Common Weakness Enumeration

The product does not provide its users with the ability to update or patch its firmware to address any vulnerabilities or weaknesses that may be present.

Without the ability to patch or update firmware, consumers will be left vulnerable to exploitation of any known vulnerabilities, or any vulnerabilities that are discovered in the future. This can expose consumers to permanent risk throughout the entire lifetime of the device, which could be years or decades. Some external protective measures and mitigations might be employed to aid in preventing or reducing the risk of malicious attack, but the root weakness cannot be corrected.

This listing shows possible areas for which the given weakness could appear. These may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms, Technologies, or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given weakness appears for that instance.

Languages	Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Operating Systems	Class: Not OS-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Architectures	Class: Not Architecture-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Technologies	Class: Not Technology-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

Example 1

A refrigerator has an Internet interface for the official purpose of alerting the manufacturer when that refrigerator detects a fault. Because the device is attached to the Internet, the refrigerator is a target for hackers who may wish to use the device other potentially more nefarious purposes.

This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a weakness fits within the context of external information sources.

The product conducts a secure-boot process that transfers bootloader code from Non-Volatile Memory (NVM) into Volatile Memory (VM), but it does not have sufficient access control or other protections for the Volatile Memory.

Adversaries could bypass the secure-boot process and execute their own untrusted, malicious boot code.

As a part of a secure-boot process, the read-only-memory (ROM) code for a System-on-Chip (SoC) or other system fetches bootloader code from Non-Volatile Memory (NVM) and stores the code in Volatile Memory (VM), such as dynamic, random-access memory (DRAM) or static, random-access memory (SRAM). The NVM is usually external to the SoC, while the VM is internal to the SoC. As the code is transferred from NVM to VM, it is authenticated by the SoC's ROM code.

If the volatile-memory-region protections or access controls are insufficient to prevent modifications from an adversary or untrusted agent, the secure boot may be bypassed or replaced with the execution of an adversary's code.

This listing shows possible areas for which the given weakness could appear. These may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms, Technologies, or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given weakness appears for that instance.

Languages	Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Operating Systems	Class: Not OS-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Architectures	Class: Not Architecture-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Technologies	Class: Not Technology-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

Example 1

A typical SoC secure boot's flow includes fetching the next piece of code (i.e., the boot loader) from NVM (e.g., serial, peripheral interface (SPI) flash), and transferring it to DRAM/SRAM volatile, internal memory, which is more efficient.

The memory from where the boot loader executes can be modified by an adversary.

This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a weakness fits within the context of external information sources.

The product allows address regions to overlap, which can result in the bypassing of intended memory protection.

Isolated memory regions and access control (read/write) policies are used by hardware to protect privileged software. Software components are often allowed to change or remap memory region definitions in order to enable flexible and dynamically changeable memory management by system software.

If a software component running at lower privilege can program a memory address region to overlap with other memory regions used by software running at higher privilege, privilege escalation may be available to attackers. The memory protection unit (MPU) logic can incorrectly handle such an address overlap and allow the lower-privilege software to read or write into the protected memory region, resulting in privilege escalation attack. An address overlap weakness can also be used to launch a denial of service attack on the higher-privilege software memory regions.

This listing shows possible areas for which the given weakness could appear. These may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms, Technologies, or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given weakness appears for that instance.

Languages	Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Operating Systems	Class: Not OS-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Architectures	Class: Not Architecture-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Technologies	Memory Hardware (Undetermined Prevalence) Processor Hardware (Undetermined Prevalence)

Example 1

For example, consider a design with a 16-bit address that has two software privilege levels: Privileged_SW and Non_privileged_SW. To isolate the system memory regions accessible by these two privilege levels, the design supports three memory regions: Region_0, Region_1, and Region_2.

Each region is defined by two 32 bit registers: its range and its access policy.

• Address_range[15:0]: specifies the Base address of the region
• Address_range[31:16]: specifies the size of the region
• Access_policy[31:0]: specifies what types of software can access a region and which actions are allowed

Certain bits of the access policy are defined symbolically as follows:

• Access_policy.read_np: if set to one, allows reads from Non_privileged_SW
• Access_policy.write_np: if set to one, allows writes from Non_privileged_SW
• Access_policy.execute_np: if set to one, allows code execution by Non_privileged_SW
• Access_policy.read_p: if set to one, allows reads from Privileged_SW
• Access_policy.write_p: if set to one, allows writes from Privileged_SW
• Access_policy.execute_p: if set to one, allows code execution by Privileged_SW

For any requests from software, an address-protection filter checks the address range and access policies for each of the three regions, and only allows software access if all three filters allow access.

