Can a virus destroy the BIOS of a modern computer?BIOS upgrade only with PGP-signature / encrypting the whole BIOSProtecting the BIOS from malwareUnlock a computer bios?Can Restarting An Infected Computer Make It Worse?Can HDD without OS contain active virusCan BIOS malware be installed from OS?Feasibility of infecting notebook BIOS with virus?Can BIOS/UEFI change OS code?Explain how a BIOS/UEFI infection may compromise the security of the Operating SystemIs knowing the BIOS password of help in hacking a computer *remotely*?

Using "tail" to follow a file without displaying the most recent lines

Processor speed limited at 0.4 Ghz

Can compressed videos be decoded back to their uncompresed original format?

How do I exit BASH while loop using modulus operator?

What is a Samsaran Word™?

In Bayesian inference, why are some terms dropped from the posterior predictive?

What historical events would have to change in order to make 19th century "steampunk" technology possible?

Is there a hemisphere-neutral way of specifying a season?

What is the fastest integer factorization to break RSA?

OP Amp not amplifying audio signal

Finitely generated matrix groups whose eigenvalues are all algebraic

Are British MPs missing the point, with these 'Indicative Votes'?

What are the G forces leaving Earth orbit?

How does a dynamic QR code work?

How can I deal with my CEO asking me to hire someone with a higher salary than me, a co-founder?

How to install cross-compiler on Ubuntu 18.04?

Why is Shab e Meraj celebrated the night before?

Did 'Cinema Songs' exist during Hiranyakshipu's time?

What reasons are there for a Capitalist to oppose a 100% inheritance tax?

Should I tell management that I intend to leave due to bad software development practices?

ssTTsSTtRrriinInnnnNNNIiinngg

How dangerous is XSS

What does the same-ish mean?

Do creatures with a listed speed of "0 ft., fly 30 ft. (hover)" ever touch the ground?



Can a virus destroy the BIOS of a modern computer?


BIOS upgrade only with PGP-signature / encrypting the whole BIOSProtecting the BIOS from malwareUnlock a computer bios?Can Restarting An Infected Computer Make It Worse?Can HDD without OS contain active virusCan BIOS malware be installed from OS?Feasibility of infecting notebook BIOS with virus?Can BIOS/UEFI change OS code?Explain how a BIOS/UEFI infection may compromise the security of the Operating SystemIs knowing the BIOS password of help in hacking a computer *remotely*?













49















In the late 1990s, a computer virus known as CIH began infecting some computers. Its payload, when triggered, overwrote system information and destroyed the computer's BIOS, essentially bricking whatever computer it infected. Could a virus that affects modern operating systems (Like Windows 10) destroy the BIOS of a modern computer and essentially brick it the same way, or is it now impossible for a virus to gain access to a modern computer's BIOS?










share|improve this question









New contributor




user73910 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 3





    Why would a virus want to do that? The goal of most modern viruses is to take control of your computer in order to steal information or use it as a zombie machine, generally for some sort of financial gain. Bricking your computer does not benefit the attacker in any way, unless they have some personal beef with you. This is why it's not in the attacker's best interest to do so. Ideally, they infect your machine with no visible indication that they have done so, or they hit you with ransom-ware of some sort. Killing the computer dead serves no purpose.

    – Darrel Hoffman
    12 hours ago






  • 8





    @DarrelHoffman Let's say you are my competitor, and I want to slow you down, having that kind of virus its a good way, infecting your office network and bricking all your computers and servers... Yes, there is no information loss (as the hard drives are there) but the financial loss of fixing everything plus the down time of your employees... Maybe not the best way, but to say that "serves no purpose" it's to think to little.

    – Omar Martinez
    12 hours ago






  • 2





    @OmarMartinez And I would classify that under "attacker has a personal beef with you". You're now looking at a focused attack on a specific target, not just a virus that randomly spreads to wherever it can the way most do. Admittedly "serves no purpose" might've been overstepping a bit. But it's still not the way that typical viruses operate.

    – Darrel Hoffman
    12 hours ago






  • 2





    @DarrelHoffman while viruses now are generally as you say, done for financial gain, I'm sure there's still plenty of unpleasant people out there simply interested in mayhem and chaos, and there definitely was in the past. e.g. SQL Slammer didn't do anything really, except propagate itself.

    – mbrig
    12 hours ago






  • 5





    @DarrellHoffman I think you're underestimating the human capacity for random acts of malice

    – barbecue
    10 hours ago















49















In the late 1990s, a computer virus known as CIH began infecting some computers. Its payload, when triggered, overwrote system information and destroyed the computer's BIOS, essentially bricking whatever computer it infected. Could a virus that affects modern operating systems (Like Windows 10) destroy the BIOS of a modern computer and essentially brick it the same way, or is it now impossible for a virus to gain access to a modern computer's BIOS?










share|improve this question









New contributor




user73910 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 3





    Why would a virus want to do that? The goal of most modern viruses is to take control of your computer in order to steal information or use it as a zombie machine, generally for some sort of financial gain. Bricking your computer does not benefit the attacker in any way, unless they have some personal beef with you. This is why it's not in the attacker's best interest to do so. Ideally, they infect your machine with no visible indication that they have done so, or they hit you with ransom-ware of some sort. Killing the computer dead serves no purpose.

    – Darrel Hoffman
    12 hours ago






  • 8





    @DarrelHoffman Let's say you are my competitor, and I want to slow you down, having that kind of virus its a good way, infecting your office network and bricking all your computers and servers... Yes, there is no information loss (as the hard drives are there) but the financial loss of fixing everything plus the down time of your employees... Maybe not the best way, but to say that "serves no purpose" it's to think to little.

