Can a virus destroy the BIOS of a modern computer?is computrace a permanent backdoor?BIOS upgrade only with PGP-signature / encrypting the whole BIOSProtecting the BIOS from malwareUnlock a computer bios?Can Restarting An Infected Computer Make It Worse?Can HDD without OS contain active virusCan BIOS malware be installed from OS?Feasibility of infecting notebook BIOS with virus?Can BIOS/UEFI change OS code?Explain how a BIOS/UEFI infection may compromise the security of the Operating SystemIs knowing the BIOS password of help in hacking a computer *remotely*?

What's the difference between 'rename' and 'mv'?

How can saying a song's name be a copyright violation?

What mechanic is there to disable a threat instead of killing it?

What reasons are there for a Capitalist to oppose a 100% inheritance tax?

Facing a paradox: Earnshaw's theorem in one dimension

How can I make my BBEG immortal short of making them a Lich or Vampire?

prove that the matrix A is diagonalizable

Alternative to sending password over mail?

What to put in ESTA if staying in US for a few days before going on to Canada

Did Shadowfax go to Valinor?

How to take photos in burst mode, without vibration?

Can I ask the recruiters in my resume to put the reason why I am rejected?

I Accidentally Deleted a Stock Terminal Theme

Where does SFDX store details about scratch orgs?

Is it canonical bit space?

Famous Pre Reformation Christian Pastors (Non Catholic and Non Orthodox)

Why does Kotter return in Welcome Back Kotter

Infinite Abelian subgroup of infinite non Abelian group example

Is it legal for company to use my work email to pretend I still work there?

How to draw the figure with four pentagons?

Is it possible to download Internet Explorer on my Mac running OS X El Capitan?

Why doesn't H₄O²⁺ exist?

Does a druid starting with a bow start with no arrows?

Python: return float 1.0 as int 1 but float 1.5 as float 1.5



Can a virus destroy the BIOS of a modern computer?


is computrace a permanent backdoor?BIOS upgrade only with PGP-signature / encrypting the whole BIOSProtecting the BIOS from malwareUnlock a computer bios?Can Restarting An Infected Computer Make It Worse?Can HDD without OS contain active virusCan BIOS malware be installed from OS?Feasibility of infecting notebook BIOS with virus?Can BIOS/UEFI change OS code?Explain how a BIOS/UEFI infection may compromise the security of the Operating SystemIs knowing the BIOS password of help in hacking a computer *remotely*?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








87















In the late 1990s, a computer virus known as CIH began infecting some computers. Its payload, when triggered, overwrote system information and destroyed the computer's BIOS, essentially bricking whatever computer it infected. Could a virus that affects modern operating systems (Like Windows 10) destroy the BIOS of a modern computer and essentially brick it the same way, or is it now impossible for a virus to gain access to a modern computer's BIOS?










share|improve this question









New contributor




user73910 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • yes but from an attacker perspective it is a waste or resources... More info on a rootkit for UEFI as an example in the bellow paper... welivesecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ESET-LoJax.pdf

    – Hugo
    11 hours ago











  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – Rory Alsop
    11 hours ago











  • Some (or most?) desktop motherboards have a ROM used to recover the BIOS from some form of media (in the old days, floppy disks, these days, USB sticks, maybe cd-rom). The ROM can't be modified, however recovery usually requires opening the case and moving a jumper to boot into BIOS recovery mode. I don't know how laptops deal with this.

    – rcgldr
    7 hours ago

















87















In the late 1990s, a computer virus known as CIH began infecting some computers. Its payload, when triggered, overwrote system information and destroyed the computer's BIOS, essentially bricking whatever computer it infected. Could a virus that affects modern operating systems (Like Windows 10) destroy the BIOS of a modern computer and essentially brick it the same way, or is it now impossible for a virus to gain access to a modern computer's BIOS?










share|improve this question









New contributor




user73910 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • yes but from an attacker perspective it is a waste or resources... More info on a rootkit for UEFI as an example in the bellow paper... welivesecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ESET-LoJax.pdf

    – Hugo
    11 hours ago











  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – Rory Alsop
    11 hours ago











  • Some (or most?) desktop motherboards have a ROM used to recover the BIOS from some form of media (in the old days, floppy disks, these days, USB sticks, maybe cd-rom). The ROM can't be modified, however recovery usually requires opening the case and moving a jumper to boot into BIOS recovery mode. I don't know how laptops deal with this.

    – rcgldr
    7 hours ago













87












87








87


11






In the late 1990s, a computer virus known as CIH began infecting some computers. Its payload, when triggered, overwrote system information and destroyed the computer's BIOS, essentially bricking whatever computer it infected. Could a virus that affects modern operating systems (Like Windows 10) destroy the BIOS of a modern computer and essentially brick it the same way, or is it now impossible for a virus to gain access to a modern computer's BIOS?










share|improve this question









New contributor




user73910 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












In the late 1990s, a computer virus known as CIH began infecting some computers. Its payload, when triggered, overwrote system information and destroyed the computer's BIOS, essentially bricking whatever computer it infected. Could a virus that affects modern operating systems (Like Windows 10) destroy the BIOS of a modern computer and essentially brick it the same way, or is it now impossible for a virus to gain access to a modern computer's BIOS?







malware virus operating-systems bios






share|improve this question









New contributor




user73910 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




user73910 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 days ago







user73910













New contributor




user73910 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 2 days ago









user73910user73910

516125




516125




New contributor




user73910 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





user73910 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






user73910 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • yes but from an attacker perspective it is a waste or resources... More info on a rootkit for UEFI as an example in the bellow paper... welivesecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ESET-LoJax.pdf

    – Hugo
    11 hours ago











  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – Rory Alsop
    11 hours ago











  • Some (or most?) desktop motherboards have a ROM used to recover the BIOS from some form of media (in the old days, floppy disks, these days, USB sticks, maybe cd-rom). The ROM can't be modified, however recovery usually requires opening the case and moving a jumper to boot into BIOS recovery mode. I don't know how laptops deal with this.

    – rcgldr
    7 hours ago

















  • yes but from an attacker perspective it is a waste or resources... More info on a rootkit for UEFI as an example in the bellow paper... welivesecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ESET-LoJax.pdf

    – Hugo
    11 hours ago











  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – Rory Alsop
    11 hours ago











  • Some (or most?) desktop motherboards have a ROM used to recover the BIOS from some form of media (in the old days, floppy disks, these days, USB sticks, maybe cd-rom). The ROM can't be modified, however recovery usually requires opening the case and moving a jumper to boot into BIOS recovery mode. I don't know how laptops deal with this.

    – rcgldr
    7 hours ago
















yes but from an attacker perspective it is a waste or resources... More info on a rootkit for UEFI as an example in the bellow paper... welivesecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ESET-LoJax.pdf

– Hugo
11 hours ago





yes but from an attacker perspective it is a waste or resources... More info on a rootkit for UEFI as an example in the bellow paper... welivesecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ESET-LoJax.pdf

– Hugo
11 hours ago













Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

– Rory Alsop
11 hours ago





Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

– Rory Alsop
11 hours ago













Some (or most?) desktop motherboards have a ROM used to recover the BIOS from some form of media (in the old days, floppy disks, these days, USB sticks, maybe cd-rom). The ROM can't be modified, however recovery usually requires opening the case and moving a jumper to boot into BIOS recovery mode. I don't know how laptops deal with this.

– rcgldr
7 hours ago





Some (or most?) desktop motherboards have a ROM used to recover the BIOS from some form of media (in the old days, floppy disks, these days, USB sticks, maybe cd-rom). The ROM can't be modified, however recovery usually requires opening the case and moving a jumper to boot into BIOS recovery mode. I don't know how laptops deal with this.

– rcgldr
7 hours ago










8 Answers
8






active

oldest

votes


















112














Modern computers don't have a BIOS, they have a UEFI. Updating the UEFI firmware from the running operating system is a standard procedure, so any malware which manages to get executed on the operating system with sufficient privileges could attempt to do the same. However, most UEFIs will not accept an update which isn't digitally signed by the manufacturer. That means it should not be possible to overwrite it with arbitrary code.



This, however, assumes that:



  1. the mainboard manufacturers manage to keep their private keys secret

  2. the UEFI doesn't have any unintended security vulnerabilities which allow overwriting it with arbitrary code or can otherwise be exploited to cause damage.

And those two assumptions do not necessarily hold.