Consider the following goals for access control as intended by the designer:

• Region_0 & Region_1: registers are programmable by Privileged_SW
• Region_2: registers are programmable by Non_privileged_SW

The intention is that Non_privileged_SW cannot modify memory region and policies defined by Privileged_SW in Region_0 and Region_1. Thus, it cannot read or write the memory regions that Privileged_SW is using.

This design could be improved in several ways.

Example 2

The example code below is taken from the IOMMU controller module of the HACK@DAC'19 buggy CVA6 SoC [REF-1338]. The static memory map is composed of a set of Memory-Mapped Input/Output (MMIO) regions covering different IP agents within the SoC. Each region is defined by two 64-bit variables representing the base address and size of the memory region (XXXBase and XXXLength).

In this example, we have 12 IP agents, and only 4 of them are called out for illustration purposes in the code snippets. Access to the AES IP MMIO region is considered privileged as it provides access to AES secret key, internal states, or decrypted data.

The vulnerable code allows the overlap between the protected MMIO region of the AES peripheral and the unprotected UART MMIO region. As a result, unprivileged users can access the protected region of the AES IP. In the given vulnerable example UART MMIO region starts at address 64'h1000_0000 and ends at address 64'h1011_1000 (UARTBase is 64'h1000_0000, and the size of the region is provided by the UARTLength of 64'h0011_1000).

On the other hand, the AES MMIO region starts at address 64'h1010_0000 and ends at address 64'h1010_1000, which implies an overlap between the two peripherals' memory regions. Thus, any user with access to the UART can read or write the AES MMIO region, e.g., the AES secret key.

To mitigate this issue, remove the overlapping address regions by decreasing the size of the UART memory region or adjusting memory bases for all the remaining peripherals. [REF-1339]

This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a weakness fits within the context of external information sources.

The System-On-a-Chip (SoC) does not properly isolate shared resources between trusted and untrusted agents.

A System-On-a-Chip (SoC) has a lot of functionality, but it may have a limited number of pins or pads. A pin can only perform one function at a time. However, it can be configured to perform multiple different functions. This technique is called pin multiplexing. Similarly, several resources on the chip may be shared to multiplex and support different features or functions. When such resources are shared between trusted and untrusted agents, untrusted agents may be able to access the assets intended to be accessed only by the trusted agents.

This listing shows possible areas for which the given weakness could appear. These may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms, Technologies, or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given weakness appears for that instance.

Languages	Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Technologies	Class: System on Chip (Undetermined Prevalence)

Example 1

Consider the following SoC design. The Hardware Root of Trust (HRoT) local SRAM is memory mapped in the core{0-N} address space. The HRoT allows or disallows access to private memory ranges, thus allowing the sram to function as a mailbox for communication between untrusted and trusted HRoT partitions.

We assume that the threat is from malicious software in the untrusted domain. We assume this software has access to the core{0-N} memory map and can be running at any privilege level on the untrusted cores. The capability of this threat in this example is communication to and from the mailbox region of SRAM modulated by the hrot_iface. To address this threat, information must not enter or exit the shared region of SRAM through hrot_iface when in secure or privileged mode.

This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a weakness fits within the context of external information sources.

The product uses a trusted lock bit for restricting access to registers, address regions, or other resources, but the product does not prevent the value of the lock bit from being modified after it has been set.

In integrated circuits and hardware intellectual property (IP) cores, device configuration controls are commonly programmed after a device power reset by a trusted firmware or software module (e.g., BIOS/bootloader) and then locked from any further modification.

This behavior is commonly implemented using a trusted lock bit. When set, the lock bit disables writes to a protected set of registers or address regions. Design or coding errors in the implementation of the lock bit protection feature may allow the lock bit to be modified or cleared by software after it has been set. Attackers might be able to unlock the system and features that the bit is intended to protect.

This listing shows possible areas for which the given weakness could appear. These may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms, Technologies, or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given weakness appears for that instance.

