SpectreRSB targets CPU return stack buffer, found on Intel, AMD, and ARM chipsets

Attacks exploiting operating systems and applications have been on an exponential rise in recent time. One such popular class of vulnerability is the Spectre, which exploits the speculative execution mechanism employed in modern processor chips and has recently targeted Intel, AMD, and ARM. The assumed dead exploit which resurfaced as a new variant of Spectre, SpectreRSB, was successful in exploiting the return stack buffer (RSB), a common predictor structure in modern CPUs used to predict return addresses.

Spectre, which was first detected in January this year, has remained resilient. The Spectre variant 1, which Dartmouth claimed to resolve using its ELFbac policy techniques. The next one is the Spectre variant 2, which Google fixed using its Retpoline. Next to follow are the new data-stealing exploits, Spectre 1.1 and 1.2, detected just two weeks ago by Vladimir Kiriansky and Carl Waldspurger. And the most recent one in the headlines is the SpectreRSB.

This spectre-class exploit, SpectreRSB, was revealed by security experts from the University of California, Riverside (UCR). They mentioned the details of this new exploit attack method in a research paper published by Arxiv, titled ‘Spectre Returns! Speculation Attacks using the Return Stack Buffer’

What is SpectreRSB?

The SpectreRSB exploit relies on speculative execution, a feature found in several modern CPUs for optimizing computing performance. Due to the disparity between the potential speed of modern CPUs and memory, speculative execution occurs to keep efficiency at peak levels. However, to do so, the CPU is employed with running batch instructions.

Once the instructions start, the CPU does not really check whether the memory accesses from the cache are accessing via a privileged memory. This exactly is the time for exploits to attack the system.

As per the UCR researchers, SpectreRSB takes a slight detour from other similar attacks such as Meltdown. Rather than exploit the branch predictor units of CPUs or CPU cache components, SpectreRSB exploits the Return Stack Buffer (RSB).

Researcher Nael Abu-Ghazaleh wrote, “To launch the attack, the attacker should poison the RSB (a different and arguably easier process than poisoning the branch predictor) and then cause a return instruction without a preceding call instruction in the victim (which is arguably more difficult than finding an indirect branch).”

The paper says SpectreRSB also enables an attack against the Intel SGX (Software Guard Extensions) compartment. Here a malicious OS pollutes the RSB to cause a mis-speculation exposing data outside an SGX compartment. This attack bypasses all software and microcode patches on the SGX machine.

How to Defend against SpectreRSB?

Researchers stated that they reported SpectreRSB to companies that use RSBs to predict return addresses, which include Intel, AMD and ARM. Out of the three, AMD and ARM did not respond to a request for comment from Threatpost.

However, in a reply to one of the statements in the Threatpost, an Intel spokesperson stated via an email, “SpectreRSB is related to branch target injection (CVE-2017-5715), and we expect that the exploits described in this paper are mitigated in the same manner.” He further stated that, “We have already published guidance for developers in the whitepaper, Speculative Execution Side Channel Mitigations. We are thankful for the ongoing work of the research community as we collectively work to help protect customers.”

Following this, the UCR researchers stated that this newly found SpectreRSB cannot be prevented, using prior known defenses such as Google’s Retpoline fix, Intel’s microcode patches and so on. However, the researchers did mention the existence of a defense to mitigate against the SpectreRSB known as RSB stuffing.

RSB stuffing currently exists on Intel’s Core i7 processors, starting from its Skylake lineup. With RSB stuffing, also known as  RSB refilling, every time there is a switch into the kernel, the RSB is intentionally filled with the address of a benign delay gadget to avoid the possibility of mis-speculation.

Abu-Ghazaleh told Threatpost, “For some of the more dangerous attacks, the attack starts from the user code, but it's trying to get the OS to return to the poisoned address. Refilling overwrites the entries in the RSB whenever we switch to the kernel (for example, at the same points where the KPTI patch remaps the kernel addresses).  So, the user cannot get the kernel to return to its poisoned addresses in the RSB.”

Read more about the SpectreRSB in its research paper.

Social engineering attacks – things to watch out for while online

Top 5 cybersecurity trends you should be aware of in 2018

Top 5 cybersecurity myths debunked