Embedded Systems Academy

Meltdown and Spectre are considered by many to be the biggest security flaws in the history of computing, both in terms of numbers of affected devices (billions) and time they have been laying dormant (20 years). Whenever security issues like these that affect PCs and mobile devices become public, we take a look at how they might affect Embedded Systems as well. An inconvenient truth in our industry is that software in Embedded Systems does not get updated, to put it mildly, as often as regular desktop PCs. Sometimes that means “never”. That is why even “ancient” attack vectors like the WannaCry and its descendants such as Petya and NotPetya ramsomware can still cause major damage in various systems, even months or years after the underlying security issues have been made public.

The core issue behind Meltdown and Spectre is that parts of a memory protection and isolation system are being compromised on a hardware level. Such isolation is meant to ensure that one task or program can not access the memory used by another task or program and potentially spy out sensitive information. The “good news” for most older chips and many embedded microcontroller devices first: They often don’t have a vulnerable memory isolation logic (involving out-of-order or speculative code execution) in the first place. It is actually worse: The memory in most lower-end embedded chips is wide open to all running tasks. While some microcontrollers do provide an MPU (Memory Protection Unit, see ARM Community for an example), it is often limited in terms of number of memory areas, sizes and number of levels/tasks supported. From our experience it is safe to say that a large number of embedded applications doesn’t make use of it at all. And when an MPU is used, then the primary goal is often to protect code against memory-crossing bugs to make it safer against failure, but not attacks. With these types of systems, once a hacker manages to execute some code on an embedded device, this code should be assumed to immediately have access to all resources of the chip, including the memory.

This looks like a devastating assessment from a security standpoint, however, injecting code into an embedded microcontroller is not easy. Many such systems do not use an operating system at all, have no command line or only a very limited user interface without the option to load and start a piece of code. Typically the only way to inject code is through a bootloader or a debug interface, if at all. It is up to the system designers, sometimes the factory programming and the program running on an embedded microcontroller to disable casual access to these functions.

We know that for many designers of embedded systems, the time they can spend on security issues is limited. If you are part of this group, you may use the publicity around Meltdown and Spectre to justify some extra time to review potentially vulnerabilities to attacks that are based on the same principle: to load or inject malicious code that spies out or manipulates data in your embedded system.

For such a review, first look for all options how code could be injected into your system or altered. Could an attacker make use of any of the provided bootloader mechanisms or the debug interface? If you can’t disable all of these because you need to be able to update “legitimate” code, then authentication is mandatory and encryption during transmission highly recommended. Preferably implement different layers of authentication, for example one to access the interface to update code and another one to protect the code itself. For an example see the secure secondary bootloader we implemented for NXP. Also, review if your microcontroller has a MPU or similar and how you can make best use of it not only to protect the system from buggy code but also from intentional attacks.

Visit us in Nuremberg for the 28th international exhibition for Electric Automation, Systems and Components, the “sps ipc drives 2017”. The show is open from November 28th to 30th, 2017. Our software and solutions are shown on two displays at the NXP booth and the CiA (CAN in Automation) booth.

Our display at the NXP booth (Hall 10.1, Booth 325) focuses on CAN FD and security. The new features of CAN FD (bigger message frames, higher bit rate) are used to implement a more efficient and secure bootloader based on CANcrypt and AES based authentication and encryption. Join us for an informal lunch & learn session about CAN FD on Tuesday or Wednesday starting at noon (for about 45min) in the NXP on-site meeting room. Seats are limited, please register here to join.

Our display at the CiA booth (Hall 2, Booth 300) focuses on CANopen FD. A multi vendor demo setup shows one of the many new features available with CANopen FD: segmented broadcast. This transfer mode supports sharing data blocks (for example tables with data of drive acceleration ramps) instantly among multiple participants. In the demo, the data exchange is visualized using graphics, which are shared among multiple nodes.

Contact us, if you still need tickets for the event or if you would like to set an appointment to discuss your CAN FD / CANopen FD / CAN security requirements.

Together with NXP, the Embedded Systems Academy implements a secure CAN FD bootloader based on the CANcrypt security protocols. The bootloader will be available to users of the LPC546xx as free download. It is a “secondary bootloader”, meaning that it only provides security for the added bootloading channel, in this case the CAN FD interface. Someone with physical access to the LPC546xx will always be able to use the primary, on-chip bootloader to re-flash the device with any code.

The security system of the bootloader uses two security levels, each based on a symmetric key (default 128bit, up to 1024bit optional).

1. On the CAN FD communication level, the CANcrypt protocol (www.cancrypt.eu) is used to ensure that only an authorized communication partner can activate the bootloader, erase the flash memory and send new code to the LPC546xx. The CANcrypt connection key used for this level is generated by the system builder or integrator that initially assembles the entire system.
2. On the file transfer level, the file containing the new code to be loaded is encrypted using an encryption and authentication method based on a code protection key that gets programmed into the LPC546xx at the same time when the bootloader is installed (typically at manufacturer end-of-line assembly and test).

Figure: Secure bootloader security levels

These two levels ensure a separation of the security features between manufacturer and system integrator/builder or service technician. Only an authorized technician will be able to connect his diagnostic device or software to the bootloader. But at this security level alone it will not be possible to generate authorized firmware, that requires an additional key only known to the manufacturer.