Languages	Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Operating Systems	Class: Not OS-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Architectures	Class: Not Architecture-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Technologies	Class: Not Technology-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

Example 1

Consider the example design below for a digital thermal sensor that detects overheating of the silicon and triggers system shutdown. The system critical temperature limit (CRITICAL_TEMP_LIMIT) and thermal sensor calibration (TEMP_SENSOR_CALIB) data have to be programmed by firmware, and then the register needs to be locked (TEMP_SENSOR_LOCK).

In this example, note that if the system heats to critical temperature, the response of the system is controlled by the TEMP_HW_SHUTDOWN bit [1], which is not lockable. Thus, the intended security property of the critical temperature sensor cannot be fully protected, since software can misconfigure the TEMP_HW_SHUTDOWN register even after the lock bit is set to disable the shutdown response.

Example 2

The following example code is a snippet from the register locks inside the buggy OpenPiton SoC of HACK@DAC'21 [REF-1350]. Register locks help prevent SoC peripherals' registers from malicious use of resources. The registers that can potentially leak secret data are locked by register locks.

In the vulnerable code, the reglk_mem is used for locking information. If one of its bits toggle to 1, the corresponding peripheral's registers will be locked. In the context of the HACK@DAC System-on-Chip (SoC), it is pertinent to note the existence of two distinct categories of reset signals.

First, there is a global reset signal denoted as "rst_ni," which possesses the capability to simultaneously reset all peripherals to their respective initial states.

Second, we have peripheral-specific reset signals, such as "rst_9," which exclusively reset individual peripherals back to their initial states. The administration of these reset signals is the responsibility of the reset controller module.

In the buggy SoC architecture during HACK@DAC'21, a critical issue arises within the reset controller module. Specifically, the reset controller can inadvertently transmit a peripheral reset signal to the register lock within the user privilege domain.

This unintentional action can result in the reset of the register locks, potentially exposing private data from all other peripherals, rendering them accessible and readable.

To mitigate the issue, remove the extra reset signal rst_9 from the register lock if condition. [REF-1351]

This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a weakness fits within the context of external information sources.

The device does not contain sufficient protection mechanisms to prevent physical side channels from exposing sensitive information due to patterns in physically observable phenomena such as variations in power consumption, electromagnetic emissions (EME), or acoustic emissions.

An adversary could monitor and measure physical phenomena to detect patterns and make inferences, even if it is not possible to extract the information in the digital domain.

Physical side channels have been well-studied for decades in the context of breaking implementations of cryptographic algorithms or other attacks against security features. These side channels may be easily observed by an adversary with physical access to the device, or using a tool that is in close proximity. If the adversary can monitor hardware operation and correlate its data processing with power, EME, and acoustic measurements, the adversary might be able to recover of secret keys and data.

This listing shows possible areas for which the given weakness could appear. These may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms, Technologies, or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given weakness appears for that instance.

Languages	Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Operating Systems	Class: Not OS-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Architectures	Class: Not Architecture-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Technologies	Class: Not Technology-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

Example 1

Consider a device that checks a passcode to unlock the screen.

PIN numbers used to unlock a cell phone should not exhibit any characteristics about themselves. This creates a side channel. An attacker could monitor the pulses using an oscilloscope or other method. Once the first character is correctly guessed (based on the oscilloscope readings), they can then move to the next character, which is much more efficient than the brute force method of guessing every possible sequence of characters.

Example 2

Consider the device vulnerability CVE-2021-3011, which affects certain microcontrollers [REF-1221]. The Google Titan Security Key is used for two-factor authentication using cryptographic algorithms. The device uses an internal secret key for this purpose and exchanges information based on this key for the authentication. If this internal secret key and the encryption algorithm were known to an adversary, the key function could be duplicated, allowing the adversary to masquerade as the legitimate user.

Example 3

The code snippet provided here is part of the modular exponentiation module found in the HACK@DAC'21 Openpiton System-on-Chip (SoC), specifically within the RSA peripheral [REF-1368]. Modular exponentiation, denoted as "a^b mod n," is a crucial operation in the RSA public/private key encryption. In RSA encryption, where 'c' represents ciphertext, 'm' stands for a message, and 'd' corresponds to the private key, the decryption process is carried out using this modular exponentiation as follows: m = c^d mod n, where 'n' is the result of multiplying two large prime numbers.

