DOCSLIB.ORG

New Models for Understanding and Reasoning About Speculative Execution Attacks

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
New Models for Understanding and Reasoning About Speculative Execution Attacks New Models for Understanding and Reasoning about Speculative Execution Attacks Zecheng He Guangyuan Hu Ruby Lee Princeton University Princeton University Princeton University [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract—Spectre and Meltdown attacks and their variants Lazy-FP [36] attacks and their variants are proposed to breach exploit hardware performance optimization features to cause the memory isolation by using a covert channel to exfiltrate security breaches. Secret information is accessed and leaked a secret obtained illegally under speculative execution. For through covert or side channels. New attack variants keep appearing and we do not have a systematic way to capture the example, Spectre breaches the memory isolation provided critical characteristics of these attacks and evaluate why they within a user application, while Meltdown breaches the succeed or fail. memory isolation between the kernel and a user application. In this paper, we provide a new attack-graph model for rea- Foreshadow breaches the isolation of Intel SGX secure enclaves. soning about speculative execution attacks. We model attacks as Foreshadow-OS and Foreshadow-VMM breach the isolation ordered dependency graphs, and prove that a race condition be- tween two nodes can occur if there is a missing dependency edge provided by the Operating System and the Virtual Machine between them. We define a new concept, “security dependency”, Monitor, respectively. All of these attacks leverage the specu- between a resource access and its prior authorization operation. lative execution feature of modern processors, transferring We show that a missing security dependency is equivalent to a the security-critical information to micro-architecture state race condition between authorization and access, which is a root observable by an unprivileged attacker through a covert channel. cause of speculative execution attacks. We show detailed examples of how our attack graph models the Spectre and Meltdown Unfortunately, while new attack variants are continuously being attacks, and is generalizable to all the attack variants published discovered, we do not have a systematic way to characterize so far. This attack model is also very useful for identifying these attacks and reason about them. The attack graph model new attacks and for generalizing defense strategies. We identify we propose serves this goal. several defense strategies with different performance-security While both industrial and academic solutions have been tradeoffs. We show that the defenses proposed so far all fit under one of our defense strategies. We also explain how attack graphs proposed to defend against speculative execution attacks [10], can be constructed and point to this as promising future work [17], [22], [23], [25], [28], [30], [32]–[34], [37], [42], [44], for tool designers. [46], there is currently no systematic way to show if these Index Terms—Hardware security, speculative execution at- defenses can defeat speculative attacks, and why. We show that tacks, graph model, security dependency, cache, side channel, our attack graph model can explain why a defense will work. covert channel, delayed exceptions, prediction, race condition The key questions answered in this paper are: ¬ How can we systematically model the essential common characteristics ­ I. INTRODUCTION of speculative execution attacks and reason about them? What defense strategies can be derived from the new models? In computer systems, hardware resources like memory, buses, ® Are the recently proposed defenses effective against these caches and functional units are often shared among different speculative attacks? processes and threads. This sharing increases the utilization Our key contributions in this paper are: of resources. However, preventing a secret from being leaked arXiv:2009.07998v2 [cs.CR] 22 Dec 2020 • We define a new attack graph model to systematically via shared resources is a fundamental and challenging security capture the critical operations in speculative execution problem. attacks. Memory isolation plays a key role in preventing information • We theoretically prove that a missing edge in an attack leakage. An