Regarding leaked keys: if a UEFI signing key were to become known to the general public, then you can assume that there would be quite a lot of media reporting and hysterical patching going on. If you follow some IT news, you would likely see a lot of alarmist "If you have a [brand] mainboard UPDATE YOUR UEFI NOW!!!1111oneone" headlines. But another possibility is signing keys secretly leaked to state actors. So if your work might be interesting for industrial espionage, then this might also be a credible threat for you.



Regarding bugs: UEFIs gain more and more functionality which has more and more possibilities for hidden bugs. They also lack most of the internal security features you have after you have booted a "real" operating system.






share|improve this answer




















  • 24





    1) UEFI is a subtype of BIOS. 2) If an attacker can get physical access to your computer, they don't need to be able to sign their BIOS malware; they can simply desolder the chip from the motherboard and forcibly overwrite the data contained therein.

    – Sean
    2 days ago







  • 22





    @mbrig - It was the opposite. Systemd mounted some EFI variables as R/W by default, and then rm -rf / --no-preserve-root would clobber them, which bricked some poorly implemented motherboards. In predictable SystemD fashion, they then handled the issue extremely badly.

    – Fake Name
    2 days ago






  • 6





    @Sean UEFI programs and BIOS are both types of firmware that fulfil the same purposes, but UEFI is not BIOS or subtype of BIOS. While it's common to refer to the UEFI firmware as a "UEFI BIOS" it is not technically correct, and manufactures ship fallback BIOS firmware along with UEFI compliant firmware all the time.

    – ZombieTfk
    yesterday







  • 5





    Surely it's relevant that someone managed to sign BIOS/UEFI firmware with a manufacturers key and distribute it through live update: threatpost.com/asus-pc-backdoors-shadowhammer/143129

    – JimmyJames
    yesterday






  • 4





    @Rodney the CPU can't force the firmware to do anything, it can only interact with it through defined channels, no matter what privilege level the malware is running at. Just like even kernel level malware can't send a microcode update to an intel CPU without a valid signing key.

    – mbrig
    yesterday


















46














Yes, it is definitely possible.



Nowadays, with UEFI becoming widespread, it is even more of a concern: UEFI has a much larger attack surface than traditional BIOS and a (potential) flaw in UEFI could be leverage to gain access to machine without having any kind of physical access (as demonstrated by the people of Eclypsium at black hat last year).






share|improve this answer






























    16














    Practically speaking, a virus is software, so can do anything that any other software can do.



    So the simple way answer to this question, and all others of the class "Can viruses do X?" is to ask "Does software currently do X?"



    Such questions might include "can a virus walk my dog?" (not without a dog-walking robot); "Can a virus get me pizza?" (yes: this is regrettably not the main focus of most virus authors, however).



    Are BIOSes (UEFI) currently updated using software? The answer is, yes they are. Mine updated last night, when I rebooted.



    And so the answer is yes.



    By the same logic, viruses can also cause (and historically have caused) physical damage to your CPU, hard drives, and printers.



    Home automation systems and driverless vehicles are also possible targets for physical damages, but I know of no viruses which have done so.






    share|improve this answer


















    • 2





      I wouldn't mind much if my personal information was used by malware developers to order me free pizza and nothing else. (+1 for useful reasoning)

      – Marc.2377
      2 days ago







    • 5





      @Marc.2377, I would not mind much if your personal information was used to order me free pizza… :-)

      – sleblanc
      yesterday






    • 2





      Modern viruses will have a very hard time causing physical damage. At most, they could wear down hardware a bit by running the CPU really hot, which shortens useful lifetime, but it's not common for it to be able to cause damage. In the past that wasn't the case though. See "the poke of death".

      – forest
      yesterday






    • 1





      @Forest I agree... though "hard time" applies to most virus stuff, as they rely on the undocumented, unanticipated behavior of their exploits. I'd argue as devices get more complex, maliciously bricking them gets more feasible (through thermal cycling, read-write cycles, vibration, overheat, overvolt, overclock, firmware...). That we don't see more device-destruction attacks is I suspect more because malware authors are uninterested in them; they make for a fun demo at a hacker con, but are essentially useless in a real virus or attack.

      – Dewi Morgan
      yesterday






    • 2





      @forest Aren't the fans and cooling systems software controlled these days? I'm not sure, but I bet you could somehow foul the CPU or GPU fan from software. Russia destroyed generators remotely by toggling them on and off at a resonant frequency--I bet there are similar tricks that could kill your monitor pretty quickly. Platter hard drives can definitely be trashed by spinning them up and down repeatedly, solid state drives are vulnerable to repeated read/write cycles. I bet there is a lot a motivated hacker could do..

      – Bill K
      yesterday


















    11














    Yes, it is definitely possible.



    Here is an example of a malware OS update fraudulently signed with the manufacturer's private key:
    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/03/25/asus_software_update_utility_backdoor/



    According to Kaspersky Labs, about a million Asus laptops were infected by Shadowhammer, with an update that appeared to be correctly signed. It's not clear if that altered the firmware, but it certainly could have done.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    emrys57 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.



























      4














      Your question hints at a more deep subject that is rings and permissions of code on an operating system. On MS DOS the code could do whatever it wants. If the code wanted to write all 0x00's to a hard drive it could if it wanted to send strange output to a piece of hardware it could also there was nothing stopping the user's code. On a modern OS there is a concept of rings (this is enforced by the CPU). The kernel runs on ring zero and it could do whatever it wants. The user's code on the other hand can not. It runs on something called ring 3 and it is given it's own little piece of memory and inside of that memory it can do whatever it wants but it can not directly talk to hardware. If the user's code tries to talk to hardware then the kernel immediately kills the program. This means that it is highly unlikely that a regular virus can kill hardware because it can not talk to it directly.



      If the kernel is hacked then the game is basically over. The kernel can do whatever it wants and a whole host of bad things can happen such as overclocking the CPU to a point where the hardware is unstable, wiping the hard drives (filling the with zeros for example), or pretty much any other plausible attack.






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      scifi6546 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.















      • 3





        "If the user's code tries to talk to hardware then the kernel immediately kills the program" - Really? Can you provide a citation for that? I thought the protected instruction would simply fail and it's up to the program to deal with that reasonably or crash.

        – Marc.2377
        2 days ago






      • 1





        @Marc.2377 It is correct. If the user's code attempts to execute an instruction in CPL3 that requires CPL0 privileges, it will throw #GP(0) (general protection fault, or GPF). This causes the code to jump into the kernel to see what signal handler was set up for that event. By default, the kernel will kill the process, though it's technically possible for the process to set up a signal handler for SIGSEGV, in which case the kernel resumes execution of the process at the location of the signal handler. It's generally not a good idea though because a process is considered to be in an...

        – forest
        yesterday












      • ...undefined state according to POSIX if execution resumes after a SIGSEGV has been raised that didn't come from raise(). It will resume execution at the failed instruction which will just run again and cause the process to lock up if the signal is ignored. So it can be up to the program to deal with it, if it sets up a signal handler for SIGSEGV, but there's pretty much never any situation where that would be done (though I think the Dolphin emulator catches segfaults for some sort of hacky optimization so it doesn't have to emulate some weird paging behavior and can rely on the MMU).

        – forest
        yesterday












      • See this for a (rare) example of when it is up to the program. Or just read PoC||GTFO 6:3.

        – forest
        yesterday







      • 1





        @forest Thanks a lot.

        – Marc.2377
        yesterday


















      3














      Potentially. It would be hard to do however, as it would more than likely have to masquerade as a legit BIOS update somewhere down the line. The method to do so will change depending on your mobo but chances are it would have to involve the leaking of private or hardware keys or other secrets.






      share|improve this answer






























        3














        Yes. It's hardware specific but here is one case of a user accidentally breaking their motherboard firmware from the OS level https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/2402



        A bug in the firmware of an MSI laptop meant that clearing the efi variables caused the laptop to be unusable. Because these variables were exposed to the OS and mounted as a file, deleting every file from the OS level caused the issue which could be exploited by a virus to specifically target these variables.






        share|improve this answer
































          0














          There are many ways, and some of them are unsettling. For example, Computrace seems to be a permanent backdoor that can bypass not only the operating system but even the BIOS. And more generally, the Intel Management Engine has full control over your computer and can plausibly be exploited. These can modify your BIOS but do not even need to. Just in 2017, security researchers figured out how to exploit the Intel IME via USB to run unsigned code.



          The point is that even if you have a completely secure operating system and you never download any insecure or malicious software, there is still a non-negligible possibility that you can be affected by a malware that bypasses all that by exploiting a security vulnerability in your hardware (even when your computer is supposedly powered off).






          share|improve this answer























            protected by Gilles 16 hours ago



            Thank you for your interest in this question.
            Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



            Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?