The vulnerable code shows a buggy implementation of binary exponentiation where it updates the result register (result_reg) only when the corresponding exponent bit (exponent_reg[0]) is set to 1. However, when this exponent bit is 0, the output register is not updated. It's important to note that this implementation introduces a physical power side-channel vulnerability within the RSA core. This vulnerability could expose the private exponent to a determined physical attacker. Such exposure of the private exponent could lead to a complete compromise of the private key.

To address mitigation requirements, the developer can develop the module by minimizing dependency on conditions, particularly those reliant on secret keys. In situations where branching is unavoidable, developers can implement masking mechanisms to obfuscate the power consumption patterns exhibited by the module (see good code example). Additionally, certain algorithms, such as the Karatsuba algorithm, can be implemented as illustrative examples of side-channel resistant algorithms, as they necessitate only a limited number of branch conditions [REF-1369].

• Power

This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a weakness fits within the context of external information sources.

The product provides software-controllable device functionality for capabilities such as power and clock management, but it does not properly limit functionality that can lead to modification of hardware memory or register bits, or the ability to observe physical side channels.

It is frequently assumed that physical attacks such as fault injection and side-channel analysis require an attacker to have physical access to the target device. This assumption may be false if the device has improperly secured power management features, or similar features. For mobile devices, minimizing power consumption is critical, but these devices run a wide variety of applications with different performance requirements. Software-controllable mechanisms to dynamically scale device voltage and frequency and monitor power consumption are common features in today's chipsets, but they also enable attackers to mount fault injection and side-channel attacks without having physical access to the device.

Fault injection attacks involve strategic manipulation of bits in a device to achieve a desired effect such as skipping an authentication step, elevating privileges, or altering the output of a cryptographic operation. Manipulation of the device clock and voltage supply is a well-known technique to inject faults and is cheap to implement with physical device access. Poorly protected power management features allow these attacks to be performed from software. Other features, such as the ability to write repeatedly to DRAM at a rapid rate from unprivileged software, can result in bit flips in other memory locations (Rowhammer, [REF-1083]).

Side channel analysis requires gathering measurement traces of physical quantities such as power consumption. Modern processors often include power metering capabilities in the hardware itself (e.g., Intel RAPL) which if not adequately protected enable attackers to gather measurements necessary for performing side-channel attacks from software.

This listing shows possible areas for which the given weakness could appear. These may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms, Technologies, or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given weakness appears for that instance.

Languages	Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Operating Systems	Class: Not OS-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Architectures	Class: Not Architecture-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Technologies	Class: Not Technology-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Memory Hardware (Undetermined Prevalence) Power Management Hardware (Undetermined Prevalence) Clock/Counter Hardware (Undetermined Prevalence)

Example 1

This example considers the Rowhammer problem [REF-1083]. The Rowhammer issue was caused by a program in a tight loop writing repeatedly to a location to which the program was allowed to write but causing an adjacent memory location value to change.

Preventing the loop required to defeat the Rowhammer exploit is not always possible:

While the redesign may be possible for new devices, a redesign is not possible in existing devices. There is also the possibility that reducing capacitance with a relayout would impact the density of the device resulting in a less capable, more costly device.

Example 2

Suppose a hardware design implements a set of software-accessible registers for scaling clock frequency and voltage but does not control access to these registers. Attackers may cause register and memory changes and race conditions by changing the clock or voltage of the device under their control.

Example 3

Consider the following SoC design. Security-critical settings for scaling clock frequency and voltage are available in a range of registers bounded by [PRIV_END_ADDR : PRIV_START_ADDR] in the tmcu.csr module in the HW Root of Trust. These values are writable based on the lock_bit register in the same module. The lock_bit is only writable by privileged software running on the tmcu.

We assume that untrusted software running on any of the Core{0-N} processors has access to the input and output ports of the hrot_iface. If untrusted software can clear the lock_bit or write the clock frequency and voltage registers due to inadequate protection, a fault injection attack could be performed.

• Power
• Clock

This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a weakness fits within the context of external information sources.

The product uses physical debug or test interfaces with support for multiple access levels, but it assigns the wrong debug access level to an internal asset, providing unintended access to the asset from untrusted debug agents.

Debug authorization can have multiple levels of access, defined such that different system internal assets are accessible based on the current authorized debug level. Other than debugger authentication (e.g., using passwords or challenges), the authorization can also be based on the system state or boot stage. For example, full system debug access might only be allowed early in boot after a system reset to ensure that previous session data is not accessible to the authenticated debugger.