    – Omar Martinez
    12 hours ago






  • 2





    @OmarMartinez And I would classify that under "attacker has a personal beef with you". You're now looking at a focused attack on a specific target, not just a virus that randomly spreads to wherever it can the way most do. Admittedly "serves no purpose" might've been overstepping a bit. But it's still not the way that typical viruses operate.

    – Darrel Hoffman
    12 hours ago






  • 2





    @DarrelHoffman while viruses now are generally as you say, done for financial gain, I'm sure there's still plenty of unpleasant people out there simply interested in mayhem and chaos, and there definitely was in the past. e.g. SQL Slammer didn't do anything really, except propagate itself.

    – mbrig
    12 hours ago






  • 5





    @DarrellHoffman I think you're underestimating the human capacity for random acts of malice

    – barbecue
    10 hours ago













49












49








49


5






In the late 1990s, a computer virus known as CIH began infecting some computers. Its payload, when triggered, overwrote system information and destroyed the computer's BIOS, essentially bricking whatever computer it infected. Could a virus that affects modern operating systems (Like Windows 10) destroy the BIOS of a modern computer and essentially brick it the same way, or is it now impossible for a virus to gain access to a modern computer's BIOS?










share|improve this question









New contributor




user73910 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












In the late 1990s, a computer virus known as CIH began infecting some computers. Its payload, when triggered, overwrote system information and destroyed the computer's BIOS, essentially bricking whatever computer it infected. Could a virus that affects modern operating systems (Like Windows 10) destroy the BIOS of a modern computer and essentially brick it the same way, or is it now impossible for a virus to gain access to a modern computer's BIOS?







malware virus operating-systems bios






share|improve this question









New contributor




user73910 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




user73910 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 22 hours ago







user73910













New contributor




user73910 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 22 hours ago









user73910user73910

32625




32625




New contributor




user73910 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





user73910 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






user73910 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







  • 3





    Why would a virus want to do that? The goal of most modern viruses is to take control of your computer in order to steal information or use it as a zombie machine, generally for some sort of financial gain. Bricking your computer does not benefit the attacker in any way, unless they have some personal beef with you. This is why it's not in the attacker's best interest to do so. Ideally, they infect your machine with no visible indication that they have done so, or they hit you with ransom-ware of some sort. Killing the computer dead serves no purpose.

    – Darrel Hoffman
    12 hours ago






  • 8





    @DarrelHoffman Let's say you are my competitor, and I want to slow you down, having that kind of virus its a good way, infecting your office network and bricking all your computers and servers... Yes, there is no information loss (as the hard drives are there) but the financial loss of fixing everything plus the down time of your employees... Maybe not the best way, but to say that "serves no purpose" it's to think to little.

    – Omar Martinez
    12 hours ago






  • 2





    @OmarMartinez And I would classify that under "attacker has a personal beef with you". You're now looking at a focused attack on a specific target, not just a virus that randomly spreads to wherever it can the way most do. Admittedly "serves no purpose" might've been overstepping a bit. But it's still not the way that typical viruses operate.

    – Darrel Hoffman
    12 hours ago






  • 2





    @DarrelHoffman while viruses now are generally as you say, done for financial gain, I'm sure there's still plenty of unpleasant people out there simply interested in mayhem and chaos, and there definitely was in the past. e.g. SQL Slammer didn't do anything really, except propagate itself.

    – mbrig
    12 hours ago






  • 5





    @DarrellHoffman I think you're underestimating the human capacity for random acts of malice

    – barbecue
    10 hours ago












  • 3





    Why would a virus want to do that? The goal of most modern viruses is to take control of your computer in order to steal information or use it as a zombie machine, generally for some sort of financial gain. Bricking your computer does not benefit the attacker in any way, unless they have some personal beef with you. This is why it's not in the attacker's best interest to do so. Ideally, they infect your machine with no visible indication that they have done so, or they hit you with ransom-ware of some sort. Killing the computer dead serves no purpose.

    – Darrel Hoffman
    12 hours ago






  • 8





    @DarrelHoffman Let's say you are my competitor, and I want to slow you down, having that kind of virus its a good way, infecting your office network and bricking all your computers and servers... Yes, there is no information loss (as the hard drives are there) but the financial loss of fixing everything plus the down time of your employees... Maybe not the best way, but to say that "serves no purpose" it's to think to little.

    – Omar Martinez
    12 hours ago






  • 2





    @OmarMartinez And I would classify that under "attacker has a personal beef with you". You're now looking at a focused attack on a specific target, not just a virus that randomly spreads to wherever it can the way most do. Admittedly "serves no purpose" might've been overstepping a bit. But it's still not the way that typical viruses operate.

    – Darrel Hoffman
    12 hours ago






  • 2





    @DarrelHoffman while viruses now are generally as you say, done for financial gain, I'm sure there's still plenty of unpleasant people out there simply interested in mayhem and chaos, and there definitely was in the past. e.g. SQL Slammer didn't do anything really, except propagate itself.

    – mbrig
    12 hours ago






  • 5





    @DarrellHoffman I think you're underestimating the human capacity for random acts of malice

    – barbecue
    10 hours ago







3




3





Why would a virus want to do that? The goal of most modern viruses is to take control of your computer in order to steal information or use it as a zombie machine, generally for some sort of financial gain. Bricking your computer does not benefit the attacker in any way, unless they have some personal beef with you. This is why it's not in the attacker's best interest to do so. Ideally, they infect your machine with no visible indication that they have done so, or they hit you with ransom-ware of some sort. Killing the computer dead serves no purpose.

