Insufficient granularity of access control in the OOB-MSM for some Intel(R) Xeon(R) 6 Scalable processors may allow a privileged user to potentially enable escalation of privilege via adjacent access.
Weakness
The product implements access controls via a policy or other feature with the intention to disable or restrict accesses (reads and/or writes) to assets in a system from untrusted agents. However, implemented access controls lack required granularity, which renders the control policy too broad because it allows accesses from unauthorized agents to the security-sensitive assets.
Affected Software
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intel-microcode | Ubuntu | devel | * |
| Intel-microcode | Ubuntu | esm-infra-legacy/trusty | * |
| Intel-microcode | Ubuntu | esm-infra/bionic | * |
| Intel-microcode | Ubuntu | esm-infra/focal | * |
| Intel-microcode | Ubuntu | esm-infra/xenial | * |
| Intel-microcode | Ubuntu | jammy | * |
| Intel-microcode | Ubuntu | noble | * |
| Intel-microcode | Ubuntu | plucky | * |
| Intel-microcode | Ubuntu | questing | * |
| Intel-microcode | Ubuntu | upstream | * |
Extended Description
Integrated circuits and hardware engines can expose accesses to assets (device configuration, keys, etc.) to trusted firmware or a software module (commonly set by BIOS/bootloader). This access is typically access-controlled. Upon a power reset, the hardware or system usually starts with default values in registers, and the trusted firmware (Boot firmware) configures the necessary access-control protection. A common weakness that can exist in such protection schemes is that access controls or policies are not granular enough. This condition allows agents beyond trusted agents to access assets and could lead to a loss of functionality or the ability to set up the device securely. This further results in security risks from leaked, sensitive, key material to modification of device configuration.