application should not be able to read the memory graph is equivalent to a race condition, which is one of of the kernel or another application. Memory isolation is usually the root causes of speculative attacks. enforced by the operating system, to allow multiple applications • We define the new concept of “security dependencies”, to run simultaneously on the shared hardware resources without which must be observed by the hardware in addition to information leakage. It is also enforced by the Virtual Machine data dependencies and control dependencies. We show that Monitor to provide isolation between different virtual machines. a missing security dependency is equivalent to a missing Recently, speculative execution attacks, e.g., Spectre [25], edge in an attack graph, capable of causing a security Meltdown [29], Foreshadow [38], Foreshadow-NG [43] and breach. Accepted to IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Computer • Our model shows that although attacks may look similar, Architecture (HPCA), 2021 e.g. the Spectre-type and Meltdown-type attacks, they are actually quite different in the sense that Meltdown-type TABLE I: Speculative attacks and their variants. attacks have to be investigated through intra-instruction Attack CVE Impact Boundary check by- Spectre v1 [25] CVE-2017-5753 micro-architectural dependencies, while Spectre-type at- pass tacks only need to consider inter-instruction dependencies. Speculative buffer Spectre v1.1 [24] CVE-2018-3693 This can simplify tool development for finding attack overflow Overwrite read-only Spectre v1.2 [24] N/A graphs and vulnerabilities that can be exploited in attacks. memory • Branch target injec- We derive new defense strategies from our attack graph Spectre v2 [25] CVE-2017-5715 model. These enable us to systematically explain why tion Kernel content leak- Meltdown (Spectre v3) a defense will or will not work. We also show that CVE-2017-5754 age to unprivileged [29] all currently proposed defenses, from both industry and attacker academia, can be modelled by our defense strategies. System register Meltdown variant1 value leakage CVE-2018-3640 • We show the benefits of our new model for future research (Spectre v3a) [2] to unprivileged for tool creation, discovering new attacks and finding new attacker Speculative store defenses. Spectre v4 [3] CVE-2018-3639 bypass, read stale data in memory II. BACKGROUND Return mis-predict, Spectre RSB [26] CVE-2018-15572 execute wrong code A. Speculative Attacks Foreshadow (L1 Termi- SGX enclave mem- CVE-2018-3615 Speculative execution vulnerabilities affect most modern nal Fault) [38] ory leakage Foreshadow-OS [43] CVE-2018-3620 OS memory leakage processors. They exploit speculative execution, Out-of-Order VMM memory leak- Foreshadow-VMM [43] CVE-2018-3646 (OOO) execution, hardware prediction and caching – all age Lazy FP [36] CVE-2018-3665 Leak of FPU state essential features for speeding up program execution. They Virtual-to-physical allow an unprivileged adversary to bypass the user-kernel Spoiler [21] CVE-2019-0162 address mapping isolation or user-defined boundaries. In a speculative execution leakage attack, a speculation window is induced to allow transient instructions that illegally access a secret, then perform some TABLE II: Industrial defenses against speculative attacks. micro-architectural state changes which essentially “send Attack Defense Strategy Defense out the secret” so that it can be observed by the attacker. LFence Spectre Serialization Upon detecting mis-speculation, architectural state changes are MFence KAISER discarded, but some micro-architectural state changes are not – Meltdown Kernel Isolation thus leaking the secret. Kernel Page Table Isolation (KPTI) Disable branch prediction We give a top-down description of a speculative attack Spectre variants Indirect Branch Restricted Speculation in Section III and a detailed discussion of the Spectre and requiring branch Prevent mis- Single Thread Indirect Branch Predictor Meltdown attacks in SectionIV. We list the first 13 published prediction training of branch Indirect Branch Prediction Barrier (Spectre v1, v1.1, prediction Invalidate branch predictor during attacks and their impacts in TableI. Later, in SectionV and v1.2, v2) context switch Table III, we also consider the newer attack variants. Retpoline Spectre boundary Coarse masking bypass Address masking B. Industry Defenses Implemented Data-dependent