– Darrel Hoffman
12 hours ago





Why would a virus want to do that? The goal of most modern viruses is to take control of your computer in order to steal information or use it as a zombie machine, generally for some sort of financial gain. Bricking your computer does not benefit the attacker in any way, unless they have some personal beef with you. This is why it's not in the attacker's best interest to do so. Ideally, they infect your machine with no visible indication that they have done so, or they hit you with ransom-ware of some sort. Killing the computer dead serves no purpose.

– Darrel Hoffman
12 hours ago




8




8





@DarrelHoffman Let's say you are my competitor, and I want to slow you down, having that kind of virus its a good way, infecting your office network and bricking all your computers and servers... Yes, there is no information loss (as the hard drives are there) but the financial loss of fixing everything plus the down time of your employees... Maybe not the best way, but to say that "serves no purpose" it's to think to little.

– Omar Martinez
12 hours ago





@DarrelHoffman Let's say you are my competitor, and I want to slow you down, having that kind of virus its a good way, infecting your office network and bricking all your computers and servers... Yes, there is no information loss (as the hard drives are there) but the financial loss of fixing everything plus the down time of your employees... Maybe not the best way, but to say that "serves no purpose" it's to think to little.

– Omar Martinez
12 hours ago




2




2





@OmarMartinez And I would classify that under "attacker has a personal beef with you". You're now looking at a focused attack on a specific target, not just a virus that randomly spreads to wherever it can the way most do. Admittedly "serves no purpose" might've been overstepping a bit. But it's still not the way that typical viruses operate.

– Darrel Hoffman
12 hours ago





@OmarMartinez And I would classify that under "attacker has a personal beef with you". You're now looking at a focused attack on a specific target, not just a virus that randomly spreads to wherever it can the way most do. Admittedly "serves no purpose" might've been overstepping a bit. But it's still not the way that typical viruses operate.

– Darrel Hoffman
12 hours ago




2




2





@DarrelHoffman while viruses now are generally as you say, done for financial gain, I'm sure there's still plenty of unpleasant people out there simply interested in mayhem and chaos, and there definitely was in the past. e.g. SQL Slammer didn't do anything really, except propagate itself.

– mbrig
12 hours ago





@DarrelHoffman while viruses now are generally as you say, done for financial gain, I'm sure there's still plenty of unpleasant people out there simply interested in mayhem and chaos, and there definitely was in the past. e.g. SQL Slammer didn't do anything really, except propagate itself.

– mbrig
12 hours ago




5




5





@DarrellHoffman I think you're underestimating the human capacity for random acts of malice

– barbecue
10 hours ago





@DarrellHoffman I think you're underestimating the human capacity for random acts of malice

– barbecue
10 hours ago










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















65














Modern computers don't have a BIOS, they have a UEFI. Updating the UEFI firmware from the running operating system is a standard procedure, so any malware which manages to get executed on the operating system with sufficient privileges could attempt to do the same. However, most UEFIs will not accept an update which isn't digitally signed by the manufacturer. That means it should not be possible to overwrite it with arbitrary code.



This, however, assumes that:



  1. the mainboard manufacturers manage to keep their private keys secret

  2. the UEFI doesn't have any unintended security vulnerabilities which allow overwriting it with arbitrary code.

And those two assumptions do not necessarily hold.



Regarding leaked keys: if a UEFI signing key were to become known to the general public, then you can assume that there would be quite a lot of media reporting and hysterical patching going on. If you follow some IT news, you would likely see a lot of alarmist "If you have a [brand] mainboard UPDATE YOUR UEFI NOW!!!1111oneone" headlines. But another possibility is signing keys secretly leaked to state actors. So if your work might be interesting for industrial espionage, then this might also be a credible threat for you.



Regarding bugs: UEFIs gain more and more functionality which has more and more possibilities for hidden bugs. They also lack most of the internal security features you have after you have booted a "real" operating system.






share|improve this answer




















  • 3





    Suggestion: "And you can not necessarily assume that these two assumptions are true." --> "And those two assumptions do not necessarily hold." (Just reads very awkwardly as is.)

    – jpmc26
    14 hours ago







  • 2





    @jpmc26 English is not my first language, so if you say so...

    – Philipp
    14 hours ago






  • 7





    1) UEFI is a subtype of BIOS. 2) If an attacker can get physical access to your computer, they don't need to be able to sign their BIOS malware; they can simply desolder the chip from the motherboard and forcibly overwrite the data contained therein.

    – Sean
    13 hours ago












  • I have vague memories of the linux kernel (or maybe just a common UEFI utility on linux?) deciding to block access to certain UEFI settings because incorrect writes could brick the motherboard. I might be mixing up stores though.

    – mbrig
    12 hours ago






  • 2





    @mbrig - It was the opposite. Systemd mounted some EFI variables as R/W by default, and then rm -rf / --no-preserve-root would clobber them, which bricked some poorly implemented motherboards. In predictable SystemD fashion, they then handled the issue extremely badly.

    – Fake Name
    7 hours ago


















31














Yes, it is definitely possible.



Nowadays, with UEFI becoming widespread, it is even more of a concern: UEFI has a much larger attack surface than traditional BIOS and a (potential) flaw in UEFI could be leverage to gain access to machine without having any kind of physical access (as demonstrated by the people of Eclypsium at black hat last year).






share|improve this answer






























    2














    Practically speaking, a virus is software, so can do anything that any other software can do.



    So the simple way answer to this question, and all others of the class "Can viruses do X?" is to ask "Does software currently do X?"



    Such questions might include "can a virus walk my dog?" (not without a dog-walking robot); "Can a virus get me pizza?" (yes: this is regrettably not the main focus of most virus authors, however).



    Are BIOSes (UEFI) currently updated using software? The answer is, yes they are. Mine updated last night, when I rebooted.



    And so the answer is yes.



