Description
A processor event or prediction may allow incorrect operations (or correct operations with incorrect data) to execute transiently, potentially exposing data over a covert channel.
When operations execute but do not commit to the processor's architectural state, this is commonly referred to as transient execution. This behavior can occur when the processor mis-predicts an outcome (such as a branch target), or when a processor event (such as an exception or microcode assist, etc.) is handled after younger operations have already executed. Operations that execute transiently may exhibit observable discrepancies (CWE-203) in covert channels [REF-1400] such as data caches. Observable discrepancies of this kind can be detected and analyzed using timing or power analysis techniques, which may allow an attacker to infer information about the operations that executed transiently. For example, the attacker may be able to infer confidential data that was accessed or used by those operations. Transient execution weaknesses may be exploited using one of two methods. In the first method, the attacker generates a code sequence that exposes data through a covert channel when it is executed transiently (the attacker must also be able to trigger transient execution). Some transient execution weaknesses can only expose data that is accessible within the attacker's processor context. For example, an attacker executing code in a software sandbox may be able to use a transient execution weakness to expose data within the same address space, but outside of the attacker's sandbox. Other transient execution weaknesses can expose data that is architecturally inaccessible, that is, data protected by hardware-enforced boundaries such as page tables or privilege rings. These weaknesses are the subject of CWE-1421. In the second exploitation method, the attacker first identifies a code sequence in a victim program that, when executed transiently, can expose data that is architecturally accessible within the victim's processor context. For instance, the attacker may search the victim program for code sequences that resemble a bounds-check bypass sequence (see Demonstrative Example 1). If the attacker can trigger a mis-prediction of the conditional branch and influence the index of the out-of-bounds array access, then the attacker may be able to infer the value of out-of-bounds data by monitoring observable discrepancies in a covert channel.
Potential Impact
Confidentiality
Read Memory
Demonstrative Examples
if (x < array1_size)
y = array2[array1[x] * 4096];Mitigations & Prevention
The hardware designer can attempt to prevent transient execution from causing observable discrepancies in specific covert channels.
Processor designers may expose instructions or other architectural features that allow software to mitigate the effects of transient execution, but without disabling predictors. These features may also help to limit opportunities for data exposure.
Processor designers may expose registers (for example, control registers or model-specific registers) that allow privileged and/or user software to disable specific predictors or other hardware features that can cause confidential data to be exposed during transient execution.
Processor designers, system software vendors, or other agents may choose to restrict the ability of unprivileged software to access to high-resolution timers that are commonly used to monitor covert channels.
Isolate sandboxes or managed runtimes in separate address spaces (separate processes). For examples, see [REF-1421].
Include serialization instructions (for example, LFENCE) that prevent processor events or mis-predictions prior to the serialization instruction from causing transient execution after the serialization instruction. For some weaknesses, a serialization instruction can also prevent a processor event or a mis-prediction from occurring after the serialization instruction (for example, CVE-2018-3639 can allow a processor to predict that a load will not depend on an older store; a serialization instru
Use control-flow integrity (CFI) techniques to constrain the behavior of instructions that redirect the instruction pointer, such as indirect branch instructions.
If the weakness is exposed by a single instruction (or a small set of instructions), then the compiler (or JIT, etc.) can be configured to prevent the affected instruction(s) from being generated, and instead generate an alternate sequence of instructions that is not affected by the weakness. One prominent example of this mitigation is retpoline ([REF-1414]).
Use software techniques that can mitigate the consequences of transient execution. For example, address masking can be used in some circumstances to prevent out-of-bounds transient reads.
Use software techniques (including the use of serialization instructions) that are intended to reduce the number of instructions that can be executed transiently after a processor event or misprediction.
Detection Methods
- Manual Analysis Moderate — This weakness can be detected in hardware by manually inspecting processor specifications. Features that exhibit this weakness may include microarchitectural predictors, access control checks that occur out-of-order, or any other features that can allow operations to execute without committing to ar
- Fuzzing Opportunistic — Academic researchers have demonstrated that this weakness can be detected in hardware using software fuzzing tools that treat the underlying hardware as a black box ([REF-1428]).
- Fuzzing Opportunistic — Academic researchers have demonstrated that this weakness can be detected in software using software fuzzing tools ([REF-1429]).
- Automated Static Analysis Limited — A variety of automated static analysis tools can identify potentially exploitable code sequences in software. These tools may perform the analysis on source code, on binary code, or on an intermediate code representation (for example, during compilation).
- Automated Analysis High — Software vendors can release tools that detect presence of known weaknesses on a processor. For example, some of these tools can attempt to transiently execute a vulnerable code sequence and detect whether code successfully leaks data in a manner consistent with the weakn
Real-World CVE Examples
| CVE ID | Description |
|---|---|
| CVE-2017-5753 | Microarchitectural conditional branch predictors may allow operations to execute transiently after a misprediction, potentially exposing data over a covert channel. |
| CVE-2021-0089 | A machine clear triggered by self-modifying code may allow incorrect operations to execute transiently, potentially exposing data over a covert channel. |
| CVE-2022-0002 | Microarchitectural indirect branch predictors may allow incorrect operations to execute transiently after a misprediction, potentially exposing data over a covert channel. |
Related Weaknesses
Frequently Asked Questions
What is CWE-1420?
CWE-1420 (Exposure of Sensitive Information during Transient Execution) is a software weakness identified by MITRE's Common Weakness Enumeration. It is classified as a Base-level weakness. A processor event or prediction may allow incorrect operations (or correct operations with incorrect data) to execute transiently, potentially exposing data over a covert channel.
How can CWE-1420 be exploited?
Attackers can exploit CWE-1420 (Exposure of Sensitive Information during Transient Execution) to read memory. This weakness is typically introduced during the Architecture and Design, Implementation phase of software development.
How do I prevent CWE-1420?
Key mitigations include: The hardware designer can attempt to prevent transient execution from causing observable discrepancies in specific covert channels.
What is the severity of CWE-1420?
CWE-1420 is classified as a Base-level weakness (Medium abstraction). It has been observed in 3 real-world CVEs.