this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2025
1027 points (92.8% liked)

Technology

66156 readers
8653 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Source Link Privacy.Privacy test result

https://themarkup.org/blacklight?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tarlogic.com%2Fnews%2Fbackdoor-esp32-chip-infect-ot-devices%2F&device=mobile&location=us-ca&force=false

Tarlogic Security has detected a backdoor in the ESP32, a microcontroller that enables WiFi and Bluetooth connection and is present in millions of mass-market IoT devices. Exploitation of this backdoor would allow hostile actors to conduct impersonation attacks and permanently infect sensitive devices such as mobile phones, computers, smart locks or medical equipment by bypassing code audit controls.

Update: The ESP32 "backdoor" that wasn't.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] priapus@sh.itjust.works 57 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

This isn't a backdoor. Just a company trying to make a name for themselves by sensationalizing a much smaller discovery.

[–] COASTER1921@lemmy.ml 40 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Seriously this. Every single IC which has digital logic contains some number of undocumented test commands used to ensure it meets all the required specifications during production. They're not intended to be used for normal operation and almost never included in datasheets.

[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 23 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

If anyone's ever followed console emulator development, they know those undocumented commands are everywhere. There's still people finding new ones for the N64 hardware

Edit: I should say undocumented behavior, not necessarily new commands

[–] Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com 207 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Well... Shit.

There are so, so, so, many ESP32's in not just my house, but practically everyone I know.

There outta be fines for this BS.

[–] cogman@lemmy.world 161 points 5 days ago (18 children)

You're fine. This isn't something that can be exploited over wifi. You literally need physical access to the device to exploit it as it's commands over USB that allow flashing the chip.

This is a security firm making everything sound scary because they want you to buy their testing device.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 70 points 5 days ago (3 children)

You literally need physical access to the device to exploit it

You don't need physical access. Read the article. The researcher used physical USB to discover that the Bluetooth firmware has backdoors. It doesn't require physical access to exploit.

It's Bluetooth that's vulnerable.

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/undocumented-backdoor-found-in-bluetooth-chip-used-by-a-billion-devices/

[–] cogman@lemmy.world 75 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I just re-read the article and yes, you still need physical access.

The exploit is one that bypasses OS protections to writing to the firmware. In otherwords, you need to get the device to run a malicious piece of code or exploit a vulnerability in already running code that also interacts with the bluetooth stack.

The exploit, explicitly, is not one that can be carried out with a drive-by Bluetooth connection. You also need faulty software running on the device.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 18 points 4 days ago (1 children)

"Depending on how Bluetooth stacks handle HCI commands on the device, remote exploitation of the backdoor might be possible via malicious firmware or rogue Bluetooth connections."

I of course don't know details but I'm basing my post on that sentence. "Backdoor may be possible via ... rogue Bluetooth connections."

[–] haleywm@startrek.website 77 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Looking at the article, the exploit requires you to be able to send arbitrary data to the Bluetooth device over a physical connection. This means that a properly secure application will be protected from drive by connections, but if the application has an exploit that either lets an attacker write arbitrary values to the Bluetooth controller, or more likely contains a general arbitrary code execution exploit, then you could use this to rewrite values to the chip that would let you "persist" certain changes to the Bluetooth chip that would be difficult to notice.

I would consider this a moderate concern, as this will definitely increase your options if you're looking to be able to make an attack that targets a specific device and this gives you a few additional persistence options, but any attack would have to be designed for a particular program running connected to a Bluetooth chip.

A more likely concern in my opinion would be the possibility of a supply chain attack, where someone compromises a Bluetooth chip that they know will be used to construct a particular part.

I don't think that it's super likely that either of these will affect the average person, only corporations and governments where espionage is an actual threat, as if you can find a Bluetooth IOT device that you want to mess with, like a Bluetooth enabled door lock, then you're more likely to be able to find an arbitrary code execution attack which causes it to unlock immediately. Being able to spoof a different Bluetooth device isn't likely to give you that big of an advantage when you're working with a device that was already vulnerable for a different reason.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] IllNess@infosec.pub 31 points 5 days ago

Depending on how Bluetooth stacks handle HCI commands on the device, remote exploitation of the backdoor might be possible via malicious firmware or rogue Bluetooth connections.

I really wish these articles just tell us what these scenarios are. I understand companies need publicity or need to sell software but if it isn't replicatable and the article says "might be possible" it kind of sounds like a secuity sales pitch.

This is especially the case if an attacker already has root access, planted malware, or pushed a malicious update on the device that opens up low-level access.

This part basically sounds more like a software issue where the attacker has a way in already. The system is already vulernable at this point before using the exploit found.

I don't think there's enough information out yet.

It is very interesting though.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[–] notanapple@lemm.ee 144 points 4 days ago (4 children)

We really should be pushing for fully open source stack (firmware, os) in all iot devices. They are not very complicated so this should be entirely possible. Probably will need a EU law though.

[–] secret300@lemmy.sdf.org 26 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I 100% believe firmware should be open source no question about it. There's so many devices out there especially phones and iot devices that just become e-waste because you can't do anything with it once it's not supported if it was open source and documented in some way then it could be used. I have like five cheap phones that I got because they were so cheap but once they lost support they've become completely useless even though they still work.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] oldfart@lemm.ee 19 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Open source stack will not prevent this. It's not even a backdoor, it's functionality that these researches think should be hidden from programmers for whatever reason.

