A few weeks ago, a new exploit technique called
this process is allowed to do whatever it wants bit, which is a real bit in RAM on many operating systems—most of the cleverness is in
grooming the layout of physical RAM so that that bit is physically adjacent to a group of bits that you’re allowed to read from.
This paper describes and analyzes the underlying physical flaw that makes this exploit possible. It is (as far as I know) the first suggestion in the literature that this might be a security vulnerability; chip manufacturers have been aware of it as a reliability problem for much longer.   If you’re not familiar with the details of how DRAM works, there are two important things to understand. First, DRAM deliberately trades stability for density. You can (presently) pack more bits into a given amount of chip surface area with DRAM than with any other design, but the bits don’t retain their values indefinitely; each bit has an electrical charge that slowly leaks away. DRAM is therefore
refreshed continuously; every few tens of milliseconds, each bit will be read and written back, restoring the full charge.
Second, software people are accustomed to thinking of memory at the lowest level of abstraction as a one-dimensional array of bytes, an
address space. But DRAM is physically organized as a two-dimensional array of bits, laid out as a grid on the two-dimensional surface of the chip. To read data from memory, the CPU first instructs the memory bank to load an entire
row into a buffer (unimaginatively called the
row buffer), and then to transmit
columns (which are the width of entire cache lines) from that row. Rows are huge—32 to 256 kilobits, typically; larger than the
page granularity of memory access isolation. This means, bits which are far apart in the CPU’s address spaces (even the so-called
physical address space!) may be right next to each other on a RAM chip. And bits which are right next to each other on a RAM chip may belong to different memory-isolation regions, so it’s potentially a security problem if they can affect each other.
Now, the physical flaw is simply that loading one row of a DRAM chip into the row-buffer can cause adjacent rows to leak their charges faster, due to unavoidable electromagnetic phenomena, e.g. capacitative coupling between rows. Therefore, if you force the memory bank to load a particular row over and over again, enough charge might leak out of an adjacent row to make the bits change their values. (Reading a row implicitly refreshes it, so the
attack row itself won’t be affected.) It turns out to be possible to do this using only ordinary CPU instructions.
The bulk of this paper is devoted to studying exactly when and how this can happen on a wide variety of different DRAM modules from different vendors. Important takeaways include: All vendors have affected products. Higher-capacity chips are more vulnerable, and newer chips are more vulnerable—both of these are because the bit-cells in those chips are smaller and packed closer together. The most common error-correcting code used for DRAM is inadequate to protect against or even detect the attack, because it can only correct one-bit errors and detect two-bit errors within any 64-bit word, but under the attack, several nearby bits often flip at the same time. (You should still make a point of buying error-correcting RAM, plus a motherboard and CPU that actually take advantage of it. One-bit errors are the normal case and they can happen as frequently as once a day. See
Fortunately, the authors also present a simple fix: the memory controller should automatically refresh nearby rows with some low, fixed probability whenever a row is loaded. This will have no visible effect in normal operation, but if a row is being
hammered, nearby rows will get refreshed sufficiently more often that bit flips will not happen. It’s not clear to anyone whether this has actually been implemented in the latest motherboards, vendors being infamously closemouthed about how their low-level hardware actually works. However, several of the authors here work for Intel, and I’d expect them to take the problem seriously, at least.