If you want to learn more about this bootloader, register now for the webinar (Thursday, June 29, 5:00 PM – 6:00 PM CEST) on the NXP website at: http://www.nxp.com/support/training-events/online-academy/lpc54000-series-online-training:LPC54000-Series-Online-Training

The version for free download is a binary only and will use a pre-selected cipher algorithms, fixed default configuration for parameters like CAN FD bit rates, CAN IDs and timings and timeouts used. The full source code is available from Embedded Systems Academy, giving users full control over all configurations and cipher algorithms used.

Could Ransomware Go Embedded?

For criminal hackers, ransomware has become increasingly popular. Ransomware locks a PC or encrypts its data and ask for a ransom to be paid to the hackers to unlock the PC or decrypt the data.

To which extent are embedded systems vulnerable to similar attacks? How realistic is it that firmware update mechanisms are used by hackers to install foreign code? Although loading malicious code to deeply embedded systems might seem far-fetched, some of the Snowden documents have shown that this already happened to the firmware in disk drives. Also, the well-documented Jeep Cherokee attack in 2015 that allowed a remote operator to almost entirely remote control the vehicle shook the industry. A wake-up call?

The Challenges

For hackers, the challenging part is that even though there has been a development to use more off-the-shelf hardware reference designs and software, most Embedded Systems platforms are still different from each other. Different microcontrollers require different code, so that ransomware has to be tailor-made for a specific microcontroller. The bootloader mechanisms in place are also different which means hackers need to find exploits for every one they are trying to attack.

A hacker’s task would be to write an exploit that manages to replace the entire original code and includes an own, password-protected, bootloader. With payment of the ransom, the hacker would share details on how to use his bootloader. There would of course always be the risk that this feature was not tested well enough by the hacker and a restore was not possible at all. It can be assumed that far more effort would have gone into generating the exploit and replacement code than the unlocking and restoring procedure.

Note that many microcontrollers have a built-in on-chip bootloader that cannot be erased or disabled, so if such a bootloader is usable in a device, a device with ransomware could be re-programmed on-site by the manufacturer or a technician. However, that might still be impractical or expensive if, for example, a very large number of devices were affected and/or the devices were at very remote locations.

A theoretical Example

To pick a specific application example, let’s have a look at an elevator / lift system: It consists of multiple microcontroller systems that are interconnected for example by CAN or CANopen and let us further assume they also feature a CAN/CANopen based bootloader mechanism.

A hacker installing ransomware replacing the existing bootloader with their own would need to

1. get access to the system (either physical by installing a sniffer or remotely through a hacked PC that is connected to the system)
2. know which microcontrollers are used
3. know how the CAN/CANopen bootloader mechanism works (with some CANopen profiles, some details about it are standardized)

This information might be stored on multiple PCs: with the manufacturers, distributors, technicians or operators of the system. If one or multiple of those get hacked, an attacker might have all this information readily available. Note that the risk of a rogue or disgruntled employee with inside knowledge is often underestimated. The information above will typically be accessible by many people.

With this information, a hacker would be able to generate and load his own ransomware loader replacing the original code in all devices, which would disable the system. Now buttons, displays and controls would all stop working and every affected device / microcontroller would require a restore of its original firmware. If the affected devices still have an on-chip bootloader and if it can be activated, then a technician could manually update all affected devices. For large elevator systems with 20 or more floors and multiple shafts this task alone could take days.

How likely is such an attack?

The sophistication level required for the attack described above is quite high. Not only does it require “traditional” hacker knowledge but also in-depth knowledge of embedded systems. At this time it might be unattractive to most hackers as there are possibly still many “easier” targets out there. However, with enough resources thrown at the task, a determined hacker group could achieve the tasks listed above.

What are possible counter measures?

The most basic pre-requisite for an attack as described here is the knowledge about the specific microcontroller and bootloader mechanism used. This information can be obtained by either monitoring/tracing the CAN/CANopen communication during the firmware update process or by access to a computer that has this information stored. Protecting these in the first place has the highest priority.

The designer has to make sure that the firmware update process is not easy to reengineer just by monitoring the CAN/CANopen communication of a firmware update procedure. Things that we can often learn just by monitoring a firmware reprogramming cycle:

1. How is the bootloader activated? Often the activation happens through a specific read/write sequence.
   Counter measure: Only allow authorized partners to activate the bootloader, best by using encryption such as CANcrypt or at least a challenge/response mechanism that is not repetitive.
2. What file format is used? “.hex” or binary versions of it can easily be recognized.
   Counter measure: Use encryption or authentication methods to prohibit that “any” code can be loaded by your own bootloader.
3. What CRC is used? Often a standard-CRC stored at end of the file or loadable memory.
   Counter measure: If file format doesn’t use encryption, at least encrypt the CRC or better use a cryptographic hash function instead of a plain CRC.

These counter measures are fall-back safeguards to protect the system if a higher security level has failed before. A hacker should not get bootloader access to a deeply embedded system in the first place. Ensure that all remote-access options to the bootloader level are well-secured.