            8 Answers
            8






            active

            oldest

            votes








            8 Answers
            8






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            112














            Modern computers don't have a BIOS, they have a UEFI. Updating the UEFI firmware from the running operating system is a standard procedure, so any malware which manages to get executed on the operating system with sufficient privileges could attempt to do the same. However, most UEFIs will not accept an update which isn't digitally signed by the manufacturer. That means it should not be possible to overwrite it with arbitrary code.



            This, however, assumes that:



            1. the mainboard manufacturers manage to keep their private keys secret

            2. the UEFI doesn't have any unintended security vulnerabilities which allow overwriting it with arbitrary code or can otherwise be exploited to cause damage.

            And those two assumptions do not necessarily hold.



            Regarding leaked keys: if a UEFI signing key were to become known to the general public, then you can assume that there would be quite a lot of media reporting and hysterical patching going on. If you follow some IT news, you would likely see a lot of alarmist "If you have a [brand] mainboard UPDATE YOUR UEFI NOW!!!1111oneone" headlines. But another possibility is signing keys secretly leaked to state actors. So if your work might be interesting for industrial espionage, then this might also be a credible threat for you.



            Regarding bugs: UEFIs gain more and more functionality which has more and more possibilities for hidden bugs. They also lack most of the internal security features you have after you have booted a "real" operating system.






            share|improve this answer




















            • 24





              1) UEFI is a subtype of BIOS. 2) If an attacker can get physical access to your computer, they don't need to be able to sign their BIOS malware; they can simply desolder the chip from the motherboard and forcibly overwrite the data contained therein.

              – Sean
              2 days ago







            • 22





              @mbrig - It was the opposite. Systemd mounted some EFI variables as R/W by default, and then rm -rf / --no-preserve-root would clobber them, which bricked some poorly implemented motherboards. In predictable SystemD fashion, they then handled the issue extremely badly.

              – Fake Name
              2 days ago






            • 6





              @Sean UEFI programs and BIOS are both types of firmware that fulfil the same purposes, but UEFI is not BIOS or subtype of BIOS. While it's common to refer to the UEFI firmware as a "UEFI BIOS" it is not technically correct, and manufactures ship fallback BIOS firmware along with UEFI compliant firmware all the time.

              – ZombieTfk
              yesterday







            • 5





              Surely it's relevant that someone managed to sign BIOS/UEFI firmware with a manufacturers key and distribute it through live update: threatpost.com/asus-pc-backdoors-shadowhammer/143129

              – JimmyJames
              yesterday






            • 4





              @Rodney the CPU can't force the firmware to do anything, it can only interact with it through defined channels, no matter what privilege level the malware is running at. Just like even kernel level malware can't send a microcode update to an intel CPU without a valid signing key.

              – mbrig
              yesterday















            112














            Modern computers don't have a BIOS, they have a UEFI. Updating the UEFI firmware from the running operating system is a standard procedure, so any malware which manages to get executed on the operating system with sufficient privileges could attempt to do the same. However, most UEFIs will not accept an update which isn't digitally signed by the manufacturer. That means it should not be possible to overwrite it with arbitrary code.



            This, however, assumes that:



            1. the mainboard manufacturers manage to keep their private keys secret

            2. the UEFI doesn't have any unintended security vulnerabilities which allow overwriting it with arbitrary code or can otherwise be exploited to cause damage.

            And those two assumptions do not necessarily hold.



            Regarding leaked keys: if a UEFI signing key were to become known to the general public, then you can assume that there would be quite a lot of media reporting and hysterical patching going on. If you follow some IT news, you would likely see a lot of alarmist "If you have a [brand] mainboard UPDATE YOUR UEFI NOW!!!1111oneone" headlines. But another possibility is signing keys secretly leaked to state actors. So if your work might be interesting for industrial espionage, then this might also be a credible threat for you.



            Regarding bugs: UEFIs gain more and more functionality which has more and more possibilities for hidden bugs. They also lack most of the internal security features you have after you have booted a "real" operating system.






            share|improve this answer




















            • 24





              1) UEFI is a subtype of BIOS. 2) If an attacker can get physical access to your computer, they don't need to be able to sign their BIOS malware; they can simply desolder the chip from the motherboard and forcibly overwrite the data contained therein.

              – Sean
              2 days ago







            • 22





              @mbrig - It was the opposite. Systemd mounted some EFI variables as R/W by default, and then rm -rf / --no-preserve-root would clobber them, which bricked some poorly implemented motherboards. In predictable SystemD fashion, they then handled the issue extremely badly.

              – Fake Name
              2 days ago






            • 6





              @Sean UEFI programs and BIOS are both types of firmware that fulfil the same purposes, but UEFI is not BIOS or subtype of BIOS. While it's common to refer to the UEFI firmware as a "UEFI BIOS" it is not technically correct, and manufactures ship fallback BIOS firmware along with UEFI compliant firmware all the time.

              – ZombieTfk
              yesterday







            • 5





              Surely it's relevant that someone managed to sign BIOS/UEFI firmware with a manufacturers key and distribute it through live update: threatpost.com/asus-pc-backdoors-shadowhammer/143129

              – JimmyJames
              yesterday






            • 4





              @Rodney the CPU can't force the firmware to do anything, it can only interact with it through defined channels, no matter what privilege level the malware is running at. Just like even kernel level malware can't send a microcode update to an intel CPU without a valid signing key.

              – mbrig
              yesterday













            112












            112








            112







            Modern computers don't have a BIOS, they have a UEFI. Updating the UEFI firmware from the running operating system is a standard procedure, so any malware which manages to get executed on the operating system with sufficient privileges could attempt to do the same. However, most UEFIs will not accept an update which isn't digitally signed by the manufacturer. That means it should not be possible to overwrite it with arbitrary code.



            This, however, assumes that:



            1. the mainboard manufacturers manage to keep their private keys secret

            2. the UEFI doesn't have any unintended security vulnerabilities which allow overwriting it with arbitrary code or can otherwise be exploited to cause damage.

            And those two assumptions do not necessarily hold.



            Regarding leaked keys: if a UEFI signing key were to become known to the general public, then you can assume that there would be quite a lot of media reporting and hysterical patching going on. If you follow some IT news, you would likely see a lot of alarmist "If you have a [brand] mainboard UPDATE YOUR UEFI NOW!!!1111oneone" headlines. But another possibility is signing keys secretly leaked to state actors. So if your work might be interesting for industrial espionage, then this might also be a credible threat for you.



            Regarding bugs: UEFIs gain more and more functionality which has more and more possibilities for hidden bugs. They also lack most of the internal security features you have after you have booted a "real" operating system.






            share|improve this answer















            Modern computers don't have a BIOS, they have a UEFI. Updating the UEFI firmware from the running operating system is a standard procedure, so any malware which manages to get executed on the operating system with sufficient privileges could attempt to do the same. However, most UEFIs will not accept an update which isn't digitally signed by the manufacturer. That means it should not be possible to overwrite it with arbitrary code.



            This, however, assumes that:



            1. the mainboard manufacturers manage to keep their private keys secret

            2. the UEFI doesn't have any unintended security vulnerabilities which allow overwriting it with arbitrary code or can otherwise be exploited to cause damage.

            And those two assumptions do not necessarily hold.



            Regarding leaked keys: if a UEFI signing key were to become known to the general public, then you can assume that there would be quite a lot of media reporting and hysterical patching going on. If you follow some IT news, you would likely see a lot of alarmist "If you have a [brand] mainboard UPDATE YOUR UEFI NOW!!!1111oneone" headlines. But another possibility is signing keys secretly leaked to state actors. So if your work might be interesting for industrial espionage, then this might also be a credible threat for you.



            Regarding bugs: UEFIs gain more and more functionality which has more and more possibilities for hidden bugs. They also lack most of the internal security features you have after you have booted a "real" operating system.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited yesterday

























            answered 2 days ago









            PhilippPhilipp

            45k8116142




            45k8116142







            • 24





              1) UEFI is a subtype of BIOS. 2) If an attacker can get physical access to your computer, they don't need to be able to sign their BIOS malware; they can simply desolder the chip from the motherboard and forcibly overwrite the data contained therein.

              – Sean
              2 days ago







            • 22





              @mbrig - It was the opposite. Systemd mounted some EFI variables as R/W by default, and then rm -rf / --no-preserve-root would clobber them, which bricked some poorly implemented motherboards. In predictable SystemD fashion, they then handled the issue extremely badly.

