[X360] The Reset Glitch Hack

Aurora Wright

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
1,573
Reaction score
4,220
Trophies
3
XP
5,142
Country
Italy
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyYdL4L6vwE[/youtube]​
We all know that the Xbox 360 is a masterpiece as far as software security is concerned, hackers such as tmbinc and marcan said so too.
Since software was so secure, some hackers found an hardware glitch, which works by using a chip to destabilyze the processor, while it checks the signature of one of the bootloaders.
This glitch hack works on both FAT and SLIM models, allowing them to run unsigned code
grog.gif

Details about how it works:
**********************************
* The Xbox 360 reset glitch hack *
**********************************

Introduction / some important facts
===================================

tmbinc said it himself, software based approaches of running unsigned code on the 360 mostly don't work, it was designed to be secure from a software point of view.

The processor starts running code from ROM (1bl) , which then starts loading a RSA signed and RC4 crypted piece of code from NAND (CB).

CB then initialises the processor security engine, its task will be to do real time encryption and hash check of physical DRAM memory. From what we found, it's using AES128 for crypto and strong (Toeplitz ?) hashing. The crypto is different each boot because it is seeded at least from:
- A hash of the entire fuseset.
- The timebase counter value.
- A truly random value that comes from the hardware random number generator the processor embeds. on fats, that RNG could be electronically deactivated, but there's a check for "apparent randomness" (merely a count of 1 bits) in CB, it just waits for a seemingly proper random number.

CB can then run some kind of simple bytecode based software engine whose task will mainly be to initialise DRAM, CB can then load the next bootloader (CD) from NAND into it, and run it.

Basically, CD will load a base kernel from NAND, patch it and run it.

That kernel contains a small privileged piece of code (hypervisor), when the console runs, this is the only code that would have enough rights to run unsigned code.
In kernel versions 4532/4548, a critical flaw in it appeared, and all known 360 hacks needed to run one of those kernels and exploit that flaw to run unsigned code.
On current 360s, CD contains a hash of those 2 kernels and will stop the boot process if you try to load them.
The hypervisor is a relatively small piece of code to check for flaws and apparently no newer ones has any flaws that could allow running unsigned code.

On the other hand, tmbinc said the 360 wasn't designed to withstand certain hardware attacks such as the timing attack and "glitching".

Glitching here is basically the process of triggering processor bugs by electronical means.

This is the way we used to be able to run unsigned code.

The reset glitch in a few words
===============================

We found that by sending a tiny reset pulse to the processor while it is slowed down does not reset it but instead changes the way the code runs, it seems it's very efficient at making bootloaders memcmp functions always return "no differences". memcmp is often used to check the next bootloader SHA hash against a stored one, allowing it to run if they are the same. So we can put a bootloader that would fail hash check in NAND, glitch the previous one and that bootloader will run, allowing almost any code to run.

Details for the fat hack
========================

On fats, the bootloader we glitch is CB, so we can run the CD we want.

cjak found that by asserting the CPU_PLL_BYPASS signal, the CPU clock is slowed down a lot, there's a test point on the motherboard that's a fraction of CPU speed, it's 200Mhz when the dash runs, 66.6Mhz when the console boots, and 520Khz when that signal is asserted.

So it goes like that:
- We assert CPU_PLL_BYPASS around POST code 36 (hex).
- We wait for POST 39 start (POST 39 is the memcmp between stored hash and image hash), and start a counter.
- When that counter has reached a precise value (it's often around 62% of entire POST 39 length), we send a 100ns pulse on CPU_RESET.
- We wait some time and then we deassert CPU_PLL_BYPASS.
- The cpu speed goes back to normal, and with a bit of luck, instead of getting POST error AD, the boot process continues and CB runs our custom CD.

The NAND contains a zero-paired CB, our payload in a custom CD, and a modified SMC image.
A glitch being unreliable by nature, we use a modified SMC image that reboots infinitely (ie stock images reboot 5 times and then go RROD) until the console has booted properly.
In most cases, the glitch succeeds in less than 30 seconds from power on that way.

Details for the slim hack
=========================

The bootloader we glitch is CB_A, so we can run the CB_B we want.

On slims, we weren't able to find a motherboard track for CPU_PLL_BYPASS.
Our first idea was to remove the 27Mhz master 360 crystal and generate our own clock instead but it was a difficult modification and it didn't yield good results.
We then looked for other ways to slow the CPU clock down and found that the HANA chip had configurable PLL registers for the 100Mhz clock that feeds CPU and GPU differential pairs.
Apparently those registers are written by the SMC through an I2C bus.
I2C bus can be freely accessed, it's even available on a header (J2C3).
So the HANA chip will now become our weapon of choice to slow the CPU down (sorry tmbinc, you can't always be right, it isn't boring and it does sit on an interesting bus

So it goes like that:
- We send an i2c command to the HANA to slow down the CPU at POST code D8 .
- We wait for POST DA start (POST DA is the memcmp between stored hash and image hash), and start a counter.
- When that counter has reached a precise value, we send a 20ns pulse on CPU_RESET.
- We wait some time and then we send an i2c command to the HANA to restore regular CPU clock.
- The cpu speed goes back to normal, and with a bit of luck, instead of getting POST error F2, the boot process continues and CB_A runs our custom CB_B.