    By the same logic, viruses can also cause (and historically have caused) physical damage to your CPU, hard drives, and printers.



    Home automation systems and driverless vehicles are also possible targets for physical damages, but I know of no viruses which have done so.






    share|improve this answer


















    • 1





      I wouldn't mind much if my personal information was used by malware developers to order me free pizza and nothing else. (+1 for useful reasoning)

      – Marc.2377
      6 hours ago







    • 1





      @Marc.2377, I would not mind much if your personal information was used to order me free pizza… :-)

      – sleblanc
      2 hours ago


















    1














    Your question hints at a more deep subject that is rings and permissions of code on an operating system. On MS DOS the code could do whatever it wants. If the code wanted to write all 0x00's to a hard drive it could if it wanted to send strange output to a piece of hardware it could also there was nothing stopping the user's code. On a modern OS there is a concept of rings (this is enforced by the CPU). The kernel runs on ring zero and it could do whatever it wants. The user's code on the other hand can not. It runs on something called ring 3 and it is given it's own little piece of memory and inside of that memory it can do whatever it wants but it can not directly talk to hardware. If the user's code tries to talk to hardware then the kernel immediately kills the program. This means that it is highly unlikely that a regular virus can kill hardware because it can not talk to it directly.



    If the kernel is hacked then the game is basically over. The kernel can do whatever it wants and a whole host of bad things can happen such as overclocking the CPU to a point where the hardware is unstable, wiping the hard drives (filling the with zeros for example), or pretty much any other plausible attack.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    scifi6546 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.















    • 1





      "If the user's code tries to talk to hardware then the kernel immediately kills the program" - Really? Can you provide a citation for that? I thought the protected instruction would simply fail and it's up to the program to deal with that reasonably or crash.

      – Marc.2377
      6 hours ago


















    0














    Potentially. It would be hard to do however, as it would more than likely have to masquerade as a legit BIOS update somewhere down the line. The method to do so will change depending on your mobo but chances are it would have to involve the leaking of private or hardware keys or other secrets.






    share|improve this answer























      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "162"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );






      user73910 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsecurity.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f206606%2fcan-a-virus-destroy-the-bios-of-a-modern-computer%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes








      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      65














      Modern computers don't have a BIOS, they have a UEFI. Updating the UEFI firmware from the running operating system is a standard procedure, so any malware which manages to get executed on the operating system with sufficient privileges could attempt to do the same. However, most UEFIs will not accept an update which isn't digitally signed by the manufacturer. That means it should not be possible to overwrite it with arbitrary code.



      This, however, assumes that:



      1. the mainboard manufacturers manage to keep their private keys secret

      2. the UEFI doesn't have any unintended security vulnerabilities which allow overwriting it with arbitrary code.

      And those two assumptions do not necessarily hold.



      Regarding leaked keys: if a UEFI signing key were to become known to the general public, then you can assume that there would be quite a lot of media reporting and hysterical patching going on. If you follow some IT news, you would likely see a lot of alarmist "If you have a [brand] mainboard UPDATE YOUR UEFI NOW!!!1111oneone" headlines. But another possibility is signing keys secretly leaked to state actors. So if your work might be interesting for industrial espionage, then this might also be a credible threat for you.



      Regarding bugs: UEFIs gain more and more functionality which has more and more possibilities for hidden bugs. They also lack most of the internal security features you have after you have booted a "real" operating system.






      share|improve this answer




















      • 3





        Suggestion: "And you can not necessarily assume that these two assumptions are true." --> "And those two assumptions do not necessarily hold." (Just reads very awkwardly as is.)

        – jpmc26
        14 hours ago







      • 2





        @jpmc26 English is not my first language, so if you say so...

        – Philipp
        14 hours ago






      • 7





        1) UEFI is a subtype of BIOS. 2) If an attacker can get physical access to your computer, they don't need to be able to sign their BIOS malware; they can simply desolder the chip from the motherboard and forcibly overwrite the data contained therein.

        – Sean
        13 hours ago












      • I have vague memories of the linux kernel (or maybe just a common UEFI utility on linux?) deciding to block access to certain UEFI settings because incorrect writes could brick the motherboard. I might be mixing up stores though.

        – mbrig
        12 hours ago






      • 2





        @mbrig - It was the opposite. Systemd mounted some EFI variables as R/W by default, and then rm -rf / --no-preserve-root would clobber them, which bricked some poorly implemented motherboards. In predictable SystemD fashion, they then handled the issue extremely badly.

        – Fake Name
        7 hours ago















      65














      Modern computers don't have a BIOS, they have a UEFI. Updating the UEFI firmware from the running operating system is a standard procedure, so any malware which manages to get executed on the operating system with sufficient privileges could attempt to do the same. However, most UEFIs will not accept an update which isn't digitally signed by the manufacturer. That means it should not be possible to overwrite it with arbitrary code.



      This, however, assumes that:



      1. the mainboard manufacturers manage to keep their private keys secret

      2. the UEFI doesn't have any unintended security vulnerabilities which allow overwriting it with arbitrary code.

      And those two assumptions do not necessarily hold.



      Regarding leaked keys: if a UEFI signing key were to become known to the general public, then you can assume that there would be quite a lot of media reporting and hysterical patching going on. If you follow some IT news, you would likely see a lot of alarmist "If you have a [brand] mainboard UPDATE YOUR UEFI NOW!!!1111oneone" headlines. But another possibility is signing keys secretly leaked to state actors. So if your work might be interesting for industrial espionage, then this might also be a credible threat for you.



      Regarding bugs: UEFIs gain more and more functionality which has more and more possibilities for hidden bugs. They also lack most of the internal security features you have after you have booted a "real" operating system.






      share|improve this answer




















      • 3





        Suggestion: "And you can not necessarily assume that these two assumptions are true." --> "And those two assumptions do not necessarily hold." (Just reads very awkwardly as is.)