              – Fake Name
              2 days ago






            • 6





              @Sean UEFI programs and BIOS are both types of firmware that fulfil the same purposes, but UEFI is not BIOS or subtype of BIOS. While it's common to refer to the UEFI firmware as a "UEFI BIOS" it is not technically correct, and manufactures ship fallback BIOS firmware along with UEFI compliant firmware all the time.

              – ZombieTfk
              yesterday







            • 5





              Surely it's relevant that someone managed to sign BIOS/UEFI firmware with a manufacturers key and distribute it through live update: threatpost.com/asus-pc-backdoors-shadowhammer/143129

              – JimmyJames
              yesterday






            • 4





              @Rodney the CPU can't force the firmware to do anything, it can only interact with it through defined channels, no matter what privilege level the malware is running at. Just like even kernel level malware can't send a microcode update to an intel CPU without a valid signing key.

              – mbrig
              yesterday












            • 24





              1) UEFI is a subtype of BIOS. 2) If an attacker can get physical access to your computer, they don't need to be able to sign their BIOS malware; they can simply desolder the chip from the motherboard and forcibly overwrite the data contained therein.

              – Sean
              2 days ago







            • 22





              @mbrig - It was the opposite. Systemd mounted some EFI variables as R/W by default, and then rm -rf / --no-preserve-root would clobber them, which bricked some poorly implemented motherboards. In predictable SystemD fashion, they then handled the issue extremely badly.

              – Fake Name
              2 days ago






            • 6





              @Sean UEFI programs and BIOS are both types of firmware that fulfil the same purposes, but UEFI is not BIOS or subtype of BIOS. While it's common to refer to the UEFI firmware as a "UEFI BIOS" it is not technically correct, and manufactures ship fallback BIOS firmware along with UEFI compliant firmware all the time.

              – ZombieTfk
              yesterday







            • 5





              Surely it's relevant that someone managed to sign BIOS/UEFI firmware with a manufacturers key and distribute it through live update: threatpost.com/asus-pc-backdoors-shadowhammer/143129

              – JimmyJames
              yesterday






            • 4





              @Rodney the CPU can't force the firmware to do anything, it can only interact with it through defined channels, no matter what privilege level the malware is running at. Just like even kernel level malware can't send a microcode update to an intel CPU without a valid signing key.

              – mbrig
              yesterday







            24




            24





            1) UEFI is a subtype of BIOS. 2) If an attacker can get physical access to your computer, they don't need to be able to sign their BIOS malware; they can simply desolder the chip from the motherboard and forcibly overwrite the data contained therein.

            – Sean
            2 days ago






            1) UEFI is a subtype of BIOS. 2) If an attacker can get physical access to your computer, they don't need to be able to sign their BIOS malware; they can simply desolder the chip from the motherboard and forcibly overwrite the data contained therein.

            – Sean
            2 days ago





            22




            22





            @mbrig - It was the opposite. Systemd mounted some EFI variables as R/W by default, and then rm -rf / --no-preserve-root would clobber them, which bricked some poorly implemented motherboards. In predictable SystemD fashion, they then handled the issue extremely badly.

            – Fake Name
            2 days ago





            @mbrig - It was the opposite. Systemd mounted some EFI variables as R/W by default, and then rm -rf / --no-preserve-root would clobber them, which bricked some poorly implemented motherboards. In predictable SystemD fashion, they then handled the issue extremely badly.

            – Fake Name
            2 days ago




            6




            6





            @Sean UEFI programs and BIOS are both types of firmware that fulfil the same purposes, but UEFI is not BIOS or subtype of BIOS. While it's common to refer to the UEFI firmware as a "UEFI BIOS" it is not technically correct, and manufactures ship fallback BIOS firmware along with UEFI compliant firmware all the time.

            – ZombieTfk
            yesterday






            @Sean UEFI programs and BIOS are both types of firmware that fulfil the same purposes, but UEFI is not BIOS or subtype of BIOS. While it's common to refer to the UEFI firmware as a "UEFI BIOS" it is not technically correct, and manufactures ship fallback BIOS firmware along with UEFI compliant firmware all the time.

            – ZombieTfk
            yesterday





            5




            5





            Surely it's relevant that someone managed to sign BIOS/UEFI firmware with a manufacturers key and distribute it through live update: threatpost.com/asus-pc-backdoors-shadowhammer/143129

            – JimmyJames
            yesterday





            Surely it's relevant that someone managed to sign BIOS/UEFI firmware with a manufacturers key and distribute it through live update: threatpost.com/asus-pc-backdoors-shadowhammer/143129

            – JimmyJames
            yesterday




            4




            4





            @Rodney the CPU can't force the firmware to do anything, it can only interact with it through defined channels, no matter what privilege level the malware is running at. Just like even kernel level malware can't send a microcode update to an intel CPU without a valid signing key.

            – mbrig
            yesterday





            @Rodney the CPU can't force the firmware to do anything, it can only interact with it through defined channels, no matter what privilege level the malware is running at. Just like even kernel level malware can't send a microcode update to an intel CPU without a valid signing key.

            – mbrig
            yesterday













            46














            Yes, it is definitely possible.



            Nowadays, with UEFI becoming widespread, it is even more of a concern: UEFI has a much larger attack surface than traditional BIOS and a (potential) flaw in UEFI could be leverage to gain access to machine without having any kind of physical access (as demonstrated by the people of Eclypsium at black hat last year).






            share|improve this answer



























              46














              Yes, it is definitely possible.



              Nowadays, with UEFI becoming widespread, it is even more of a concern: UEFI has a much larger attack surface than traditional BIOS and a (potential) flaw in UEFI could be leverage to gain access to machine without having any kind of physical access (as demonstrated by the people of Eclypsium at black hat last year).






              share|improve this answer

























                46












                46








                46







                Yes, it is definitely possible.



                Nowadays, with UEFI becoming widespread, it is even more of a concern: UEFI has a much larger attack surface than traditional BIOS and a (potential) flaw in UEFI could be leverage to gain access to machine without having any kind of physical access (as demonstrated by the people of Eclypsium at black hat last year).






                share|improve this answer













                Yes, it is definitely possible.



                Nowadays, with UEFI becoming widespread, it is even more of a concern: UEFI has a much larger attack surface than traditional BIOS and a (potential) flaw in UEFI could be leverage to gain access to machine without having any kind of physical access (as demonstrated by the people of Eclypsium at black hat last year).







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered 2 days ago









                StephaneStephane

                17.7k25464




                17.7k25464





















                    16














                    Practically speaking, a virus is software, so can do anything that any other software can do.



                    So the simple way answer to this question, and all others of the class "Can viruses do X?" is to ask "Does software currently do X?"



                    Such questions might include "can a virus walk my dog?" (not without a dog-walking robot); "Can a virus get me pizza?" (yes: this is regrettably not the main focus of most virus authors, however).



                    Are BIOSes (UEFI) currently updated using software? The answer is, yes they are. Mine updated last night, when I rebooted.



                    And so the answer is yes.



                    By the same logic, viruses can also cause (and historically have caused) physical damage to your CPU, hard drives, and printers.



                    Home automation systems and driverless vehicles are also possible targets for physical damages, but I know of no viruses which have done so.






                    share|improve this answer


















                    • 2





                      I wouldn't mind much if my personal information was used by malware developers to order me free pizza and nothing else. (+1 for useful reasoning)

                      – Marc.2377
                      2 days ago







                    • 5





                      @Marc.2377, I would not mind much if your personal information was used to order me free pizza… :-)

                      – sleblanc
                      yesterday






                    • 2





                      Modern viruses will have a very hard time causing physical damage. At most, they could wear down hardware a bit by running the CPU really hot, which shortens useful lifetime, but it's not common for it to be able to cause damage. In the past that wasn't the case though. See "the poke of death".

                      – forest
                      yesterday






                    • 1





                      @Forest I agree... though "hard time" applies to most virus stuff, as they rely on the undocumented, unanticipated behavior of their exploits. I'd argue as devices get more complex, maliciously bricking them gets more feasible (through thermal cycling, read-write cycles, vibration, overheat, overvolt, overclock, firmware...). That we don't see more device-destruction attacks is I suspect more because malware authors are uninterested in them; they make for a fun demo at a hacker con, but are essentially useless in a real virus or attack.