masking (v1, v1.1, v1.2) TableII shows some industry defenses that have been Speculative Store Bypass Barrier Serialize stores Spectre v4 (SSBB) implemented to mitigate some speculative attacks. and loads Speculative Store Bypass Safe (SSBS) Fences. Fences, including LFENCE and MFENCE [1], are Prevent RSB Spectre RSB RSB stuffing placed before memory operations to serialize the program underfill execution and prevent speculative execution. Kernel Isolation. KAISER (Kernel Address Isolation to have Side-channels Efficiently Removed) and its Linux implementa- Retpoline. Retpoline is a method where indirect branches, tion named Kernel Page Table Isolation (KPTI) isolate user- which use potentially poisoned BTBs, are replaced by return space memory from kernel space to prevent Meltdown attacks, instructions that use the return stack. by unmapping kernel pages from user-space [4]. Address Masking. To address
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Computer Science 246 Computer Architecture Spring 2010 Harvard University
    Computer Science 246 Computer Architecture Spring 2010 Harvard University Instructor: Prof. David Brooks [email protected] Dynamic Branch Prediction, Speculation, and Multiple Issue Computer Science 246 David Brooks Lecture Outline • Tomasulo’s Algorithm Review (3.1-3.3) • Pointer-Based Renaming (MIPS R10000) • Dynamic Branch Prediction (3.4) • Other Front-end Optimizations (3.5) – Branch Target Buffers/Return Address Stack Computer Science 246 David Brooks Tomasulo Review • Reservation Stations – Distribute RAW hazard detection – Renaming eliminates WAW hazards – Buffering values in Reservation Stations removes WARs – Tag match in CDB requires many associative compares • Common Data Bus – Achilles heal of Tomasulo – Multiple writebacks (multiple CDBs) expensive • Load/Store reordering – Load address compared with store address in store buffer Computer Science 246 David Brooks Tomasulo Organization From Mem FP Op FP Registers Queue Load Buffers Load1 Load2 Load3 Load4 Load5 Store Load6 Buffers Add1 Add2 Mult1 Add3 Mult2 Reservation To Mem Stations FP adders FP multipliers Common Data Bus (CDB) Tomasulo Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 LD F0, 0(R1) Iss M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 Wb MUL F4, F0, F2 Iss Iss Iss Iss Iss Iss Iss Iss Iss Ex Ex Ex Ex Wb SD 0(R1), F0 Iss Iss Iss Iss Iss Iss Iss Iss Iss Iss Iss Iss Iss M1 M2 M3 Wb SUBI R1, R1, 8 Iss Ex Wb BNEZ R1, Loop Iss Ex Wb LD F0, 0(R1) Iss Iss Iss Iss M Wb MUL F4, F0, F2 Iss Iss Iss Iss Iss Ex Ex Ex Ex Wb SD 0(R1), F0 Iss Iss Iss Iss Iss Iss Iss Iss Iss M1 M2
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Sonicwall Cyber Threat Report
    2020 SONICWALL CYBER THREAT REPORT sonicwall.com I @sonicwall TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 A NOTE FROM BILL 4 CYBERCRIMINAL INC. 11 2019 GLOBAL CYBERATTACK TRENDS 12 INSIDE THE SONICWALL CAPTURE LABS THREAT NETWORK 13 KEY FINDINGS FROM 2019 13 SECURITY ADVANCES 14 CRIMINAL ADVANCES 15 FASTER IDENTIFICATION OF ‘NEVER-BEFORE-SEEN’ MALWARE 16 TOP 10 CVES EXPLOITED IN 2019 19 ADVANCEMENTS IN DEEP MEMORY INSPECTION 23 MOMENTUM OF PERIMETER-LESS SECURITY 24 PHISHING DOWN FOR THIRD STRAIGHT YEAR 25 CRYPTOJACKING CRUMBLES 27 RANSOMWARE TARGETS STATE, PROVINCIAL & LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 31 FILELESS MALWARE SPIKES IN Q3 32 ENCRYPTED THREATS GROWING CONSISTENTLY 34 IOT ATTACK VOLUME RISING 35 WEB APP ATTACKS DOUBLE IN 2019 37 PREPARING FOR WHAT’S NEXT 38 ABOUT SONICWALL 2 A NOTE FROM BILL The boundaries of your digital empire are In response, SonicWall and our Capture Labs limitless. What was once a finite and threat research team work tirelessly to arm defendable space is now a boundless organizations, enterprises, governments and territory — a vast, sprawling footprint of businesses with actionable threat devices, apps, appliances, servers, intelligence to stay ahead in the global cyber networks, clouds and users. arms race. For the cybercriminals, it’s more lawless And part of that dedication starts now with than ever. Despite the best intentions of the 2020 SonicWall Cyber Threat Report, government agencies, law enforcement and which provides critical threat intelligence to oversight groups, the current cyber threat help you better understand how landscape is more agile than ever before. cybercriminals think — and be fully prepared for what they’ll do next.
