[Whonix-devel] Exposing AnonVM Users with Dom0 Hardware Fingerprint Leaks

Tue Feb 17 12:28:35 CET 2015

On 02/17/15 11:55, WhonixQubes wrote:
> Hi Joanna,
> 
> 
> On 2015-02-16 9:38 am, Joanna Rutkowska wrote:
>>
>> Xen has support for emulating CPUID for HVM guests -- take a look at the
>> config examples in:
>>
>> xen-4.1.6.1/tools/examples/xmexample.hvm-stubdom
> 
> 
> I looked through the CPUID feature in this example file:
> 
> -
> http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=blob_plain;f=tools/examples/xmexample.hvm-stubdom;hb=stable-4.1
> 
> 
> More general info on CPUID for others:
> - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPUID
> 
> Some of the very low-level x86 implementation details of it are beyond
> me currently, but, from what I can glean it looks like it is generally
> the right type of thing, since it seems to be baked into the Xen Dom0
> layer beyond the reach of the HVM's OS.
> 

The CPUID interception is implemented in the hypervisor via VT-x. Dom0
has nothing to do with that...

> Would be looking for AnonVMs to simply not be able to know what CPU the
> host machine is running on, by any means (barring covert channels or Xen
> breakouts), but even including privilege-escalated malware in the VM.
> 
> 
> 
>> I haven't played with it, but see no reasons it should not work. I can
>> imagine we introduce a prefs for VMs (say "generic_cpuid" settable via
>> qvm-prefs) that would be resulting in additional config for cpuid
>> emulation inserted in the config file for such VMs.
> 
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
> 
> 
>> We would need to
>> agree on good-enough-for-everybody CPUID config and stick to it then.
>> Again, this would be use-able for anon VMs mostly.
> 
> 
> Yes. Sounds like a plan.
> 
> I'm guessing that this would *not* limit the speed of the CPU(s) that
> the HVM is exposed to? Just changes the info/attributes of the AnonVM
> domain's CPU (including reported MHz?)?
> 
> 

No.

> 
>> However, this will not work for PV VMs, because the CPUID instruction is
>> not a privileged instruction, so malware in a PV VM can always execute
>> this instruction (even if we hooked Xen interface for CPUID-like info to
>> the guest) without trapping into XEN in PV operation.
> 
> 
> That's too bad for excluding paravirtualized VMs.
> 

BTW, it should be obvious, but let me point out that any
compartmentalizing technology for x86 that is *not* based on VT-x/AMD-v
would be prone to this problem. This is b/c CPUID is an *instruction*
and its execution cannot otherwise be controlled by the OS, other than
via VT-x intercept.

> However, if there is no way to achieve a masked CPU with PVMs, then so
> be it.
> 
> Given the general statistical environment of AnonVM users, I think
> unique CPU info is too important of a de-anonymization vector to hold
> onto PVMs for.
> 
> 
> 
>> AFAIU, there are not personal identifying info returned by CPUID, but I
>> can see how this could be used as an additional fingerprinting vector.
> 
> 
> Right.
> 
> For example, subdividing the cross-section of privacy/anonymity users by
> the following attributes would no doubt be a privacy/anonymity killer
> for individual human identities...
> 
> # of unique combined mixtures of the following attributes:
> - # of Qubes Users
> - # of Qubes + Tor AnonVM Users
> - # of Qubes + Whonix AnonVM Users
> - # of CPU Model Info
> - # of CPU Microcode Version
> 

FWIW, CPU ucode, AFAIK, is not CPU-persistence -- it is applied on each
boot.

> ...should be pretty easy to reveal individual people through their usage
> of Qubes privacy/anonymity this way.
> 
> Although, AFAIK, other platforms are not totally immune from this. Some
> just have a higher # of total users out in the world, but at their
> technical expense of lacking strong security isolation to protect the
> integrity of their privacy/anonymity systems.
> 
> 

Other platforms simply do not offer any meaningful separation between
the apps that primary targeted apps (e.g. a Web browser used for anon
browsing) and the hw specific personal identifying info (NIC MACs, IP,
avilable WiFi networks in the neighborhood, etc). In these case if the
attacker (e.g. NSA) exploits your anon Web browser they already get you.
In case of Qubes they can start gather info such as CPUID output and
mining through a database of Qubes users. Quite a different level of
threat IMHO.

> 
>> Thus, perhaps we should consider distributing Whonix workstation
>> template as an HVM template instead of a PVM one? Fortunately we do have
>> templates support for HVMs, so this should be perfectly possible.
> 
> 
> Assuming there is no feasible way to accomplish this objective with
> PVMs, then implementing the Whonix-Workstation in a HVM template with
> "generic_cpuid" sounds like the right move.
> 
> Another anonymity upshot of HVMs is their, by default, non-seamless
> fixed single windowing.

You can have seamless GUI for HVM VMs.

> Even though the seamless desktop mode of the new Qubes + Whonix
> platform is sexy and smooth to use, it does expose another
> semi-unique host machine attribute to the AnonVMs, which is the 
> host's unique display resolution size and pixel depth (maybe some
> other related stuff too?).

Don't quite get it? Like 1600x900 instead of 1920x1080 you mean?

> Not as bad of an attribute as the host's
> unique CPU info, but still would be best to make use of the fixed
> single windowing for AnonVMs so this could be generic. Maybe both
> seamless and non-seamless windowing options could be offered for
> Whonix-Workstation HVM template, since some people hate
> non-seamless.
> 

> 
> 
>> Let me also point out the already discussed-multiple-times topic of
>> potential covert channels between cooperative VMs, which might also be
>> potentially exploited in some scenarios to fingerprint user environment.
>> That is more difficult to address on PC architecture though, but some
>> work on Xen-level is nevertheless very welcome (see #817).
> 
> 
> Yes. I have read through some of your stuff on covert channels in the
> past, including in the original Qubes architecture spec doc.
> 
> Just read through the thread linked in Qubes ticket #817 from 2014. Good
> stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> WhonixQubes
> 
> 

joanna.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.whonix.org/pipermail/whonix-devel/attachments/20150217/a470d860/attachment.sig>