                      – Dewi Morgan
                      yesterday






                    • 2





                      @forest Aren't the fans and cooling systems software controlled these days? I'm not sure, but I bet you could somehow foul the CPU or GPU fan from software. Russia destroyed generators remotely by toggling them on and off at a resonant frequency--I bet there are similar tricks that could kill your monitor pretty quickly. Platter hard drives can definitely be trashed by spinning them up and down repeatedly, solid state drives are vulnerable to repeated read/write cycles. I bet there is a lot a motivated hacker could do..

                      – Bill K
                      yesterday















                    16














                    Practically speaking, a virus is software, so can do anything that any other software can do.



                    So the simple way answer to this question, and all others of the class "Can viruses do X?" is to ask "Does software currently do X?"



                    Such questions might include "can a virus walk my dog?" (not without a dog-walking robot); "Can a virus get me pizza?" (yes: this is regrettably not the main focus of most virus authors, however).



                    Are BIOSes (UEFI) currently updated using software? The answer is, yes they are. Mine updated last night, when I rebooted.



                    And so the answer is yes.



                    By the same logic, viruses can also cause (and historically have caused) physical damage to your CPU, hard drives, and printers.



                    Home automation systems and driverless vehicles are also possible targets for physical damages, but I know of no viruses which have done so.






                    share|improve this answer


















                    • 2





                      I wouldn't mind much if my personal information was used by malware developers to order me free pizza and nothing else. (+1 for useful reasoning)

                      – Marc.2377
                      2 days ago







                    • 5





                      @Marc.2377, I would not mind much if your personal information was used to order me free pizza… :-)

                      – sleblanc
                      yesterday






                    • 2





                      Modern viruses will have a very hard time causing physical damage. At most, they could wear down hardware a bit by running the CPU really hot, which shortens useful lifetime, but it's not common for it to be able to cause damage. In the past that wasn't the case though. See "the poke of death".

                      – forest
                      yesterday






                    • 1





                      @Forest I agree... though "hard time" applies to most virus stuff, as they rely on the undocumented, unanticipated behavior of their exploits. I'd argue as devices get more complex, maliciously bricking them gets more feasible (through thermal cycling, read-write cycles, vibration, overheat, overvolt, overclock, firmware...). That we don't see more device-destruction attacks is I suspect more because malware authors are uninterested in them; they make for a fun demo at a hacker con, but are essentially useless in a real virus or attack.

                      – Dewi Morgan
                      yesterday






                    • 2





                      @forest Aren't the fans and cooling systems software controlled these days? I'm not sure, but I bet you could somehow foul the CPU or GPU fan from software. Russia destroyed generators remotely by toggling them on and off at a resonant frequency--I bet there are similar tricks that could kill your monitor pretty quickly. Platter hard drives can definitely be trashed by spinning them up and down repeatedly, solid state drives are vulnerable to repeated read/write cycles. I bet there is a lot a motivated hacker could do..

                      – Bill K
                      yesterday













                    16












                    16








                    16







                    Practically speaking, a virus is software, so can do anything that any other software can do.



                    So the simple way answer to this question, and all others of the class "Can viruses do X?" is to ask "Does software currently do X?"



                    Such questions might include "can a virus walk my dog?" (not without a dog-walking robot); "Can a virus get me pizza?" (yes: this is regrettably not the main focus of most virus authors, however).



                    Are BIOSes (UEFI) currently updated using software? The answer is, yes they are. Mine updated last night, when I rebooted.



                    And so the answer is yes.



                    By the same logic, viruses can also cause (and historically have caused) physical damage to your CPU, hard drives, and printers.



                    Home automation systems and driverless vehicles are also possible targets for physical damages, but I know of no viruses which have done so.






                    share|improve this answer













                    Practically speaking, a virus is software, so can do anything that any other software can do.



                    So the simple way answer to this question, and all others of the class "Can viruses do X?" is to ask "Does software currently do X?"



                    Such questions might include "can a virus walk my dog?" (not without a dog-walking robot); "Can a virus get me pizza?" (yes: this is regrettably not the main focus of most virus authors, however).



                    Are BIOSes (UEFI) currently updated using software? The answer is, yes they are. Mine updated last night, when I rebooted.



                    And so the answer is yes.



                    By the same logic, viruses can also cause (and historically have caused) physical damage to your CPU, hard drives, and printers.



                    Home automation systems and driverless vehicles are also possible targets for physical damages, but I know of no viruses which have done so.







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered 2 days ago









                    Dewi MorganDewi Morgan

                    1,250514




                    1,250514







                    • 2





                      I wouldn't mind much if my personal information was used by malware developers to order me free pizza and nothing else. (+1 for useful reasoning)

                      – Marc.2377
                      2 days ago







                    • 5





                      @Marc.2377, I would not mind much if your personal information was used to order me free pizza… :-)

                      – sleblanc
                      yesterday






                    • 2





                      Modern viruses will have a very hard time causing physical damage. At most, they could wear down hardware a bit by running the CPU really hot, which shortens useful lifetime, but it's not common for it to be able to cause damage. In the past that wasn't the case though. See "the poke of death".

                      – forest
                      yesterday






                    • 1





                      @Forest I agree... though "hard time" applies to most virus stuff, as they rely on the undocumented, unanticipated behavior of their exploits. I'd argue as devices get more complex, maliciously bricking them gets more feasible (through thermal cycling, read-write cycles, vibration, overheat, overvolt, overclock, firmware...). That we don't see more device-destruction attacks is I suspect more because malware authors are uninterested in them; they make for a fun demo at a hacker con, but are essentially useless in a real virus or attack.

                      – Dewi Morgan
                      yesterday






                    • 2





                      @forest Aren't the fans and cooling systems software controlled these days? I'm not sure, but I bet you could somehow foul the CPU or GPU fan from software. Russia destroyed generators remotely by toggling them on and off at a resonant frequency--I bet there are similar tricks that could kill your monitor pretty quickly. Platter hard drives can definitely be trashed by spinning them up and down repeatedly, solid state drives are vulnerable to repeated read/write cycles. I bet there is a lot a motivated hacker could do..

                      – Bill K
                      yesterday












                    • 2





                      I wouldn't mind much if my personal information was used by malware developers to order me free pizza and nothing else. (+1 for useful reasoning)

                      – Marc.2377
                      2 days ago







                    • 5





                      @Marc.2377, I would not mind much if your personal information was used to order me free pizza… :-)

                      – sleblanc
                      yesterday






                    • 2





                      Modern viruses will have a very hard time causing physical damage. At most, they could wear down hardware a bit by running the CPU really hot, which shortens useful lifetime, but it's not common for it to be able to cause damage. In the past that wasn't the case though. See "the poke of death".

                      – forest
                      yesterday






                    • 1





                      @Forest I agree... though "hard time" applies to most virus stuff, as they rely on the undocumented, unanticipated behavior of their exploits. I'd argue as devices get more complex, maliciously bricking them gets more feasible (through thermal cycling, read-write cycles, vibration, overheat, overvolt, overclock, firmware...). That we don't see more device-destruction attacks is I suspect more because malware authors are uninterested in them; they make for a fun demo at a hacker con, but are essentially useless in a real virus or attack.

                      – Dewi Morgan
                      yesterday






                    • 2





                      @forest Aren't the fans and cooling systems software controlled these days? I'm not sure, but I bet you could somehow foul the CPU or GPU fan from software. Russia destroyed generators remotely by toggling them on and off at a resonant frequency--I bet there are similar tricks that could kill your monitor pretty quickly. Platter hard drives can definitely be trashed by spinning them up and down repeatedly, solid state drives are vulnerable to repeated read/write cycles. I bet there is a lot a motivated hacker could do..

                      – Bill K
                      yesterday







                    2




                    2





                    I wouldn't mind much if my personal information was used by malware developers to order me free pizza and nothing else. (+1 for useful reasoning)

                    – Marc.2377
                    2 days ago






                    I wouldn't mind much if my personal information was used by malware developers to order me free pizza and nothing else. (+1 for useful reasoning)

                    – Marc.2377
                    2 days ago





                    5




                    5





                    @Marc.2377, I would not mind much if your personal information was used to order me free pizza… :-)

                    – sleblanc
                    yesterday





                    @Marc.2377, I would not mind much if your personal information was used to order me free pizza… :-)

                    – sleblanc
                    yesterday




                    2




                    2





                    Modern viruses will have a very hard time causing physical damage. At most, they could wear down hardware a bit by running the CPU really hot, which shortens useful lifetime, but it's not common for it to be able to cause damage. In the past that wasn't the case though. See "the poke of death".

