Desktop risk analysis from Qubes,
http://qubes-os.org via
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/qubes-devel/HgQ_aW...---
This seemingly looks like a serious problem, but if we think a little
bit about the practical impact the conclusion might be quite different.
First, there are really no secrets or keys in the hypervisor memory that
might make a good target for an exploit here. Xen hypervisor does not do
encryption, neither it deals with any storage subsystems. Also there is
no explicit guest memory content intermixed with the hypervisor code and
data.
But one place to see pieces of potentially sensitive data are the Xen
internal structures where the guest _registers_ are stored whenever the
guest execution is interrupted (e.g. because of a trap). These registers
might contain e.g. (parts of) keys or other secrets, if the guest was
executing some sensitive crypto operation just before it got interrupted.
The vulnerability allows to read only a few kB of the hypervisor memory,
with only relative addressing from the emulated APIC registers page,
whose address is not known to the attacker. Still, for the exactly
same systems (same binaries running, same ACPI tables, etc) it's likely
that the attacker would be able to guess the address of the APIC page.
However, it is much less probable she would be able to predict what Xen
structures are located in the adjacent memory. Much less the attacker
would be able to control what structure are located there, as there
doesn't seem to be many ways of how a malicious HVM might be
significantly affecting the layout of the hypervisor heap (e.g. force
arch_vcpu structures of interesting domains to appear nearby).
Nevertheless, it might happen, by pure coincidence, that an arch_vcpu
structure with a content of an interesting VM will just happen to be
located adjacently to the emulated APIC page.
In that case, the next problem for the attacker would be lack of control
and knowledge over the target VM execution: even if the attacker were
somehow lucky to find the other VM's register-holding-structure adjacent
to the APIC page, it would still be unclear what the target VM was
executing at the time it was suspended and so, whether the registers
stored in the structure are worthwhile or not.
It is thinkable that the attacker might attempt to use some form of a
heuristic, such as e.g. "if RIP == X, then RAX likely contains (parts
of) the important key", hoping that this specific RIP would signify a
specific interesting instruction (e.g. part of some crypto library)
being executed while the VM was interrupted, and so the key is to be
found in one of the registers.
But the attacker's memory reading exploit doesn't offer a comfort of
synchronization, so even though the attacker might be so extremely lucky
as to find out that
*(apic_page + guessed_offset_to_rip) == X
(the
attacker here assumes the 'guessed_offset_to_rip' is the distance
between the APIC page and the address where RIP is stored in the
presumable arch_vcpu structure, that presumably is located adjacently),
still there is no guarantees that the next read to
*(apic_page + guest_offset_to_rax)
will return the content of RAX from the same moment
that RIP was snapshot (and which the attacker considered interesting).
Arguably the attacker might try to fire up the attack continuously, thus
increasing chances of success. Assuming this won't cause system to crash
due to accessing non-mapped memory, this might sound like a somehow good
strategy.
However, in case of a desktop system like Qubes OS, the attacker has
very limited control over other domains. Unlike as in case of attacking
a VM playing a role of a Web server for instance, the attacker probably
won't be able to force the target VMs to do lots of repeated crypto
operations, neither choose moments when the target VM traps.
It seems like exploiting this bug in an IaaS scenario might be more
practical, though, as the attacker also has some control of domain
creation/termination, so can affect Xen heap to some extent. But on a
system like Qubes OS, it seems unlikely.
So, are we doomed? We likely are, but probably not because of this bug.
---