Incident: Hardware Backdoor Exploitation: Invisible Threat to Computer Security

Published Date: 2016-06-01

Postmortem Analysis
Timeline 1. The software failure incident described in the article happened when the researchers at the University of Michigan conducted their study on the insidious hardware backdoor. The article was published on June 1, 2016 [44115]. 2. Estimation: The incident likely occurred before the publication date of the article, so it can be estimated that the software failure incident happened sometime before June 2016.
System unknown
Responsible Organization unknown
Impacted Organization unknown
Software Causes unknown
Non-software Causes 1. The failure incident was caused by a physical hardware backdoor planted in the processor at the silicon level, which was invisible to software and even the chip's designer [44115].
Impacts 1. The software failure incident described in the article had a significant impact on computer security, highlighting the vulnerability of hardware processors to undetectable backdoors [44115]. 2. The incident raised concerns about the potential for malicious actors to exploit hardware vulnerabilities, potentially leading to unauthorized access to operating systems and compromising computer security [44115]. 3. The research conducted by the University of Michigan researchers demonstrated the feasibility of creating a microscopic hardware backdoor that could go undetected by current security analysis methods, emphasizing the need for new approaches to ensure hardware trustworthiness [44115].
Preventions 1. Implementing a trusted component in modern chips that constantly checks for inappropriate operating-system-level privileges could have prevented the software failure incident described in the article [44115]. 2. Ensuring the security of the trusted component by building it in secure facilities or preventing design tampering before fabrication could have also prevented the incident [44115].
Fixes 1. Implementing a trusted component in modern chips that constantly checks for inappropriate operating-system-level privileges [44115].
References 1. University of Michigan researchers [44115]

Software Taxonomy of Faults

Category Option Rationale
Recurring unknown The articles do not provide information about a specific software failure incident happening again at a particular organization or across multiple organizations. Therefore, the information related to the recurrence of a software failure incident is unknown based on the provided articles.
Phase (Design/Operation) unknown The articles do not provide information about a specific software failure incident related to the development phases, whether in the design or operation stages. Therefore, the specific details related to software failure incidents occurring due to design or operation factors are unknown in this context.
Boundary (Internal/External) within_system (a) within_system: The software failure incident described in the articles is related to a hardware-based backdoor attack that exploits the physical properties of the chip's components. The backdoor, named A2, is a microscopic hardware backdoor that is hidden within the processor's hardware itself. It is designed to take advantage of the chip's wiring and the unintended physical properties of its components to trigger an unexpected outcome, giving full access to the operating system to a hacker [44115]. This failure originates from within the system as it involves a malicious component added to the chip's blueprint during the fabrication process, rather than being a result of external factors.
Nature (Human/Non-human) non-human_actions (a) The software failure incident occurring due to non-human actions: The article discusses a security flaw in hardware processors that can be exploited by a microscopic hardware backdoor, named A2, which is a physical hack that takes advantage of the actual electricity flowing through the chip's transistors. This backdoor is designed to trigger an unexpected outcome by accumulating and storing electric charge through a capacitor component added to the chip's blueprint, without affecting the chip's logical functions. This non-human action of the capacitor accumulating charge over time can lead to a malicious program gaining full access to the operating system [44115]. (b) The software failure incident occurring due to human actions: The article does not mention any software failure incident occurring due to contributing factors introduced by human actions.
Dimension (Hardware/Software) hardware (a) The software failure incident in the articles is related to hardware. The incident describes a security flaw that involves a microscopic hardware backdoor planted in the hardware of the processor, specifically in the chip's wiring components. This hardware backdoor, named A2 (Analog Attack), takes advantage of the physical properties of the chip's components to trigger an unexpected outcome by accumulating and leaking small amounts of electric charge [44115]. The backdoor is designed to give a hacker full access to the operating system by exploiting the chip's analog functions, which makes it extremely difficult to detect using traditional hardware security analysis methods. (b) The software failure incident is not related to contributing factors originating in software.
Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) malicious (a) The objective of the software failure incident was malicious. The article describes a security flaw in hardware processors where a backdoor was purposefully planted by spies or saboteurs with the intent to give hackers full access to the operating system. This backdoor was hidden in the hardware at a microscopic level, making it extremely difficult to detect and was designed to be triggered by specific commands to grant unauthorized access [44115]. (b) The software failure incident was non-malicious in the sense that the flaw was not introduced accidentally or without intent. It was a deliberate act of inserting a hardware backdoor by adding a single component to the chip's blueprint, which was designed to exploit the physical properties of the chip's components to achieve unauthorized access [44115].
Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) accidental_decisions The intent of the software failure incident described in the articles is related to "accidental_decisions." The failure was not due to poor decisions but rather to mistakes or unintended decisions made during the fabrication process of the hardware components of the processor. The backdoor was designed to exploit the unintended physical properties of the chip's components, specifically the ability to accumulate and leak small amounts of charge, rather than intentional logical functions [44115].
Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) unknown The articles do not provide information about a software failure incident related to development incompetence or accidental factors.
Duration unknown The articles do not provide information about a specific software failure incident related to either a permanent or temporary duration.
Behaviour other (a) crash: The articles do not mention a software failure incident related to a crash where the system loses state and does not perform any of its intended functions. (b) omission: The articles do not mention a software failure incident related to omission where the system omits to perform its intended functions at an instance(s). (c) timing: The articles do not mention a software failure incident related to timing where the system performs its intended functions correctly, but too late or too early. (d) value: The articles do not mention a software failure incident related to value where the system performs its intended functions incorrectly. (e) byzantine: The articles do not mention a software failure incident related to a byzantine failure where the system behaves erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions. (f) other: The articles discuss a hardware backdoor attack that is not directly related to a software failure incident.