If this protection mechanism does not ensure that internal assets have the correct debug access level during each boot stage or change in system state, an attacker could obtain sensitive information from the internal asset using a debugger.

This listing shows possible areas for which the given weakness could appear. These may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms, Technologies, or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given weakness appears for that instance.

Languages	Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Operating Systems	Class: Not OS-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Architectures	Class: Not Architecture-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Technologies	Class: System on Chip (Undetermined Prevalence)

Example 1

The JTAG interface is used to perform debugging and provide CPU core access for developers. JTAG-access protection is implemented as part of the JTAG_SHIELD bit in the hw_digctl_ctrl register. This register has no default value at power up and is set only after the system boots from ROM and control is transferred to the user software.

This means that since the end user has access to JTAG at system reset and during ROM code execution before control is transferred to user software, a JTAG user can modify the boot flow and subsequently disclose all CPU information, including data-encryption keys.

Example 2

The example code below is taken from the CVA6 processor core of the HACK@DAC'21 buggy OpenPiton SoC. Debug access allows users to access internal hardware registers that are otherwise not exposed for user access or restricted access through access control protocols. Hence, requests to enter debug mode are checked and authorized only if the processor has sufficient privileges. In addition, debug accesses are also locked behind password checkers. Thus, the processor enters debug mode only when the privilege level requirement is met, and the correct debug password is provided.

The following code [REF-1377] illustrates an instance of a vulnerable implementation of debug mode. The core correctly checks if the debug requests have sufficient privileges and enables the debug_mode_d and debug_mode_q signals. It also correctly checks for debug password and enables umode_i signal.

However, it grants debug access and changes the privilege level, priv_lvl_o, even when one of the two checks is satisfied and the other is not. Because of this, debug access can be granted by simply requesting with sufficient privileges (i.e., debug_mode_q is enabled) and failing the password check (i.e., umode_i is disabled). This allows an attacker to bypass the debug password checking and gain debug access to the core, compromising the security of the processor.

A fix to this issue is to only change the privilege level of the processor when both checks are satisfied, i.e., the request has enough privileges (i.e., debug_mode_q is enabled) and the password checking is successful (i.e., umode_i is enabled) [REF-1378].

This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a weakness fits within the context of external information sources.

The chip does not implement or does not correctly perform access control to check whether users are authorized to access internal registers and test modes through the physical debug/test interface.

A device's internal information may be accessed through a scan chain of interconnected internal registers, usually through a JTAG interface. The JTAG interface provides access to these registers in a serial fashion in the form of a scan chain for the purposes of debugging programs running on a device. Since almost all information contained within a device may be accessed over this interface, device manufacturers typically insert some form of authentication and authorization to prevent unintended use of this sensitive information. This mechanism is implemented in addition to on-chip protections that are already present.

If authorization, authentication, or some other form of access control is not implemented or not implemented correctly, a user may be able to bypass on-chip protection mechanisms through the debug interface.

Sometimes, designers choose not to expose the debug pins on the motherboard. Instead, they choose to hide these pins in the intermediate layers of the board. This is primarily done to work around the lack of debug authorization inside the chip. In such a scenario (without debug authorization), when the debug interface is exposed, chip internals are accessible to an attacker.

This listing shows possible areas for which the given weakness could appear. These may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms, Technologies, or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given weakness appears for that instance.

Languages	Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Operating Systems	Class: Not OS-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Architectures	Class: Not Architecture-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Technologies	Class: Not Technology-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

Example 1

A home, WiFi-router device implements a login prompt which prevents an unauthorized user from issuing any commands on the device until appropriate credentials are provided. The credentials are protected on the device and are checked for strength against attack.

JTAG is useful to chip and device manufacturers during design, testing, and production and is included in nearly every product. Without proper authentication and authorization, the interface may allow tampering with a product.

Example 2

The following example code is a snippet from the JTAG wrapper module in the RISC-V debug module of the HACK@DAC'21 Openpiton SoC [REF-1355]. To make sure that the JTAG is accessed securely, the developers have included a primary authentication mechanism based on a password.

The developers employed a Finite State Machine (FSM) to implement this authentication. When a user intends to read from or write to the JTAG module, they must input a password.

In the subsequent state of the FSM module, the entered password undergoes Hash-based Message Authentication Code (HMAC) calculation using an internal HMAC submodule. Once the HMAC for the entered password is computed by the HMAC submodule, the FSM transitions to the next state, where it compares the computed HMAC with the expected HMAC for the password.