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Security Threat Report Volume 24 | February 2019
    ISTRInternet Security Threat Report Volume 24 | February 2019 THE DOCUMENT IS PROVIDED “AS IS” AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED CONDITIONS, REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR NON-INFRINGEMENT, ARE DISCLAIMED, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH DISCLAIMERS ARE HELD TO BE LEGALLY INVALID. SYMANTEC CORPORATION SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES IN CONNECTION WITH THE FURNISHING, PERFORMANCE, OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE. INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THIRD PARTY SOURCES IS BELIEVED TO BE RELIABLE, BUT IS IN NO WAY GUARANTEED. SECURITY PRODUCTS, TECHNICAL SERVICES, AND ANY OTHER TECHNICAL DATA REFERENCED IN THIS DOCUMENT (“CONTROLLED ITEMS”) ARE SUBJECT TO U.S. EXPORT CONTROL AND SANCTIONS LAWS, REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS, AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO EXPORT OR IMPORT REGULATIONS IN OTHER COUNTRIES. YOU AGREE TO COMPLY STRICTLY WITH THESE LAWS, REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS, AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO OBTAIN ANY LICENSES, PERMITS OR OTHER APPROVALS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED IN ORDER FOR YOU TO EXPORT, RE-EXPORT, TRANSFER IN COUNTRY OR IMPORT SUCH CONTROLLED ITEMS. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 BIG NUMBERS YEAR-IN-REVIEW FACTS AND FIGURES METHODOLOGY Formjacking Messaging Cryptojacking Malware Ransomware Mobile Living off the land Web attacks and supply chain attacks Targeted attacks Targeted attacks IoT Cloud Underground economy IoT Election interference MALICIOUS
    [Show full text]
  • Security and Hardening Guide Security and Hardening Guide SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 15 SP2
    SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 15 SP2 Security and Hardening Guide Security and Hardening Guide SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 15 SP2 Introduces basic concepts of system security, covering both local and network security aspects. Shows how to use the product inherent security software like AppArmor, SELinux, or the auditing system that reliably collects information about any security-relevant events. Supports the administrator with security-related choices and decisions in installing and setting up a secure SUSE Linux Enterprise Server and additional processes to further secure and harden that installation. Publication Date: September 24, 2021 SUSE LLC 1800 South Novell Place Provo, UT 84606 USA https://documentation.suse.com Copyright © 2006– 2021 SUSE LLC and contributors. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or (at your option) version 1.3; with the Invariant Section being this copyright notice and license. A copy of the license version 1.2 is included in the section entitled “GNU Free Documentation License”. For SUSE trademarks, see https://www.suse.com/company/legal/ . All other third-party trademarks are the property of their respective owners. Trademark symbols (®, ™ etc.) denote trademarks of SUSE and its aliates. Asterisks (*) denote third-party trademarks. All information found in this book has been compiled with utmost attention to detail. However, this does not guarantee complete accuracy. Neither SUSE LLC,
    [Show full text]
  • Systematization of Vulnerability Discovery Knowledge: Review
    Systematization of Vulnerability Discovery Knowledge Review Protocol Nuthan Munaiah and Andrew Meneely Department of Software Engineering Rochester Institute of Technology Rochester, NY 14623 {nm6061,axmvse}@rit.edu February 12, 2019 1 Introduction As more aspects of our daily lives depend on technology, the software that supports this technology must be secure. We, as users, almost subconsciously assume the software we use to always be available to serve our requests while preserving the confidentiality and integrity of our information. Unfortunately, incidents involving catastrophic software vulnerabilities such as Heartbleed (in OpenSSL), Stagefright (in Android), and EternalBlue (in Windows) have made abundantly clear that software, like other engineered creations, is prone to mistakes. Over the years, Software Engineering, as a discipline, has recognized the potential for engineers to make mistakes and has incorporated processes to prevent such mistakes from becoming exploitable vulnerabilities. Developers