IoT System Layer

Layer Option Rationale
Perception None None
Communication None None
Application None None

Other Details

Category Option Rationale
Consequence unknown (a) death: People lost their lives due to the software failure - No information about people losing their lives due to the software failure was mentioned in the articles [44115]. (b) harm: People were physically harmed due to the software failure - No information about people being physically harmed due to the software failure was mentioned in the articles [44115]. (c) basic: People's access to food or shelter was impacted because of the software failure - No information about people's access to food or shelter being impacted due to the software failure was mentioned in the articles [44115]. (d) property: People's material goods, money, or data was impacted due to the software failure - The software failure incident described in the articles [44115] focused on a hardware backdoor attack that could potentially compromise computer security by providing unauthorized access to the operating system. There was no direct mention of people's material goods, money, or data being impacted. (e) delay: People had to postpone an activity due to the software failure - There was no mention of people having to postpone an activity due to the software failure incident in the articles [44115]. (f) non-human: Non-human entities were impacted due to the software failure - The software failure incident described in the articles [44115] primarily focused on the potential security implications for computer systems due to the hardware backdoor attack. There was no specific mention of non-human entities being impacted. (g) no_consequence: There were no real observed consequences of the software failure - The articles [44115] did not mention any real observed consequences resulting from the software failure incident. (h) theoretical_consequence: There were potential consequences discussed of the software failure that did not occur - The articles [44115] discussed the theoretical consequences of the hardware backdoor attack, highlighting the potential risks to computer security and the challenges in detecting such attacks. However, there was no mention of these theoretical consequences actually occurring. (i) other: Was there consequence(s) of the software failure not described in the (a to h) options? What is the other consequence(s)? - The articles [44115] did not mention any other specific consequences of the software failure incident beyond the potential security implications discussed in relation to the hardware backdoor attack.
Domain information (a) The failed system in the article is related to the information industry, specifically computer security and hardware vulnerabilities [44115]. (b) Not mentioned in the article. (c) Not mentioned in the article. (d) Not mentioned in the article. (e) Not mentioned in the article. (f) Not mentioned in the article. (g) Not mentioned in the article. (h) Not mentioned in the article. (i) Not mentioned in the article. (j) Not mentioned in the article. (k) Not mentioned in the article. (l) Not mentioned in the article. (m) The failed system in the article is related to the hardware and computer security industry, focusing on the vulnerability of processors and potential backdoors [44115].

Sources

Back to List