                    – forest
                    yesterday





                    Modern viruses will have a very hard time causing physical damage. At most, they could wear down hardware a bit by running the CPU really hot, which shortens useful lifetime, but it's not common for it to be able to cause damage. In the past that wasn't the case though. See "the poke of death".

                    – forest
                    yesterday




                    1




                    1





                    @Forest I agree... though "hard time" applies to most virus stuff, as they rely on the undocumented, unanticipated behavior of their exploits. I'd argue as devices get more complex, maliciously bricking them gets more feasible (through thermal cycling, read-write cycles, vibration, overheat, overvolt, overclock, firmware...). That we don't see more device-destruction attacks is I suspect more because malware authors are uninterested in them; they make for a fun demo at a hacker con, but are essentially useless in a real virus or attack.

                    – Dewi Morgan
                    yesterday





                    @Forest I agree... though "hard time" applies to most virus stuff, as they rely on the undocumented, unanticipated behavior of their exploits. I'd argue as devices get more complex, maliciously bricking them gets more feasible (through thermal cycling, read-write cycles, vibration, overheat, overvolt, overclock, firmware...). That we don't see more device-destruction attacks is I suspect more because malware authors are uninterested in them; they make for a fun demo at a hacker con, but are essentially useless in a real virus or attack.

                    – Dewi Morgan
                    yesterday




                    2




                    2





                    @forest Aren't the fans and cooling systems software controlled these days? I'm not sure, but I bet you could somehow foul the CPU or GPU fan from software. Russia destroyed generators remotely by toggling them on and off at a resonant frequency--I bet there are similar tricks that could kill your monitor pretty quickly. Platter hard drives can definitely be trashed by spinning them up and down repeatedly, solid state drives are vulnerable to repeated read/write cycles. I bet there is a lot a motivated hacker could do..

                    – Bill K
                    yesterday





                    @forest Aren't the fans and cooling systems software controlled these days? I'm not sure, but I bet you could somehow foul the CPU or GPU fan from software. Russia destroyed generators remotely by toggling them on and off at a resonant frequency--I bet there are similar tricks that could kill your monitor pretty quickly. Platter hard drives can definitely be trashed by spinning them up and down repeatedly, solid state drives are vulnerable to repeated read/write cycles. I bet there is a lot a motivated hacker could do..

                    – Bill K
                    yesterday











                    11














                    Yes, it is definitely possible.



                    Here is an example of a malware OS update fraudulently signed with the manufacturer's private key:
                    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/03/25/asus_software_update_utility_backdoor/



                    According to Kaspersky Labs, about a million Asus laptops were infected by Shadowhammer, with an update that appeared to be correctly signed. It's not clear if that altered the firmware, but it certainly could have done.






                    share|improve this answer








                    New contributor




                    emrys57 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.
























                      11














                      Yes, it is definitely possible.



                      Here is an example of a malware OS update fraudulently signed with the manufacturer's private key:
                      https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/03/25/asus_software_update_utility_backdoor/



                      According to Kaspersky Labs, about a million Asus laptops were infected by Shadowhammer, with an update that appeared to be correctly signed. It's not clear if that altered the firmware, but it certainly could have done.






                      share|improve this answer








                      New contributor




                      emrys57 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                        11












                        11








                        11







                        Yes, it is definitely possible.



                        Here is an example of a malware OS update fraudulently signed with the manufacturer's private key:
                        https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/03/25/asus_software_update_utility_backdoor/



                        According to Kaspersky Labs, about a million Asus laptops were infected by Shadowhammer, with an update that appeared to be correctly signed. It's not clear if that altered the firmware, but it certainly could have done.






                        share|improve this answer








                        New contributor




                        emrys57 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.










                        Yes, it is definitely possible.



                        Here is an example of a malware OS update fraudulently signed with the manufacturer's private key:
                        https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/03/25/asus_software_update_utility_backdoor/



                        According to Kaspersky Labs, about a million Asus laptops were infected by Shadowhammer, with an update that appeared to be correctly signed. It's not clear if that altered the firmware, but it certainly could have done.







                        share|improve this answer








                        New contributor




                        emrys57 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.









                        share|improve this answer



                        share|improve this answer






                        New contributor




                        emrys57 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.









                        answered yesterday









                        emrys57emrys57

                        2112




                        2112




                        New contributor




                        emrys57 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.





                        New contributor





                        emrys57 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.






                        emrys57 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                            4














                            Your question hints at a more deep subject that is rings and permissions of code on an operating system. On MS DOS the code could do whatever it wants. If the code wanted to write all 0x00's to a hard drive it could if it wanted to send strange output to a piece of hardware it could also there was nothing stopping the user's code. On a modern OS there is a concept of rings (this is enforced by the CPU). The kernel runs on ring zero and it could do whatever it wants. The user's code on the other hand can not. It runs on something called ring 3 and it is given it's own little piece of memory and inside of that memory it can do whatever it wants but it can not directly talk to hardware. If the user's code tries to talk to hardware then the kernel immediately kills the program. This means that it is highly unlikely that a regular virus can kill hardware because it can not talk to it directly.



                            If the kernel is hacked then the game is basically over. The kernel can do whatever it wants and a whole host of bad things can happen such as overclocking the CPU to a point where the hardware is unstable, wiping the hard drives (filling the with zeros for example), or pretty much any other plausible attack.






                            share|improve this answer








                            New contributor




                            scifi6546 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.















                            • 3





                              "If the user's code tries to talk to hardware then the kernel immediately kills the program" - Really? Can you provide a citation for that? I thought the protected instruction would simply fail and it's up to the program to deal with that reasonably or crash.

                              – Marc.2377
                              2 days ago






                            • 1





                              @Marc.2377 It is correct. If the user's code attempts to execute an instruction in CPL3 that requires CPL0 privileges, it will throw #GP(0) (general protection fault, or GPF). This causes the code to jump into the kernel to see what signal handler was set up for that event. By default, the kernel will kill the process, though it's technically possible for the process to set up a signal handler for SIGSEGV, in which case the kernel resumes execution of the process at the location of the signal handler. It's generally not a good idea though because a process is considered to be in an...

                              – forest
                              yesterday












                            • ...undefined state according to POSIX if execution resumes after a SIGSEGV has been raised that didn't come from raise(). It will resume execution at the failed instruction which will just run again and cause the process to lock up if the signal is ignored. So it can be up to the program to deal with it, if it sets up a signal handler for SIGSEGV, but there's pretty much never any situation where that would be done (though I think the Dolphin emulator catches segfaults for some sort of hacky optimization so it doesn't have to emulate some weird paging behavior and can rely on the MMU).

                              – forest
                              yesterday












                            • See this for a (rare) example of when it is up to the program. Or just read PoC||GTFO 6:3.

                              – forest
                              yesterday







                            • 1





                              @forest Thanks a lot.

                              – Marc.2377
                              yesterday















                            4














                            Your question hints at a more deep subject that is rings and permissions of code on an operating system. On MS DOS the code could do whatever it wants. If the code wanted to write all 0x00's to a hard drive it could if it wanted to send strange output to a piece of hardware it could also there was nothing stopping the user's code. On a modern OS there is a concept of rings (this is enforced by the CPU). The kernel runs on ring zero and it could do whatever it wants. The user's code on the other hand can not. It runs on something called ring 3 and it is given it's own little piece of memory and inside of that memory it can do whatever it wants but it can not directly talk to hardware. If the user's code tries to talk to hardware then the kernel immediately kills the program. This means that it is highly unlikely that a regular virus can kill hardware because it can not talk to it directly.



                            If the kernel is hacked then the game is basically over. The kernel can do whatever it wants and a whole host of bad things can happen such as overclocking the CPU to a point where the hardware is unstable, wiping the hard drives (filling the with zeros for example), or pretty much any other plausible attack.






                            share|improve this answer








                            New contributor




                            scifi6546 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.















                            • 3





                              "If the user's code tries to talk to hardware then the kernel immediately kills the program" - Really? Can you provide a citation for that? I thought the protected instruction would simply fail and it's up to the program to deal with that reasonably or crash.

                              – Marc.2377
                              2 days ago






                            • 1





                              @Marc.2377 It is correct. If the user's code attempts to execute an instruction in CPL3 that requires CPL0 privileges, it will throw #GP(0) (general protection fault, or GPF). This causes the code to jump into the kernel to see what signal handler was set up for that event. By default, the kernel will kill the process, though it's technically possible for the process to set up a signal handler for SIGSEGV, in which case the kernel resumes execution of the process at the location of the signal handler. It's generally not a good idea though because a process is considered to be in an...

