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.

  • notanapple@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    97
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    We really should be pushing for fully open source stack (firmware, os) in all iot devices. They are not very complicated so this should be entirely possible. Probably will need a EU law though.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      Backdoored devices are useful for people who can impede that.

      And the way EU is approaching privacy, surveillance and all such, - oh-hoh-ho, I don’t think there will be a EU law.

    • secret300@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      I 100% believe firmware should be open source no question about it. There’s so many devices out there especially phones and iot devices that just become e-waste because you can’t do anything with it once it’s not supported if it was open source and documented in some way then it could be used. I have like five cheap phones that I got because they were so cheap but once they lost support they’ve become completely useless even though they still work.

  • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    163
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days 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
      135
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      2 days 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.

        • cogman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          53
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days 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
            18
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 days 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
              48
              ·
              2 days 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
                ·
                1 day 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?

        • IllNess@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          28
          ·
          2 days 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
        13
        ·
        2 days 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
          30
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days 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
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

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

      • tehmics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 days 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
        7
        ·
        2 days 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
          14
          ·
          2 days 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.

  • ycnz@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    2 days ago

    I hate it when an attacker who already has root access to my device gets sightly more access to the firmware. Definitely spin up a website and a logo, maybe a post in Bloomberg.

  • fubarx@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 days ago

    This sounds like there are some undocumented opcodes on the HCI side – the Host Computer Interface – not the wireless side. By itself, it’s not that big a deal. If someone can prove that there’s some sort of custom BLE packet that gives access to those HCI opcodes wirelessly, I’d be REALLY concerned.

    But if it’s just on the host side, you can only get to it if you’ve cracked the box and have access to the wiring. If someone has that kind of access, they’re likely to be able to flash their own firmware and take over the whole device anyway.

    Not sure this disclosure increases the risk any. I wouldn’t start panicking.

  • Oisteink@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    Too much fanfare and too little real info shared to be of any value. Sounds more like an ad than infosec

  • NightCrawlerProMax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    2 days ago

    The other day someone posted in Canada community that Canada should stop using Tesla cars and import Chinese cars. I replied saying, “That’s like replacing one evil with another.” I was downvoted by a lot of people. I should’ve expected it cuz a lot of people have short term memory.

    • matlag@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 days ago

      Because that’s not about privacy, that’s about the trade war. Retaliatory tariffs on US cars increase cost of cars for Canadians, as there are almost no car assembled in Canada. Reducing or eliminating tariffs on cars from China would lower cost of new cars for Canadians while keeping the tariffs up.

      For privacy and security, not a single new car on the market is decent right now. That should be regulated, but that’s no concern for any politician at the moment.

      • NightCrawlerProMax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        CCP has backdoor into every tech that comes out of China. It’s not about just privacy. They control democracies based on shaping narratives. They’ll utilize everything that democracy offers and use it against countries. They don’t have freedom of speech or press so they themselves are not victims of it. EVs are really just computers on the road. Flooding the market with Chinese EVs would just mean creating a massive free network on a foreign soil for them.

    • Legume5534@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      There’s been a lot of that lately. Same here in New Zealand.

      You dipshits, they’re both the bad guys now.

    • Montreal_Metro@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      A lot of people are dumb. Or maybe because they feel offended because they are Chinese, but the reality is that every Chinese company is ultimately controlled by the CCP. If I was fighting a cold war, I would do the same. Sell compromised devices to my trade partners (AKA enemies) so I have leverage when I need it.

      • DigitalDilemma@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        the reality is that every Chinese company is ultimately controlled by the CCP.

        Yes.

        But in the same way that every US company is ultimately controlled by the US Government. And every EU company by them. And every other country by their own government.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      People act like traditional car manufacturers don’t exist anymore even though they all over EV options…

    • norevolutionsontv@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Everyone has short-term memory and long-term memory. You’re misunderstanding precisely what “short-term memory” refers to. Short-term memory is held for a short time before it’s converted to long-term memory. What you’re referring to is being short-sighted. As in people who don’t fully think about the long-term consequences of current actions. Said short-sighted people still have both short and long-term memory. They’re probably just a little dumb so they don’t fully utilize the memories stored long-term.