If the computed HMAC matches the expected HMAC, the FSM grants the user permission to perform read or write operations on the JTAG module. [REF-1352]

However, in the given vulnerable part of the code, the JTAG module has not defined a limitation for several continuous wrong password attempts. This omission poses a significant security risk, allowing attackers to carry out brute-force attacks without restrictions.

Without a limitation on wrong password attempts, an attacker can repeatedly guess different passwords until they gain unauthorized access to the JTAG module. This leads to various malicious activities, such as unauthorized read from or write to debug module interface.

To mitigate the mentioned vulnerability, developers need to implement a restriction on the number of consecutive incorrect password attempts allowed by the JTAG module, which can achieve by incorporating a mechanism that temporarily locks the module after a certain number of failed attempts.[REF-1353][REF-1354]

Example 3

The example code below is taken from the JTAG access control mechanism of the HACK@DAC'21 buggy OpenPiton SoC [REF-1364]. Access to JTAG allows users to access sensitive information in the system. Hence, access to JTAG is controlled using cryptographic authentication of the users. In this example (see the vulnerable code source), the password checker uses HMAC-SHA256 for authentication. It takes a 512-bit secret message from the user, hashes it using HMAC, and compares its output with the expected output to determine the authenticity of the user.

The vulnerable code shows an incorrect implementation of the HMAC authentication where it only uses the least significant 32 bits of the secret message for the authentication (the remaining 480 bits are hard coded as zeros). As a result, the system is susceptible to brute-force attacks on the access control mechanism of JTAG, where the attacker only needs to determine 32 bits of the secret message instead of 512 bits.

To mitigate this issue, remove the zero padding and use all 512 bits of the secret message for HMAC authentication [REF-1365].

This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a weakness fits within the context of external information sources.

The product uses a register lock bit protection mechanism, but it does not ensure that the lock bit prevents modification of system registers or controls that perform changes to important hardware system configuration.

Integrated circuits and hardware intellectual properties (IPs) might provide device configuration controls that need to be programmed after device power reset by a trusted firmware or software module, commonly set by BIOS/bootloader. After reset, there can be an expectation that the controls cannot be used to perform any further modification. This behavior is commonly implemented using a trusted lock bit, which can be set to disable writes to a protected set of registers or address regions. The lock protection is intended to prevent modification of certain system configuration (e.g., memory/memory protection unit configuration).

However, if the lock bit does not effectively write-protect all system registers or controls that could modify the protected system configuration, then an adversary may be able to use software to access the registers/controls and modify the protected hardware configuration.

This listing shows possible areas for which the given weakness could appear. These may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms, Technologies, or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given weakness appears for that instance.

Languages	Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Operating Systems	Class: Not OS-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Architectures	Class: Not Architecture-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Technologies	Class: Not Technology-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

Example 1

Consider the example design below for a digital thermal sensor that detects overheating of the silicon and triggers system shutdown. The system critical temperature limit (CRITICAL_TEMP_LIMIT) and thermal sensor calibration (TEMP_SENSOR_CALIB) data have to be programmed by the firmware.

In this example note that only the CRITICAL_TEMP_LIMIT register is protected by the TEMP_SENSOR_LOCK bit, while the security design intent is to protect any modification of the critical temperature detection and response.

The response of the system, if the system heats to a critical temperature, is controlled by TEMP_HW_SHUTDOWN bit [1], which is not lockable. Also, the TEMP_SENSOR_CALIB register is not protected by the lock bit.

By modifying the temperature sensor calibration, the conversion of the sensor data to a degree centigrade can be changed, such that the current temperature will never be detected to exceed critical temperature value programmed by the protected lock.

Similarly, by modifying the TEMP_HW_SHUTDOWN.Enable bit, the system response detection of the current temperature exceeding critical temperature can be disabled.

This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a weakness fits within the context of external information sources.

The product performs a power or debug state transition, but it does not clear sensitive information that should no longer be accessible due to changes to information access restrictions.

A device or system frequently employs many power and sleep states during its normal operation (e.g., normal power, additional power, low power, hibernate, deep sleep, etc.). A device also may be operating within a debug condition. State transitions can happen from one power or debug state to another. If there is information available in the previous state which should not be available in the next state and is not properly removed before the transition into the next state, sensitive information may leak from the system.