leverage a plethora of processes, techniques, and tools such as threat modeling, static and dynamic analyses, unit/integration/fuzz/penetration testing, and code reviews to engineer secure software. These practices, while effective at identifying vulnerabilities in software, are limited in their ability to describe the engineering failures that may have led to the introduction of vulnerabilities. Fortunately, as researchers propose empirically-validated metrics to characterize historical vulnerabilities, the factors that may have led to the introduction of vulnerabilities emerge. Developers must be made aware of these factors to help them proactively consider security implications of the code that they contribute. In other words, we want developers to think like an attacker (i.e. inculcate an attacker mindset) to proactively discover vulnerabilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Security Threat Report VOLUME 21, APRIL 2016 TABLE of CONTENTS 2016 Internet Security Threat Report 2
    Internet Security Threat Report VOLUME 21, APRIL 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2016 Internet Security Threat Report 2 CONTENTS 4 Introduction 21 Tech Support Scams Go Nuclear, 39 Infographic: A New Zero-Day Vulnerability Spreading Ransomware Discovered Every Week in 2015 5 Executive Summary 22 Malvertising 39 Infographic: A New Zero-Day Vulnerability Discovered Every Week in 2015 8 BIG NUMBERS 23 Cybersecurity Challenges For Website Owners 40 Spear Phishing 10 MOBILE DEVICES & THE 23 Put Your Money Where Your Mouse Is 43 Active Attack Groups in 2015 INTERNET OF THINGS 23 Websites Are Still Vulnerable to Attacks 44 Infographic: Attackers Target Both Large and Small Businesses 10 Smartphones Leading to Malware and Data Breaches and Mobile Devices 23 Moving to Stronger Authentication 45 Profiting from High-Level Corporate Attacks and the Butterfly Effect 10 One Phone Per Person 24 Accelerating to Always-On Encryption 45 Cybersecurity, Cybersabotage, and Coping 11 Cross-Over Threats 24 Reinforced Reassurance with Black Swan Events 11 Android Attacks Become More Stealthy 25 Websites Need to Become Harder to 46 Cybersabotage and 12 How Malicious Video Messages Could Attack the Threat of “Hybrid Warfare” Lead to Stagefright and Stagefright 2.0 25 SSL/TLS and The 46 Small Business and the Dirty Linen Attack Industry’s Response 13 Android Users under Fire with Phishing 47 Industrial Control Systems and Ransomware 25 The Evolution of Encryption Vulnerable to Attacks 13 Apple iOS Users Now More at Risk than 25 Strength in Numbers 47 Obscurity is No Defense
    [Show full text]
  • Efficiently Mitigating Transient Execution Attacks Using the Unmapped Speculation Contract Jonathan Behrens, Anton Cao, Cel Skeggs, Adam Belay, M
    Efficiently Mitigating Transient Execution Attacks using the Unmapped Speculation Contract Jonathan Behrens, Anton Cao, Cel Skeggs, Adam Belay, M. Frans Kaashoek, and Nickolai Zeldovich, MIT CSAIL https://www.usenix.org/conference/osdi20/presentation/behrens This paper is included in the Proceedings of the 14th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation November 4–6, 2020 978-1-939133-19-9 Open access to the Proceedings of the 14th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation is sponsored by USENIX Efficiently Mitigating Transient Execution Attacks using the Unmapped Speculation Contract Jonathan Behrens, Anton Cao, Cel Skeggs, Adam Belay, M. Frans Kaashoek, and Nickolai Zeldovich MIT CSAIL Abstract designers have implemented a range of mitigations to defeat transient execution attacks, including state flushing, selectively Today’s kernels pay a performance penalty for mitigations— preventing speculative execution, and removing observation such as KPTI, retpoline, return stack stuffing, speculation channels [5]. These mitigations impose performance over- barriers—to protect against transient execution side-channel heads (see §2): some of the mitigations must be applied at attacks such as Meltdown [21] and Spectre [16]. each privilege mode transition (e.g., system call entry and exit), To address this performance penalty, this paper articulates and some must be applied to all running code (e.g., retpolines the unmapped speculation contract, an observation that mem- for all indirect jumps). In some cases, they are so expensive ory that isn’t mapped in a page table cannot be leaked through that OS vendors have decided to leave them disabled by de- transient execution. To demonstrate the value of this contract, fault [2, 22].
