Saturday, February 22, 2025
Homecyber securityZENHAMMER - First Rowhammer Attack Impacting Zen-based AMD Platforms

ZENHAMMER – First Rowhammer Attack Impacting Zen-based AMD Platforms

Published on

SIEM as a Service

Follow Us on Google News

Despite AMD’s growing market share with Zen CPUs, Rowhammer attacks were absent due to challenges in reverse engineering DRAM addressing, synchronizing with refresh commands, and achieving sufficient row activation throughput. 

Researchers addressed these through ZENHAMMER, the first Rowhammer attack on recent AMD CPUs.

ZENHAMMER reverse engineers non-linear addressing uses crafted access patterns for synchronization, and schedules instructions carefully to increase throughput while bypassing mitigations. 

Evaluations demonstrated ZENHAMMER finding bit flips on 7 out of 10 DDR4 devices on Zen 2/3 CPUs, enabling Rowhammer exploitation on current AMD platforms.

Besides this, it also triggered the first Rowhammer bit flips on a DDR5 device.

ZENHAMMER – First Rowhammer Attack

There have been cases of recent Rowhammer attacks that were used to bypass in-DRAM mitigations on Intel CPUs by exploiting particular architectural details, though such attacks have not been recorded against modern AMD Zen microarchitecture CPUs.

 However, several crucial aspects including physical-to-DRAM address mapping, DRAM command observability, and memory instructions behavior on AMD platforms through extensive experiments were discovered. 

Researchers used this information to design ZENHAMMER, it’s the first-ever successful Rowhammer attack against AMD Zen CPUs.

The goal of the researchers was to trigger bit flips on AMD Zen platforms using DDR4 memory, allowing comparison with well-studied Intel systems. 

A crucial requirement for effective Rowhammer is knowledge of the DRAM address mapping from physical addresses to DRAM locations, enabling precise attacker row selection. 

Since AMD and Intel memory controllers use different mappings, determining the AMD mapping posed the researchers’ first key challenge in constructing a Rowhammer attack on these platforms.

While Intel systems have all DRAM-adding bits within the lower 21 bits, AMD Zen systems utilize up to 34 bits, making exploitation challenging without knowing these bits. 

Experts describe a technique combining the bank conflict side channel with reverse-engineered DRAM mappings to detect consecutive same-bank rows crucial for Rowhammer. 

By coloring 2MB transparent huge pages (THPs) based on bank conflicts and using known address functions on the lower 21 bits, experts can identify same-bank rows within each THP color. 

On a Zen 3 system, THP coloring takes around 39 seconds per attack, while detecting same-bank rows is a one-time 18ms cost per memory configuration.

The evaluation results reveal how well ZENHAMMER’s optimizations for causing bit flips on AMD Zen 2 and Zen 3 processors work as compared to the earlier methods. 

By refining hammering instruction sequences and fence scheduling policies, ZENHAMMER dramatically raised the number of devices showing bit flips and the patterns that triggered them, particularly in the case of Zen 3 where no bit flips were reported before. 

In comparison with Intel Coffee Lake on some devices, ZENHAMMER was less effective though its optimizations have shown themselves more powerful for some DIMMs even exceeding Coffee Lake’s best-performance bit flip counts. 

These findings indicate that successful Rowhammer attacks require platform-specific optimizations beyond just increasing activation rates.

Stay updated on Cybersecurity news, Whitepapers, and Infographics. Follow us on LinkedIn & Twitter.

Tushar Subhra
Tushar Subhra
Tushar is a Cyber security content editor with a passion for creating captivating and informative content. With years of experience under his belt in Cyber Security, he is covering Cyber Security News, technology and other news.

Latest articles

SPAWNCHIMERA Malware Exploits Ivanti Buffer Overflow Vulnerability by Applying a Critical Fix

In a recent development, the SPAWNCHIMERA malware family has been identified exploiting the buffer...

Sitevision Auto-Generated Password Vulnerability Lets Hackers Steal Signing Key

A significant vulnerability in Sitevision CMS, versions 10.3.1 and earlier, has been identified, allowing...

NSA Allegedly Hacked Northwestern Polytechnical University, China Claims

Chinese cybersecurity entities have accused the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) of orchestrating a...

ACRStealer Malware Abuses Google Docs as C2 to Steal Login Credentials

The ACRStealer malware, an infostealer disguised as illegal software such as cracks and keygens,...

Supply Chain Attack Prevention

Free Webinar - Supply Chain Attack Prevention

Recent attacks like Polyfill[.]io show how compromised third-party components become backdoors for hackers. PCI DSS 4.0’s Requirement 6.4.3 mandates stricter browser script controls, while Requirement 12.8 focuses on securing third-party providers.

Join Vivekanand Gopalan (VP of Products – Indusface) and Phani Deepak Akella (VP of Marketing – Indusface) as they break down these compliance requirements and share strategies to protect your applications from supply chain attacks.

Discussion points

Meeting PCI DSS 4.0 mandates.
Blocking malicious components and unauthorized JavaScript execution.
PIdentifying attack surfaces from third-party dependencies.
Preventing man-in-the-browser attacks with proactive monitoring.

More like this

SPAWNCHIMERA Malware Exploits Ivanti Buffer Overflow Vulnerability by Applying a Critical Fix

In a recent development, the SPAWNCHIMERA malware family has been identified exploiting the buffer...

Sitevision Auto-Generated Password Vulnerability Lets Hackers Steal Signing Key

A significant vulnerability in Sitevision CMS, versions 10.3.1 and earlier, has been identified, allowing...

NSA Allegedly Hacked Northwestern Polytechnical University, China Claims

Chinese cybersecurity entities have accused the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) of orchestrating a...