    • Subdivide6857@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      2 days ago

      “China bad” because western media says so. Please disregard the billions of dollars spent by western governments to ensure you keep thinking that way.

      It’s just another capitalistic country no better or worse than Canada or the USA. Though, the Chinese government has said their intention is to move towards socialism, so good for them. I’m stuck over here witnessing fascist billionaires loot the government/working class.

      • NoSpotOfGround@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        Well, no, China is bad because freedom is very restricted there and because they have ambitions to dominate the world.

        Yes, every other world power in the world is more or less the same. People cannot, in general, be trusted to be “good” when given the opportunity to abuse. A world power can be held in check by the presence and efforts of other world powers, though.

  • RmDebArc_5@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’d like to know if this is just a firmware update or unfixable, but sadly this seems just an ad rather than news

      • neuracnu@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Solid article. I imagine the folks at the cyberwire podcast will be doing more digging over the weekend for a solid summary come Monday.

      • Crafter72@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Thanks for the link, this article is more clear compared to the posted above.

        I’m more interested to the scope of the exploit whether it could touch the flash of the controller or not as you can also do OTA update through the BLE component.

    • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      Even if it were fixable, it would be up to manufacturers to push updates. I doubt any really care enough.

    • Treczoks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      It is not easy to determine how fixable this is. IIRC, the ESP32 has the wireless stack hidden from user space, and I am not sure if it is a blob included during link time, or if it is stored in a ROM of the chip. I do have the chips and the development enviroment in my studio, but (luckily) I decided to use a different chip for my project.

      But I know there is a load of systems using either the ESP32 as their main processor, or as an auxiliary processor to add WiFi or BT capabilities, so this really is a big oh shit moment.

    • embed_me@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 days ago

      The article is talking about the Espressif ESP32 micro controller (has Wi-Fi/Classic Bluetooth/BLE).

      I don’t know if the variants of this chip also have the same vulnerability (my guess is yes). As someone who works on this chip, I’m interested in more discourse on this matter.

      • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Yeah, I caught the ESP32 part and tried to search for what devices these chips were built into, but couldn’t find one. I was curious how widespread the flaw was - as in, what consumer or infrastructure devices they might be in.

  • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 days ago

    One more reason to have actual open-source drivers instead of binary blobs…

  • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    Not the first time a backdoor was found on Chinese made hardware and it won‘t be the last time. Decoupling can‘t happen quickly enough.

    • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      Which government’s backdoors would you prefer?

      “We know you have a choice in oppressive governments, so we appreciate you choosing ours.”

      • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        None of them, that’s why the only things in my house that connect to the internet are my computers, game consoles, and cell phone

          • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Obviously, but I trust my Linux mint laptop a hell of a lot better than my aunt’s XIPPLG branded wifi cat feeder that she bought off Amazon

        • catloaf@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          I guarantee all off those have components from manufacturers that a government could pressure for a backdoor.

          • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 days ago

            You are correct, and it doesn’t change my stance at all. It’s still worth it to mitigate risk even if you can’t mitigate all risk.

            Like, the fact that my 3d printer is already a fire hazard does not justify leaving a bunch of candles unattended

          • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Like I said 6 hours ago, just because I can’t mitigate all of the risk doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t mitigate as much as I reasonably can.

            My 3d printer is a fire hazard, but that’s no excuse for leaving a bunch of candles unattended.

            • targetx@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              Ah I missed the other comment, my client still had a cached view apparently. And definitely true regarding mitigation, your phrasing just read funny to me :)

    • randompasta@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 days ago

      True, but the ESP32 is used by a lot of devices. This backdoor is pretty huge in scope of devices impacted.

      • earphone843@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        It depends on what the method of attack is. I’m not seeing anything saying that it would be possible to exploit wirelessly, so this could easily be mostly a non-issue.

    • Bear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I mean, most users here are browsing using a device with an AMD or Intel CPU, both with known backdoors. Not the first time a backdoor was found on American made hardware and it won’t be the last.

  • EndofLife@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Jokes on them, I live in America when all that shit was already being done.

  • nicky7@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    I read in another article that the identified 28 backdoor commands.

  • mystik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 days ago

    I have a bunch of ESP32’s that … I can update and replace the firmware on, if i reset it the right way with a usb cable. the web site doesn’t explain it any way how this is any worse than that…?