haha. Those are the first to get patched when one comes out.

        • cogman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          34
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Security wise, unless you are being specifically targeted by someone, you are almost certainly fine. And if you are being specifically targeted, I think someone hacking your ESPs is the least of your worries. A malicious attacker that knows your physical location can do a lot more scary things than just spying through ESPs.

          • Treczoks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 day ago

            Just wait until a jester creates a software that sends an erase flash backdoor command to any BT device it sees.

            • rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 hours ago

              One of my friends is a type I diabetic. He had some sort of smart thingamajig in his teenage years for measuring blood sugar, so you could monitor it over time or warn your family if you’re in some critical situation.

              The jester may mean simply to prank, but they may well have blood on their hands if they fuck up medical devices such as that one.

            • oldfart@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              14 hours ago

              And runs with an USB cable flashing other peoples ESPs to ruin everyone’s day

      • tehmics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        In that case, how long til some open source project uses it to make a custom firmware to bypass the manufacturer bs and integrate my cheap IoTs seamlessly into Home assistant?

      • Treczoks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 day ago

        Wrong. Read the analysis. It is a BT vulnerability. One can probably design a cheap attack system that just sends a erase flash command to any BT device in reach, instantly bricking every BT enabled ESP32 device.

        • cogman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          24 hours ago

          Just reread it and no, it’s not a BT vulnerability. The “erase flash” command is something that has to be done by software running outside the BT stack. You can even see that inside the slides. The UsbBluetooth software is connected to the device with the flawed bluetooth chipset.

          The vulnerability is that if you have this chipset and compromised software, someone can flash the chipset with compromised flash. They even say that it’s not an easy attack to pull off in the article.

          In general, though, physical access to the device’s USB or UART interface would be far riskier and a more realistic attack scenario.

          In otherwords, the attack is something that can only be pulled off if there’s also a security vulnerability within other parts of the hardware stack.