        – jpmc26
        14 hours ago







      • 2





        @jpmc26 English is not my first language, so if you say so...

        – Philipp
        14 hours ago






      • 7





        1) UEFI is a subtype of BIOS. 2) If an attacker can get physical access to your computer, they don't need to be able to sign their BIOS malware; they can simply desolder the chip from the motherboard and forcibly overwrite the data contained therein.

        – Sean
        13 hours ago












      • I have vague memories of the linux kernel (or maybe just a common UEFI utility on linux?) deciding to block access to certain UEFI settings because incorrect writes could brick the motherboard. I might be mixing up stores though.

        – mbrig
        12 hours ago






      • 2





        @mbrig - It was the opposite. Systemd mounted some EFI variables as R/W by default, and then rm -rf / --no-preserve-root would clobber them, which bricked some poorly implemented motherboards. In predictable SystemD fashion, they then handled the issue extremely badly.

        – Fake Name
        7 hours ago













      65












      65








      65







      Modern computers don't have a BIOS, they have a UEFI. Updating the UEFI firmware from the running operating system is a standard procedure, so any malware which manages to get executed on the operating system with sufficient privileges could attempt to do the same. However, most UEFIs will not accept an update which isn't digitally signed by the manufacturer. That means it should not be possible to overwrite it with arbitrary code.



      This, however, assumes that:



      1. the mainboard manufacturers manage to keep their private keys secret

      2. the UEFI doesn't have any unintended security vulnerabilities which allow overwriting it with arbitrary code.

      And those two assumptions do not necessarily hold.



      Regarding leaked keys: if a UEFI signing key were to become known to the general public, then you can assume that there would be quite a lot of media reporting and hysterical patching going on. If you follow some IT news, you would likely see a lot of alarmist "If you have a [brand] mainboard UPDATE YOUR UEFI NOW!!!1111oneone" headlines. But another possibility is signing keys secretly leaked to state actors. So if your work might be interesting for industrial espionage, then this might also be a credible threat for you.



      Regarding bugs: UEFIs gain more and more functionality which has more and more possibilities for hidden bugs. They also lack most of the internal security features you have after you have booted a "real" operating system.






      share|improve this answer















      Modern computers don't have a BIOS, they have a UEFI. Updating the UEFI firmware from the running operating system is a standard procedure, so any malware which manages to get executed on the operating system with sufficient privileges could attempt to do the same. However, most UEFIs will not accept an update which isn't digitally signed by the manufacturer. That means it should not be possible to overwrite it with arbitrary code.



      This, however, assumes that:



      1. the mainboard manufacturers manage to keep their private keys secret

      2. the UEFI doesn't have any unintended security vulnerabilities which allow overwriting it with arbitrary code.

      And those two assumptions do not necessarily hold.



      Regarding leaked keys: if a UEFI signing key were to become known to the general public, then you can assume that there would be quite a lot of media reporting and hysterical patching going on. If you follow some IT news, you would likely see a lot of alarmist "If you have a [brand] mainboard UPDATE YOUR UEFI NOW!!!1111oneone" headlines. But another possibility is signing keys secretly leaked to state actors. So if your work might be interesting for industrial espionage, then this might also be a credible threat for you.



      Regarding bugs: UEFIs gain more and more functionality which has more and more possibilities for hidden bugs. They also lack most of the internal security features you have after you have booted a "real" operating system.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited 2 hours ago









      forest

      39.2k18127139




      39.2k18127139










      answered 21 hours ago









      PhilippPhilipp

      44.7k7113141




      44.7k7113141







      • 3





        Suggestion: "And you can not necessarily assume that these two assumptions are true." --> "And those two assumptions do not necessarily hold." (Just reads very awkwardly as is.)

        – jpmc26
        14 hours ago







      • 2





        @jpmc26 English is not my first language, so if you say so...

        – Philipp
        14 hours ago






      • 7





        1) UEFI is a subtype of BIOS. 2) If an attacker can get physical access to your computer, they don't need to be able to sign their BIOS malware; they can simply desolder the chip from the motherboard and forcibly overwrite the data contained therein.

        – Sean
        13 hours ago












      • I have vague memories of the linux kernel (or maybe just a common UEFI utility on linux?) deciding to block access to certain UEFI settings because incorrect writes could brick the motherboard. I might be mixing up stores though.

        – mbrig
        12 hours ago






      • 2





        @mbrig - It was the opposite. Systemd mounted some EFI variables as R/W by default, and then rm -rf / --no-preserve-root would clobber them, which bricked some poorly implemented motherboards. In predictable SystemD fashion, they then handled the issue extremely badly.

        – Fake Name
        7 hours ago












      • 3





        Suggestion: "And you can not necessarily assume that these two assumptions are true." --> "And those two assumptions do not necessarily hold." (Just reads very awkwardly as is.)

        – jpmc26
        14 hours ago







      • 2





        @jpmc26 English is not my first language, so if you say so...

        – Philipp
        14 hours ago






      • 7





        1) UEFI is a subtype of BIOS. 2) If an attacker can get physical access to your computer, they don't need to be able to sign their BIOS malware; they can simply desolder the chip from the motherboard and forcibly overwrite the data contained therein.

        – Sean
        13 hours ago












      • I have vague memories of the linux kernel (or maybe just a common UEFI utility on linux?) deciding to block access to certain UEFI settings because incorrect writes could brick the motherboard. I might be mixing up stores though.