    [Show full text]
  • Class-Action Lawsuit
    Case 3:20-cv-00863-SI Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 1 of 279 Steve D. Larson, OSB No. 863540 Email: [email protected] Jennifer S. Wagner, OSB No. 024470 Email: [email protected] STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C. 209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500 Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone: (503) 227-1600 Attorneys for Plaintiffs [Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page.] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION BLUE PEAK HOSTING, LLC, PAMELA Case No. GREEN, TITI RICAFORT, MARGARITE SIMPSON, and MICHAEL NELSON, on behalf of CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION themselves and all others similarly situated, COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL v. INTEL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT Case 3:20-cv-00863-SI Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 2 of 279 Plaintiffs Blue Peak Hosting, LLC, Pamela Green, Titi Ricafort, Margarite Sampson, and Michael Nelson, individually and on behalf of the members of the Class defined below, allege the following against Defendant Intel Corporation (“Intel” or “the Company”), based upon personal knowledge with respect to themselves and on information and belief derived from, among other things, the investigation of counsel and review of public documents as to all other matters. INTRODUCTION 1. Despite Intel’s intentional concealment of specific design choices that it long knew rendered its central processing units (“CPUs” or “processors”) unsecure, it was only in January 2018 that it was first revealed to the public that Intel’s CPUs have significant security vulnerabilities that gave unauthorized program instructions access to protected data. 2. A CPU is the “brain” in every computer and mobile device and processes all of the essential applications, including the handling of confidential information such as passwords and encryption keys.
    [Show full text]
  • OS and Compiler Considerations in the Design of the IA-64 Architecture
    OS and Compiler Considerations in the Design of the IA-64 Architecture Rumi Zahir (Intel Corporation) Dale Morris, Jonathan Ross (Hewlett-Packard Company) Drew Hess (Lucasfilm Ltd.) This is an electronic reproduction of “OS and Compiler Considerations in the Design of the IA-64 Architecture” originally published in ASPLOS-IX (the Ninth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems) held in Cambridge, MA in November 2000. Copyright © A.C.M. 2000 1-58113-317-0/00/0011...$5.00 Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full cita- tion on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permis- sion and/or a fee. Request permissions from Publications Dept, ACM Inc., fax +1 (212) 869-0481, or [email protected]. ASPLOS 2000 Cambridge, MA Nov. 12-15 , 2000 212 OS and Compiler Considerations in the Design of the IA-64 Architecture Rumi Zahir Jonathan Ross Dale Morris Drew Hess Intel Corporation Hewlett-Packard Company Lucas Digital Ltd. 2200 Mission College Blvd. 19447 Pruneridge Ave. P.O. Box 2459 Santa Clara, CA 95054 Cupertino, CA 95014 San Rafael, CA 94912 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT system collaborate to deliver higher-performance systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Selective Eager Execution on the Polypath Architecture
    Selective Eager Execution on the PolyPath Architecture Artur Klauser, Abhijit Paithankar, Dirk Grunwald [klauser,pvega,grunwald]@cs.colorado.edu University of Colorado, Department of Computer Science Boulder, CO 80309-0430 Abstract average misprediction latency is the sum of the architected latency (pipeline depth) and a variable latency, which depends on data de- Control-flow misprediction penalties are a major impediment pendencies of the branch instruction. The overall cycles lost due to high performance in wide-issue superscalar processors. In this to branch mispredictions are the product of the total number of paper we present Selective Eager Execution (SEE), an execution mispredictions incurred during program execution and the average model to overcome mis-speculation penalties by executing both misprediction latency. Thus, reduction of either component helps paths after diffident branches. We present the micro-architecture decrease performance loss due to control mis-speculation. of the PolyPath processor, which is an extension of an aggressive In this paper we propose Selective Eager Execution (SEE) and superscalar, out-of-order architecture. The PolyPath architecture the PolyPath architecture model, which help to overcome branch uses a novel instruction tagging and register renaming mechanism misprediction latency. SEE recognizes the fact that some branches to execute instructions from multiple paths simultaneously in the are predicted more accurately than others, where it draws from re- same processor pipeline, while retaining maximum resource avail- search in branch confidence estimation [4, 6]. SEE behaves like ability for single-path code sequences. a normal monopath speculative execution architecture for highly Results of our execution-driven, pipeline-level simulations predictable branches; it predicts the most likely successor path of a show that SEE can improve performance by as much as 36% for branch, and evaluates instructions only along this path.