                              – forest
                              yesterday












                            • ...undefined state according to POSIX if execution resumes after a SIGSEGV has been raised that didn't come from raise(). It will resume execution at the failed instruction which will just run again and cause the process to lock up if the signal is ignored. So it can be up to the program to deal with it, if it sets up a signal handler for SIGSEGV, but there's pretty much never any situation where that would be done (though I think the Dolphin emulator catches segfaults for some sort of hacky optimization so it doesn't have to emulate some weird paging behavior and can rely on the MMU).

                              – forest
                              yesterday












                            • See this for a (rare) example of when it is up to the program. Or just read PoC||GTFO 6:3.

                              – forest
                              yesterday







                            • 1





                              @forest Thanks a lot.

                              – Marc.2377
                              yesterday













                            4












                            4








                            4







                            Your question hints at a more deep subject that is rings and permissions of code on an operating system. On MS DOS the code could do whatever it wants. If the code wanted to write all 0x00's to a hard drive it could if it wanted to send strange output to a piece of hardware it could also there was nothing stopping the user's code. On a modern OS there is a concept of rings (this is enforced by the CPU). The kernel runs on ring zero and it could do whatever it wants. The user's code on the other hand can not. It runs on something called ring 3 and it is given it's own little piece of memory and inside of that memory it can do whatever it wants but it can not directly talk to hardware. If the user's code tries to talk to hardware then the kernel immediately kills the program. This means that it is highly unlikely that a regular virus can kill hardware because it can not talk to it directly.



                            If the kernel is hacked then the game is basically over. The kernel can do whatever it wants and a whole host of bad things can happen such as overclocking the CPU to a point where the hardware is unstable, wiping the hard drives (filling the with zeros for example), or pretty much any other plausible attack.






                            share|improve this answer








                            New contributor




                            scifi6546 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.










                            Your question hints at a more deep subject that is rings and permissions of code on an operating system. On MS DOS the code could do whatever it wants. If the code wanted to write all 0x00's to a hard drive it could if it wanted to send strange output to a piece of hardware it could also there was nothing stopping the user's code. On a modern OS there is a concept of rings (this is enforced by the CPU). The kernel runs on ring zero and it could do whatever it wants. The user's code on the other hand can not. It runs on something called ring 3 and it is given it's own little piece of memory and inside of that memory it can do whatever it wants but it can not directly talk to hardware. If the user's code tries to talk to hardware then the kernel immediately kills the program. This means that it is highly unlikely that a regular virus can kill hardware because it can not talk to it directly.



                            If the kernel is hacked then the game is basically over. The kernel can do whatever it wants and a whole host of bad things can happen such as overclocking the CPU to a point where the hardware is unstable, wiping the hard drives (filling the with zeros for example), or pretty much any other plausible attack.







                            share|improve this answer








                            New contributor




                            scifi6546 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.









                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer






                            New contributor




                            scifi6546 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.









                            answered 2 days ago









                            scifi6546scifi6546

                            491




                            491




                            New contributor




                            scifi6546 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.





                            New contributor





                            scifi6546 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.






                            scifi6546 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.







                            • 3





                              "If the user's code tries to talk to hardware then the kernel immediately kills the program" - Really? Can you provide a citation for that? I thought the protected instruction would simply fail and it's up to the program to deal with that reasonably or crash.

                              – Marc.2377
                              2 days ago






                            • 1





                              @Marc.2377 It is correct. If the user's code attempts to execute an instruction in CPL3 that requires CPL0 privileges, it will throw #GP(0) (general protection fault, or GPF). This causes the code to jump into the kernel to see what signal handler was set up for that event. By default, the kernel will kill the process, though it's technically possible for the process to set up a signal handler for SIGSEGV, in which case the kernel resumes execution of the process at the location of the signal handler. It's generally not a good idea though because a process is considered to be in an...

                              – forest
                              yesterday












                            • ...undefined state according to POSIX if execution resumes after a SIGSEGV has been raised that didn't come from raise(). It will resume execution at the failed instruction which will just run again and cause the process to lock up if the signal is ignored. So it can be up to the program to deal with it, if it sets up a signal handler for SIGSEGV, but there's pretty much never any situation where that would be done (though I think the Dolphin emulator catches segfaults for some sort of hacky optimization so it doesn't have to emulate some weird paging behavior and can rely on the MMU).

                              – forest
                              yesterday












                            • See this for a (rare) example of when it is up to the program. Or just read PoC||GTFO 6:3.

                              – forest
                              yesterday







                            • 1





                              @forest Thanks a lot.

                              – Marc.2377
                              yesterday












                            • 3





                              "If the user's code tries to talk to hardware then the kernel immediately kills the program" - Really? Can you provide a citation for that? I thought the protected instruction would simply fail and it's up to the program to deal with that reasonably or crash.

                              – Marc.2377
                              2 days ago






                            • 1





                              @Marc.2377 It is correct. If the user's code attempts to execute an instruction in CPL3 that requires CPL0 privileges, it will throw #GP(0) (general protection fault, or GPF). This causes the code to jump into the kernel to see what signal handler was set up for that event. By default, the kernel will kill the process, though it's technically possible for the process to set up a signal handler for SIGSEGV, in which case the kernel resumes execution of the process at the location of the signal handler. It's generally not a good idea though because a process is considered to be in an...

                              – forest
                              yesterday












                            • ...undefined state according to POSIX if execution resumes after a SIGSEGV has been raised that didn't come from raise(). It will resume execution at the failed instruction which will just run again and cause the process to lock up if the signal is ignored. So it can be up to the program to deal with it, if it sets up a signal handler for SIGSEGV, but there's pretty much never any situation where that would be done (though I think the Dolphin emulator catches segfaults for some sort of hacky optimization so it doesn't have to emulate some weird paging behavior and can rely on the MMU).

                              – forest
                              yesterday












                            • See this for a (rare) example of when it is up to the program. Or just read PoC||GTFO 6:3.

                              – forest
                              yesterday







                            • 1





                              @forest Thanks a lot.

                              – Marc.2377
                              yesterday







                            3




                            3





                            "If the user's code tries to talk to hardware then the kernel immediately kills the program" - Really? Can you provide a citation for that? I thought the protected instruction would simply fail and it's up to the program to deal with that reasonably or crash.

                            – Marc.2377
                            2 days ago





                            "If the user's code tries to talk to hardware then the kernel immediately kills the program" - Really? Can you provide a citation for that? I thought the protected instruction would simply fail and it's up to the program to deal with that reasonably or crash.

                            – Marc.2377
                            2 days ago




                            1




                            1





                            @Marc.2377 It is correct. If the user's code attempts to execute an instruction in CPL3 that requires CPL0 privileges, it will throw #GP(0) (general protection fault, or GPF). This causes the code to jump into the kernel to see what signal handler was set up for that event. By default, the kernel will kill the process, though it's technically possible for the process to set up a signal handler for SIGSEGV, in which case the kernel resumes execution of the process at the location of the signal handler. It's generally not a good idea though because a process is considered to be in an...

                            – forest
                            yesterday






                            @Marc.2377 It is correct. If the user's code attempts to execute an instruction in CPL3 that requires CPL0 privileges, it will throw #GP(0) (general protection fault, or GPF). This causes the code to jump into the kernel to see what signal handler was set up for that event. By default, the kernel will kill the process, though it's technically possible for the process to set up a signal handler for SIGSEGV, in which case the kernel resumes execution of the process at the location of the signal handler. It's generally not a good idea though because a process is considered to be in an...

                            – forest
                            yesterday














                            ...undefined state according to POSIX if execution resumes after a SIGSEGV has been raised that didn't come from raise(). It will resume execution at the failed instruction which will just run again and cause the process to lock up if the signal is ignored. So it can be up to the program to deal with it, if it sets up a signal handler for SIGSEGV, but there's pretty much never any situation where that would be done (though I think the Dolphin emulator catches segfaults for some sort of hacky optimization so it doesn't have to emulate some weird paging behavior and can rely on the MMU).

                            – forest
                            yesterday






                            ...undefined state according to POSIX if execution resumes after a SIGSEGV has been raised that didn't come from raise(). It will resume execution at the failed instruction which will just run again and cause the process to lock up if the signal is ignored. So it can be up to the program to deal with it, if it sets up a signal handler for SIGSEGV, but there's pretty much never any situation where that would be done (though I think the Dolphin emulator catches segfaults for some sort of hacky optimization so it doesn't have to emulate some weird paging behavior and can rely on the MMU).

                            – forest
                            yesterday














                            See this for a (rare) example of when it is up to the program. Or just read PoC||GTFO 6:3.