        – mbrig
        12 hours ago






      • 2





        @mbrig - It was the opposite. Systemd mounted some EFI variables as R/W by default, and then rm -rf / --no-preserve-root would clobber them, which bricked some poorly implemented motherboards. In predictable SystemD fashion, they then handled the issue extremely badly.

        – Fake Name
        7 hours ago







      3




      3





      Suggestion: "And you can not necessarily assume that these two assumptions are true." --> "And those two assumptions do not necessarily hold." (Just reads very awkwardly as is.)

      – jpmc26
      14 hours ago






      Suggestion: "And you can not necessarily assume that these two assumptions are true." --> "And those two assumptions do not necessarily hold." (Just reads very awkwardly as is.)

      – jpmc26
      14 hours ago





      2




      2





      @jpmc26 English is not my first language, so if you say so...

      – Philipp
      14 hours ago





      @jpmc26 English is not my first language, so if you say so...

      – Philipp
      14 hours ago




      7




      7





      1) UEFI is a subtype of BIOS. 2) If an attacker can get physical access to your computer, they don't need to be able to sign their BIOS malware; they can simply desolder the chip from the motherboard and forcibly overwrite the data contained therein.

      – Sean
      13 hours ago






      1) UEFI is a subtype of BIOS. 2) If an attacker can get physical access to your computer, they don't need to be able to sign their BIOS malware; they can simply desolder the chip from the motherboard and forcibly overwrite the data contained therein.

      – Sean
      13 hours ago














      I have vague memories of the linux kernel (or maybe just a common UEFI utility on linux?) deciding to block access to certain UEFI settings because incorrect writes could brick the motherboard. I might be mixing up stores though.

      – mbrig
      12 hours ago





      I have vague memories of the linux kernel (or maybe just a common UEFI utility on linux?) deciding to block access to certain UEFI settings because incorrect writes could brick the motherboard. I might be mixing up stores though.

      – mbrig
      12 hours ago




      2




      2





      @mbrig - It was the opposite. Systemd mounted some EFI variables as R/W by default, and then rm -rf / --no-preserve-root would clobber them, which bricked some poorly implemented motherboards. In predictable SystemD fashion, they then handled the issue extremely badly.

      – Fake Name
      7 hours ago





      @mbrig - It was the opposite. Systemd mounted some EFI variables as R/W by default, and then rm -rf / --no-preserve-root would clobber them, which bricked some poorly implemented motherboards. In predictable SystemD fashion, they then handled the issue extremely badly.

      – Fake Name
      7 hours ago













      31














      Yes, it is definitely possible.



      Nowadays, with UEFI becoming widespread, it is even more of a concern: UEFI has a much larger attack surface than traditional BIOS and a (potential) flaw in UEFI could be leverage to gain access to machine without having any kind of physical access (as demonstrated by the people of Eclypsium at black hat last year).






      share|improve this answer



























        31














        Yes, it is definitely possible.



        Nowadays, with UEFI becoming widespread, it is even more of a concern: UEFI has a much larger attack surface than traditional BIOS and a (potential) flaw in UEFI could be leverage to gain access to machine without having any kind of physical access (as demonstrated by the people of Eclypsium at black hat last year).






        share|improve this answer

























          31












          31








          31







          Yes, it is definitely possible.



          Nowadays, with UEFI becoming widespread, it is even more of a concern: UEFI has a much larger attack surface than traditional BIOS and a (potential) flaw in UEFI could be leverage to gain access to machine without having any kind of physical access (as demonstrated by the people of Eclypsium at black hat last year).






          share|improve this answer













          Yes, it is definitely possible.



          Nowadays, with UEFI becoming widespread, it is even more of a concern: UEFI has a much larger attack surface than traditional BIOS and a (potential) flaw in UEFI could be leverage to gain access to machine without having any kind of physical access (as demonstrated by the people of Eclypsium at black hat last year).







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 21 hours ago









          StephaneStephane

          17.6k25464




          17.6k25464





















              2














              Practically speaking, a virus is software, so can do anything that any other software can do.



              So the simple way answer to this question, and all others of the class "Can viruses do X?" is to ask "Does software currently do X?"



              Such questions might include "can a virus walk my dog?" (not without a dog-walking robot); "Can a virus get me pizza?" (yes: this is regrettably not the main focus of most virus authors, however).



              Are BIOSes (UEFI) currently updated using software? The answer is, yes they are. Mine updated last night, when I rebooted.



              And so the answer is yes.



              By the same logic, viruses can also cause (and historically have caused) physical damage to your CPU, hard drives, and printers.



              Home automation systems and driverless vehicles are also possible targets for physical damages, but I know of no viruses which have done so.






              share|improve this answer


















              • 1





                I wouldn't mind much if my personal information was used by malware developers to order me free pizza and nothing else. (+1 for useful reasoning)

                – Marc.2377
                6 hours ago







              • 1





                @Marc.2377, I would not mind much if your personal information was used to order me free pizza… :-)

                – sleblanc
                2 hours ago















              2














              Practically speaking, a virus is software, so can do anything that any other software can do.



              So the simple way answer to this question, and all others of the class "Can viruses do X?" is to ask "Does software currently do X?"



              Such questions might include "can a virus walk my dog?" (not without a dog-walking robot); "Can a virus get me pizza?" (yes: this is regrettably not the main focus of most virus authors, however).



              Are BIOSes (UEFI) currently updated using software? The answer is, yes they are. Mine updated last night, when I rebooted.



              And so the answer is yes.



              By the same logic, viruses can also cause (and historically have caused) physical damage to your CPU, hard drives, and printers.