Open source devices would have this functionality readily available for programmers. Look at rtl-sdr, using the words of these researches, it has a "backdoor" where a TV dongle may be used to listen to garage key fobs gasp everyone panic now!

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] fubarx@lemmy.ml 84 points 4 days ago (8 children)

This sounds like there are some undocumented opcodes on the HCI side -- the Host Computer Interface -- not the wireless side. By itself, it's not that big a deal. If someone can prove that there's some sort of custom BLE packet that gives access to those HCI opcodes wirelessly, I'd be REALLY concerned.

But if it's just on the host side, you can only get to it if you've cracked the box and have access to the wiring. If someone has that kind of access, they're likely to be able to flash their own firmware and take over the whole device anyway.

Not sure this disclosure increases the risk any. I wouldn't start panicking.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] ycnz@lemmy.nz 109 points 4 days ago

I hate it when an attacker who already has root access to my device gets sightly more access to the firmware. Definitely spin up a website and a logo, maybe a post in Bloomberg.

[–] Rexios@lemm.ee 35 points 4 days ago (5 children)

Please update the title of this post to mention the update

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] thickertoofan@lemm.ee 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

welp, TL;DR from comments says its fear mongering at best, physical access required right?

[–] Rin@lemm.ee 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Code execution required lmao

[–] Zron@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

It allows the takeover of devices!

How?

By already having taken over the device.

Wtf is this reporting

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 36 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Weird that they removed the reference to ESP32, one of the most common and widely known microcontrollers, from the headline.

[–] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 days ago

It’s because the security company basically lied about this being a vulnerability, and probably opened themselves up to a lawsuit.

[–] Oisteink@feddit.nl 85 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Too much fanfare and too little real info shared to be of any value. Sounds more like an ad than infosec

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 17 points 4 days ago

Does anyone know where it is that we can find these new commands? I have an esp32 dev kit just a few feet away from me as i read this. It might be interesting to know what these new product "features" are.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 21 points 4 days ago (3 children)

The rebuttal wasn't as comforting as some are making it out to be. They seem to be more interested in the semantics of it not being a backdoor tied to a specific product, which appears to be true.

Rather it is a potential for vulnerability that exists in all wireless implementation, which seems to me to be a bigger issue.

[–] trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

It's a vulnerability where an attacker already needs code execution on the device/physical access.

If you have that you're already compromised no matter what.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

The issue is where the undocumented commands are. They aren't just allowing any old external person to send payloads to this.

It's kind of like noticing that someone unexpectedly hid a spare key next to the door... On the inside of the house. Like, sure, maybe the owner would have like to know about that key, but since you have to be inside the house to get to it, it doesn't really make a difference.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NightCrawlerProMax@lemmy.world 45 points 4 days ago (15 children)

The other day someone posted in Canada community that Canada should stop using Tesla cars and import Chinese cars. I replied saying, “That’s like replacing one evil with another.” I was downvoted by a lot of people. I should’ve expected it cuz a lot of people have short term memory.

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 29 points 4 days ago (9 children)

Because that's not about privacy, that's about the trade war. Retaliatory tariffs on US cars increase cost of cars for Canadians, as there are almost no car assembled in Canada. Reducing or eliminating tariffs on cars from China would lower cost of new cars for Canadians while keeping the tariffs up.

For privacy and security, not a single new car on the market is decent right now. That should be regulated, but that's no concern for any politician at the moment.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Thrawne@lemmy.world 20 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Fukin dmnit! I just spent the last several months fine tuning a PCB design supporting this platform. I have , what i believe to be my last iteration, being sent to fab now. I have to look i to this. My solution isnt using bluetooth, so i dont know if im vulnerable.

[–] priapus@sh.itjust.works 15 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Its not a backdoor, you're most likely fine.

[–] voodooattack@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago

Go for it. It’s a bullshit attention grab. No backdoor, just some undocumented vendor commands (which is the norm for virtually every chip out there).

[–] mousetail@programming.dev 7 points 4 days ago

The exploit requires physical access. It's not exploitable in 99% of cases

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Gotta blame China to get upvoted on Lemmy.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 13 points 4 days ago

Or use a precise title. It's not a backdoor or a "backdoor".

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] RmDebArc_5@sh.itjust.works 43 points 5 days ago (4 children)

I’d like to know if this is just a firmware update or unfixable, but sadly this seems just an ad rather than news

[–] badlotus@discuss.online 28 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

Here’s an article with a bit more detail… but I’m still unclear whether these backdoor commands are hardware circuits or firmware logic.

Bleeping Computer: Undocumented "backdoor" found in Bluetooth chip used by a billion devices

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 25 points 4 days ago (13 children)

The Chinese adding back doors into their software/hardware.

Say it ain't so!

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 23 points 4 days ago

Say it ain't so
Your bug is a heartbleeder
Say it ain't so
My NIC is a bytetaker

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 21 points 5 days ago

One more reason to have actual open-source drivers instead of binary blobs..

Babe, wake up its time for your china fear mongering news

load more comments
view more: next ›