    [Show full text]
  • Bank of Chile Affected by Cyber-Attack Malware Found Pre
    JUNE 2018 Bank of Chile Affected By Cyber-Attack On May 28, 2018, the Bank of Chile, the largest bank operating in the country, declared in a public statement that a virus presumably sent from outside of the country affected the bank’s operations. According to the announcement, the virus was discovered by internal IT experts on May 24. It impacted workstations, executives’ terminals, and cashier personnel, causing difficulties in office services and telephone banking. After the emergency, the Bank of Chile activated its contingency protocol by disconnecting some workstations and suspending normal operations to avoid the propagation of the virus. Although the virus severely affected the quality of banking services, the institution assured that the security of transactions, as well as client information and money remained safe at all times. Pinkerton assesses that cyber-attacks targeting financial institutions and international banks form part of a trend that is likely to continue increasing in 2018. So far, Pinkerton Vigilance Network sources had identified Mexico and Chile as the two most impacted by cyber-crimes in Latin America; however, Pinkerton finds that no nation is exempt from becoming a target. Clients are encouraged to review the standard regulations on cyber- security for their banks and its contingency protocols in the event of cyber-attacks. Any unrecognized banking operation or phishing scam should be reported as soon as possible to the Bank of Chile emergency phone line (600) 637 3737. For further information concerning security advise from the Bank of Chile, the following website can be consulted: https://ww3.bancochile.cl/wps/wcm/connect/personas/portal/seguridad/inicio-seguridad#Tab_ Acorden_Respon3.
    [Show full text]
  • Viewed Through the Prism of Clausewitzian Strategy
    CYBERWAR – VIEWED THROUGH THE PRISM OF CLAUSEWITZIAN STRATEGY Commodore Vishwanathan K Ganapathi, VSM Introduction In a globalised world where speed and reliability of information exchange is thesine qua non of technological advancement, the importance of cyberspace to a country is immeasurable. Knowledge and awareness, which derive from the degree to which cyberspace can be exploited for rapidly storing, manipulating and disseminating data, have become important measures of a nation’s power.1 As a consequence, the destruction or disruption of any of the constituent elements of cyberspace from a cyber attack would not just blunt a country’s ability to gain strategic advantage from its technological superiority but would gravely threaten its security as well. Depending on their intensity and complexity, cyber attacks can inflict a wide spectrum of damage ranging from less dangerous depredations like the theft of personal information and digital heists to highly destructive actions like the disruption of critical infrastructure- ‘the facilities, systems, sites and networks necessary for the delivery of essential services and functions’2 - industrial sabotage, subversion, data destruction or theft of sensitive information. It is the latter category, most often believed to be orchestrated for political reasons by a potential adversary, which has transformed cyber attacks from being perceived as a trivial problem befitting address by an IT professional to one that merits the focus of policy planners and strategists alike.3 The concerns of governments about the gravity of the threat from cyber attacks stem from the certitude that easily accessible destructive technologies are being exploited by state and non-state actors alike to launch attacks even against powerful adversaries several thousand miles away.
    [Show full text]