              Home automation systems and driverless vehicles are also possible targets for physical damages, but I know of no viruses which have done so.






              share|improve this answer


















              • 1





                I wouldn't mind much if my personal information was used by malware developers to order me free pizza and nothing else. (+1 for useful reasoning)

                – Marc.2377
                6 hours ago







              • 1





                @Marc.2377, I would not mind much if your personal information was used to order me free pizza… :-)

                – sleblanc
                2 hours ago













              2












              2








              2







              Practically speaking, a virus is software, so can do anything that any other software can do.



              So the simple way answer to this question, and all others of the class "Can viruses do X?" is to ask "Does software currently do X?"



              Such questions might include "can a virus walk my dog?" (not without a dog-walking robot); "Can a virus get me pizza?" (yes: this is regrettably not the main focus of most virus authors, however).



              Are BIOSes (UEFI) currently updated using software? The answer is, yes they are. Mine updated last night, when I rebooted.



              And so the answer is yes.



              By the same logic, viruses can also cause (and historically have caused) physical damage to your CPU, hard drives, and printers.



              Home automation systems and driverless vehicles are also possible targets for physical damages, but I know of no viruses which have done so.






              share|improve this answer













              Practically speaking, a virus is software, so can do anything that any other software can do.



              So the simple way answer to this question, and all others of the class "Can viruses do X?" is to ask "Does software currently do X?"



              Such questions might include "can a virus walk my dog?" (not without a dog-walking robot); "Can a virus get me pizza?" (yes: this is regrettably not the main focus of most virus authors, however).



              Are BIOSes (UEFI) currently updated using software? The answer is, yes they are. Mine updated last night, when I rebooted.



              And so the answer is yes.



              By the same logic, viruses can also cause (and historically have caused) physical damage to your CPU, hard drives, and printers.



              Home automation systems and driverless vehicles are also possible targets for physical damages, but I know of no viruses which have done so.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered 10 hours ago









              Dewi MorganDewi Morgan

              1,110513




              1,110513







              • 1





                I wouldn't mind much if my personal information was used by malware developers to order me free pizza and nothing else. (+1 for useful reasoning)

                – Marc.2377
                6 hours ago







              • 1





                @Marc.2377, I would not mind much if your personal information was used to order me free pizza… :-)

                – sleblanc
                2 hours ago












              • 1





                I wouldn't mind much if my personal information was used by malware developers to order me free pizza and nothing else. (+1 for useful reasoning)

                – Marc.2377
                6 hours ago







              • 1





                @Marc.2377, I would not mind much if your personal information was used to order me free pizza… :-)

                – sleblanc
                2 hours ago







              1




              1





              I wouldn't mind much if my personal information was used by malware developers to order me free pizza and nothing else. (+1 for useful reasoning)

              – Marc.2377
              6 hours ago






              I wouldn't mind much if my personal information was used by malware developers to order me free pizza and nothing else. (+1 for useful reasoning)

              – Marc.2377
              6 hours ago





              1




              1





              @Marc.2377, I would not mind much if your personal information was used to order me free pizza… :-)

              – sleblanc
              2 hours ago





              @Marc.2377, I would not mind much if your personal information was used to order me free pizza… :-)

              – sleblanc
              2 hours ago











              1














              Your question hints at a more deep subject that is rings and permissions of code on an operating system. On MS DOS the code could do whatever it wants. If the code wanted to write all 0x00's to a hard drive it could if it wanted to send strange output to a piece of hardware it could also there was nothing stopping the user's code. On a modern OS there is a concept of rings (this is enforced by the CPU). The kernel runs on ring zero and it could do whatever it wants. The user's code on the other hand can not. It runs on something called ring 3 and it is given it's own little piece of memory and inside of that memory it can do whatever it wants but it can not directly talk to hardware. If the user's code tries to talk to hardware then the kernel immediately kills the program. This means that it is highly unlikely that a regular virus can kill hardware because it can not talk to it directly.



              If the kernel is hacked then the game is basically over. The kernel can do whatever it wants and a whole host of bad things can happen such as overclocking the CPU to a point where the hardware is unstable, wiping the hard drives (filling the with zeros for example), or pretty much any other plausible attack.






              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              scifi6546 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.















              • 1





                "If the user's code tries to talk to hardware then the kernel immediately kills the program" - Really? Can you provide a citation for that? I thought the protected instruction would simply fail and it's up to the program to deal with that reasonably or crash.

                – Marc.2377
                6 hours ago















              1














              Your question hints at a more deep subject that is rings and permissions of code on an operating system. On MS DOS the code could do whatever it wants. If the code wanted to write all 0x00's to a hard drive it could if it wanted to send strange output to a piece of hardware it could also there was nothing stopping the user's code. On a modern OS there is a concept of rings (this is enforced by the CPU). The kernel runs on ring zero and it could do whatever it wants. The user's code on the other hand can not. It runs on something called ring 3 and it is given it's own little piece of memory and inside of that memory it can do whatever it wants but it can not directly talk to hardware. If the user's code tries to talk to hardware then the kernel immediately kills the program. This means that it is highly unlikely that a regular virus can kill hardware because it can not talk to it directly.



              If the kernel is hacked then the game is basically over. The kernel can do whatever it wants and a whole host of bad things can happen such as overclocking the CPU to a point where the hardware is unstable, wiping the hard drives (filling the with zeros for example), or pretty much any other plausible attack.






              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              scifi6546 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.















              • 1





                "If the user's code tries to talk to hardware then the kernel immediately kills the program" - Really? Can you provide a citation for that? I thought the protected instruction would simply fail and it's up to the program to deal with that reasonably or crash.

