this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2024
27 points (82.9% liked)

PC Gaming

8520 readers
456 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 31 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Requires ring 0 access to the system in the first place. So for any normal user it's a nothing burger

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

I really dislike the idea of "needs ring 0 = nothingburger".

There's plenty if ways to gain ring 0 access like a user to approving a UAC prompt... Or for an attacker to utilize any number of existing ring 0 escalation vulnerabilities on an unpatched system, or for a UAC bypass to be utilized, or for the attacker to establish a RAT on the system using a tech support scam or similar.

Difficult? Yes!

Only viable via a supply chain attack as some like to suggest? Absolutely not.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

Not entirely a nothing burger, I think. If there’s any truth to the anti-cheat outrage, there’s a large population of average joes handing out ring 0 access to a growing number of third or fourth party companies for the purpose of kernel level anti-cheat in video games.

Still a supply chain attack or a vulnerability in one of the A/C programs, but not as impossible as we would like it to be.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Not quite a nothingburger

Nissim and Okupski note that exploiting the bug would require hackers to already have obtained relatively deep access to an AMD-based PC or server, but that the Sinkclose flaw would then allow them to plant their malicious code far deeper still. In fact, for any machine with one of the vulnerable AMD chips, the IOActive researchers warn that an attacker could infect the computer with malware known as a “bootkit” that evades antivirus tools and is potentially invisible to the operating system, while offering a hacker full access to tamper with the machine and surveil its activity.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Woudn't secure boot catch this as long as you don't have one of the boards with the do not use key.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I know, but this requires a supply chain attack - not a likely thing to happen,

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This does not require a supply chain attack, just a user ignorantly clicking yes on a UAC prompt. After which the machine is forever compromised, even after replacing ssds / hdds.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Wouldn't it be fixed by wiping the drives and re flashing the bios ? (Or the opposite order)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

From my understanding it allows malicious code to be installed in protected memory on the CPU itself, so you can't get rid of it once it's there without a lot of extra work