                            – forest
                            yesterday






                            See this for a (rare) example of when it is up to the program. Or just read PoC||GTFO 6:3.

                            – forest
                            yesterday





                            1




                            1





                            @forest Thanks a lot.

                            – Marc.2377
                            yesterday





                            @forest Thanks a lot.

                            – Marc.2377
                            yesterday











                            3














                            Potentially. It would be hard to do however, as it would more than likely have to masquerade as a legit BIOS update somewhere down the line. The method to do so will change depending on your mobo but chances are it would have to involve the leaking of private or hardware keys or other secrets.






                            share|improve this answer



























                              3














                              Potentially. It would be hard to do however, as it would more than likely have to masquerade as a legit BIOS update somewhere down the line. The method to do so will change depending on your mobo but chances are it would have to involve the leaking of private or hardware keys or other secrets.






                              share|improve this answer

























                                3












                                3








                                3







                                Potentially. It would be hard to do however, as it would more than likely have to masquerade as a legit BIOS update somewhere down the line. The method to do so will change depending on your mobo but chances are it would have to involve the leaking of private or hardware keys or other secrets.






                                share|improve this answer













                                Potentially. It would be hard to do however, as it would more than likely have to masquerade as a legit BIOS update somewhere down the line. The method to do so will change depending on your mobo but chances are it would have to involve the leaking of private or hardware keys or other secrets.







                                share|improve this answer












                                share|improve this answer



                                share|improve this answer










                                answered 2 days ago









                                520520

                                50724




                                50724





















                                    3














                                    Yes. It's hardware specific but here is one case of a user accidentally breaking their motherboard firmware from the OS level https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/2402



                                    A bug in the firmware of an MSI laptop meant that clearing the efi variables caused the laptop to be unusable. Because these variables were exposed to the OS and mounted as a file, deleting every file from the OS level caused the issue which could be exploited by a virus to specifically target these variables.






                                    share|improve this answer





























                                      3














                                      Yes. It's hardware specific but here is one case of a user accidentally breaking their motherboard firmware from the OS level https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/2402



                                      A bug in the firmware of an MSI laptop meant that clearing the efi variables caused the laptop to be unusable. Because these variables were exposed to the OS and mounted as a file, deleting every file from the OS level caused the issue which could be exploited by a virus to specifically target these variables.






                                      share|improve this answer



























                                        3












                                        3








                                        3







                                        Yes. It's hardware specific but here is one case of a user accidentally breaking their motherboard firmware from the OS level https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/2402



                                        A bug in the firmware of an MSI laptop meant that clearing the efi variables caused the laptop to be unusable. Because these variables were exposed to the OS and mounted as a file, deleting every file from the OS level caused the issue which could be exploited by a virus to specifically target these variables.






                                        share|improve this answer















                                        Yes. It's hardware specific but here is one case of a user accidentally breaking their motherboard firmware from the OS level https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/2402



                                        A bug in the firmware of an MSI laptop meant that clearing the efi variables caused the laptop to be unusable. Because these variables were exposed to the OS and mounted as a file, deleting every file from the OS level caused the issue which could be exploited by a virus to specifically target these variables.







                                        share|improve this answer














                                        share|improve this answer



                                        share|improve this answer








                                        edited 19 hours ago

























                                        answered 19 hours ago









                                        QwertieQwertie

                                        28229




                                        28229





















                                            0














                                            There are many ways, and some of them are unsettling. For example, Computrace seems to be a permanent backdoor that can bypass not only the operating system but even the BIOS. And more generally, the Intel Management Engine has full control over your computer and can plausibly be exploited. These can modify your BIOS but do not even need to. Just in 2017, security researchers figured out how to exploit the Intel IME via USB to run unsigned code.



                                            The point is that even if you have a completely secure operating system and you never download any insecure or malicious software, there is still a non-negligible possibility that you can be affected by a malware that bypasses all that by exploiting a security vulnerability in your hardware (even when your computer is supposedly powered off).






                                            share|improve this answer





























                                              0














                                              There are many ways, and some of them are unsettling. For example, Computrace seems to be a permanent backdoor that can bypass not only the operating system but even the BIOS. And more generally, the Intel Management Engine has full control over your computer and can plausibly be exploited. These can modify your BIOS but do not even need to. Just in 2017, security researchers figured out how to exploit the Intel IME via USB to run unsigned code.



                                              The point is that even if you have a completely secure operating system and you never download any insecure or malicious software, there is still a non-negligible possibility that you can be affected by a malware that bypasses all that by exploiting a security vulnerability in your hardware (even when your computer is supposedly powered off).






                                              share|improve this answer



























                                                0












                                                0








                                                0







                                                There are many ways, and some of them are unsettling. For example, Computrace seems to be a permanent backdoor that can bypass not only the operating system but even the BIOS. And more generally, the Intel Management Engine has full control over your computer and can plausibly be exploited. These can modify your BIOS but do not even need to. Just in 2017, security researchers figured out how to exploit the Intel IME via USB to run unsigned code.



                                                The point is that even if you have a completely secure operating system and you never download any insecure or malicious software, there is still a non-negligible possibility that you can be affected by a malware that bypasses all that by exploiting a security vulnerability in your hardware (even when your computer is supposedly powered off).






                                                share|improve this answer















                                                There are many ways, and some of them are unsettling. For example, Computrace seems to be a permanent backdoor that can bypass not only the operating system but even the BIOS. And more generally, the Intel Management Engine has full control over your computer and can plausibly be exploited. These can modify your BIOS but do not even need to. Just in 2017, security researchers figured out how to exploit the Intel IME via USB to run unsigned code.



                                                The point is that even if you have a completely secure operating system and you never download any insecure or malicious software, there is still a non-negligible possibility that you can be affected by a malware that bypasses all that by exploiting a security vulnerability in your hardware (even when your computer is supposedly powered off).







                                                share|improve this answer














                                                share|improve this answer



                                                share|improve this answer








                                                edited 12 hours ago

























                                                answered 12 hours ago









                                                user21820user21820

                                                357313




                                                357313















                                                    protected by Gilles 16 hours ago



                                                    Thank you for your interest in this question.
                                                    Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



                                                    Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?



                                                    Popular posts from this blog

                                                    getting Checkpoint VPN SSL Network Extender working in the command lineHow to connect to CheckPoint VPN on Ubuntu 18.04LTS?Will the Linux ( red-hat ) Open VPNC Client connect to checkpoint or nortel VPN gateways?VPN client for linux machine + support checkpoint gatewayVPN SSL Network Extender in FirefoxLinux Checkpoint SNX tool configuration issuesCheck Point - Connect under Linux - snx + OTPSNX VPN Ububuntu 18.XXUsing Checkpoint VPN SSL Network Extender CLI with certificateVPN with network manager (nm-applet) is not workingWill the Linux ( red-hat ) Open VPNC Client connect to checkpoint or nortel VPN gateways?VPN client for linux machine + support checkpoint gatewayImport VPN config files to NetworkManager from command lineTrouble connecting to VPN using network-manager, while command line worksStart a VPN connection with PPTP protocol on command linestarting a docker service daemon breaks the vpn networkCan't connect to vpn with Network-managerVPN SSL Network Extender in FirefoxUsing Checkpoint VPN SSL Network Extender CLI with certificate

                                                    Cannot Extend partition with GParted The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) 2019 Community Moderator Election ResultsCan't increase partition size with GParted?GParted doesn't recognize the unallocated space after my current partitionWhat is the best way to add unallocated space located before to Ubuntu 12.04 partition with GParted live?I can't figure out how to extend my Arch home partition into free spaceGparted Linux Mint 18.1 issueTrying to extend but swap partition is showing as Unknown in Gparted, shows proper from fdiskRearrange partitions in gparted to extend a partitionUnable to extend partition even though unallocated space is next to it using GPartedAllocate free space to root partitiongparted: how to merge unallocated space with a partition

                                                    NetworkManager fails with “Could not find source connection”Trouble connecting to VPN using network-manager, while command line worksHow can I be notified about state changes to a VPN adapterBacktrack 5 R3 - Refuses to connect to VPNFeed all traffic through OpenVPN for a specific network namespace onlyRun daemon on startup in Debian once openvpn connection establishedpfsense tcp connection between openvpn and lan is brokenInternet connection problem with web browsers onlyWhy does NetworkManager explicitly support tun/tap devices?Browser issues with VPNTwo IP addresses assigned to the same network card - OpenVPN issues?Cannot connect to WiFi with nmcli, although secrets are provided