                – Marc.2377
                6 hours ago













              1












              1








              1







              Your question hints at a more deep subject that is rings and permissions of code on an operating system. On MS DOS the code could do whatever it wants. If the code wanted to write all 0x00's to a hard drive it could if it wanted to send strange output to a piece of hardware it could also there was nothing stopping the user's code. On a modern OS there is a concept of rings (this is enforced by the CPU). The kernel runs on ring zero and it could do whatever it wants. The user's code on the other hand can not. It runs on something called ring 3 and it is given it's own little piece of memory and inside of that memory it can do whatever it wants but it can not directly talk to hardware. If the user's code tries to talk to hardware then the kernel immediately kills the program. This means that it is highly unlikely that a regular virus can kill hardware because it can not talk to it directly.



              If the kernel is hacked then the game is basically over. The kernel can do whatever it wants and a whole host of bad things can happen such as overclocking the CPU to a point where the hardware is unstable, wiping the hard drives (filling the with zeros for example), or pretty much any other plausible attack.






              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              scifi6546 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.










              Your question hints at a more deep subject that is rings and permissions of code on an operating system. On MS DOS the code could do whatever it wants. If the code wanted to write all 0x00's to a hard drive it could if it wanted to send strange output to a piece of hardware it could also there was nothing stopping the user's code. On a modern OS there is a concept of rings (this is enforced by the CPU). The kernel runs on ring zero and it could do whatever it wants. The user's code on the other hand can not. It runs on something called ring 3 and it is given it's own little piece of memory and inside of that memory it can do whatever it wants but it can not directly talk to hardware. If the user's code tries to talk to hardware then the kernel immediately kills the program. This means that it is highly unlikely that a regular virus can kill hardware because it can not talk to it directly.



              If the kernel is hacked then the game is basically over. The kernel can do whatever it wants and a whole host of bad things can happen such as overclocking the CPU to a point where the hardware is unstable, wiping the hard drives (filling the with zeros for example), or pretty much any other plausible attack.







              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              scifi6546 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.









              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer






              New contributor




              scifi6546 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.









              answered 7 hours ago









              scifi6546scifi6546

              11




              11




              New contributor




              scifi6546 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.





              New contributor





              scifi6546 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.






              scifi6546 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.







              • 1





                "If the user's code tries to talk to hardware then the kernel immediately kills the program" - Really? Can you provide a citation for that? I thought the protected instruction would simply fail and it's up to the program to deal with that reasonably or crash.

                – Marc.2377
                6 hours ago












              • 1





                "If the user's code tries to talk to hardware then the kernel immediately kills the program" - Really? Can you provide a citation for that? I thought the protected instruction would simply fail and it's up to the program to deal with that reasonably or crash.

                – Marc.2377
                6 hours ago







              1




              1





              "If the user's code tries to talk to hardware then the kernel immediately kills the program" - Really? Can you provide a citation for that? I thought the protected instruction would simply fail and it's up to the program to deal with that reasonably or crash.

              – Marc.2377
              6 hours ago





              "If the user's code tries to talk to hardware then the kernel immediately kills the program" - Really? Can you provide a citation for that? I thought the protected instruction would simply fail and it's up to the program to deal with that reasonably or crash.

              – Marc.2377
              6 hours ago











              0














              Potentially. It would be hard to do however, as it would more than likely have to masquerade as a legit BIOS update somewhere down the line. The method to do so will change depending on your mobo but chances are it would have to involve the leaking of private or hardware keys or other secrets.






              share|improve this answer



























                0














                Potentially. It would be hard to do however, as it would more than likely have to masquerade as a legit BIOS update somewhere down the line. The method to do so will change depending on your mobo but chances are it would have to involve the leaking of private or hardware keys or other secrets.






                share|improve this answer

























                  0












                  0








                  0







                  Potentially. It would be hard to do however, as it would more than likely have to masquerade as a legit BIOS update somewhere down the line. The method to do so will change depending on your mobo but chances are it would have to involve the leaking of private or hardware keys or other secrets.






                  share|improve this answer













                  Potentially. It would be hard to do however, as it would more than likely have to masquerade as a legit BIOS update somewhere down the line. The method to do so will change depending on your mobo but chances are it would have to involve the leaking of private or hardware keys or other secrets.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 21 hours ago









                  520520

                  43724




                  43724




















                      user73910 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









                      draft saved

                      draft discarded


















                      user73910 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                      user73910 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











                      user73910 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Information Security Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsecurity.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f206606%2fcan-a-virus-destroy-the-bios-of-a-modern-computer%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Get product attribute by attribute group code in magento 2get product attribute by product attribute group in magento 2Magento 2 Log Bundle Product Data in List Page?How to get all product attribute of a attribute group of Default attribute set?Magento 2.1 Create a filter in the product grid by new attributeMagento 2 : Get Product Attribute values By GroupMagento 2 How to get all existing values for one attributeMagento 2 get custom attribute of a single product inside a pluginMagento 2.3 How to get all the Multi Source Inventory (MSI) locations collection in custom module?Magento2: how to develop rest API to get new productsGet product attribute by attribute group code ( [attribute_group_code] ) in magento 2

                      Category:9 (number) SubcategoriesMedia in category "9 (number)"Navigation menuUpload mediaGND ID: 4485639-8Library of Congress authority ID: sh85091979ReasonatorScholiaStatistics

                      Magento 2.3: How do i solve this, Not registered handle, on custom form?How can i rewrite TierPrice Block in Magento2magento 2 captcha not rendering if I override layout xmlmain.CRITICAL: Plugin class doesn't existMagento 2 : Problem while adding custom button order view page?Magento 2.2.5: Overriding Admin Controller sales/orderMagento 2.2.5: Add, Update and Delete existing products Custom OptionsMagento 2.3 : File Upload issue in UI Component FormMagento2 Not registered handleHow to configured Form Builder Js in my custom magento 2.3.0 module?Magento 2.3. How to create image upload field in an admin form