When CB_B starts, DRAM isn't initialised so we chose to only apply a few patches to it so that it can run any CD, the patches are:
- Always activate zero-paired mode, so that we can use a modified SMC image.
- Don't decrypt CD, instead expect a plaintext CD in NAND.
- Don't stop the boot process if CD hash isn't good.

CB_B is RC4 crypted, the key comes from the CPU key, so how do we patch CB_B without knowing the CPU key?
RC4 is basically:
crypted = plaintext xor pseudo-random-keystream
So if we know plaintext and crypted, we can get the keystream, and with the keystream, we can encrypt our own code. It goes like that:
guessed-pseudo-random-keystream = crypted xor plaintext
new-crypted = guessed-pseudo-random-keystream xor plaintext-patch
You could think there's a chicken and egg problem, how did we get plaintext in the first place?
Easy: we had plaintext CBs from fat consoles, and we thought the first few bytes of code would be the same as the new CB_B, so we could encrypt a tiny piece of code to dump the CPU key and decrypt CB_B!

The NAND contains CB_A, a patched CB_B, our payload in a custom plaintext CD, and a modified SMC image.
The SMC image is modified to have infinite reboot, and to prevent it from periodically sending I2C commands while we send ours.

Now, maybe you haven't realised yet, but CB_A contains no checks on revocation fuses, so it's an unpatchable hack !

Caveats
=======

Nothing is ever perfect, so there are a few caveats to that hack:
- Even in the glitch we found is pretty reliable (25% success rate per try on average), it can take up to a few minutes to boot to unsigned code.
- That success rate seems to depend on something like the hash of the modified bootloader we want to run (CD for fats and CB_B for slims).
- It requires precise and fast hardware to be able to send the reset pulse.

Our current implementation
==========================

We used a Xilinx CoolRunner II CPLD (xc2c64a) board, because it's fast, precise, updatable, cheap and can work with 2 different voltage levels at the same time.
We use the 48Mhz standby clock from the 360 for the glitch counter. For the slim hack, the counter even runs at 96Mhz (incremented on rising and falling edges of clock)
The cpld code is written in VHDL.
We need it to be aware of the current POST code, our first implementations used the whole 8 bits POST port for this, but we are now able to detect the changes of only 1 POST bit, making wiring easier.

Conclusion
==========

We tried not to include any MS copyrighted code in the released hack tools.
The purpose of this hack is to run Xell and other free software, I (GliGli) did NOT do it to promote piracy or anything related, I just want to be able to do whatever I want with the hardware I bought, including running my own native code on it.

Credits
=======

GliGli, Tiros: Reverse engineering and hack development.
cOz: Reverse engineering, beta testing.
Razkar, tuxuser: beta testing.
cjak, Redline99, SeventhSon, tmbinc, anyone I forgot... : Prior reverse engineering and/or hacking work on the 360.
Tutorial (it requires hardware soldering skills)
 
Devin said:
The Living Shadow said:
Hell yea, NOW were talking!

You said it. Just ended my search for a JTAG 360, might do it to this Jasper I have.

I wonder if this group let Microsoft know about this before they released it, since that's what happened with j-tag, it makes me wonder.
 
The Living Shadow said:
Devin said:
The Living Shadow said:
Hell yea, NOW were talking!

You said it. Just ended my search for a JTAG 360, might do it to this Jasper I have.

I wonder if this group let Microsoft know about this before they released it, since that's what happened with j-tag, it makes me wonder.

I'm also curious about that, but if it works on any Dash. Don't update.
 
Wow a good read. I shall have to see how this all plays out and if it turns out it can be done on some more commodity hardware (thinking some of the more common development boards although a quick scan says the current setup is nothing major) I sense I shall be doing a few as this looks like it will work on banned hardware too.
 
Devin said:
The Living Shadow said:
Devin said:
The Living Shadow said:
Hell yea, NOW were talking!

You said it. Just ended my search for a JTAG 360, might do it to this Jasper I have.

I wonder if this group let Microsoft know about this before they released it, since that's what happened with j-tag, it makes me wonder.

I'm also curious about that, but if it works on any Dash. Don't update.
Well, if anyone needs a box, I suggest waiting a bit to find out if microsoft has patched it, just keep an eye on xbox-scene forums for a heads up. I know I am going to get a new box either way, I need it. and let's hope someone grabs the keys!!
 
The Living Shadow said:
Devin said:
The Living Shadow said:
Devin said:
The Living Shadow said:
Hell yea, NOW were talking!

You said it. Just ended my search for a JTAG 360, might do it to this Jasper I have.

I wonder if this group let Microsoft know about this before they released it, since that's what happened with j-tag, it makes me wonder.

I'm also curious about that, but if it works on any Dash. Don't update.
Well, if anyone needs a box, I suggest waiting a bit to find out if microsoft has patched it, just keep an eye on xbox-scene forums for a heads up. I know I am going to get a new box either way, I need it. and let's hope someone grabs the keys!!

Yup. If it hasn't been patched yet great. Until I get it done, my 360 stays offline. Just bought a 360 from a friend, so I'll have two to screw around with.

(So that means the 360's can run games, and still play on Live? Amazing.
 
Hm, this will probably have a nice huge drop of JTAG'd 360s prices. Good.

I wonder if MS will still ban you if you use this hack... Hopefully it'll be less detectable.
 
So in noob language... could we describe it as "JTAG" for newer models ? I mean can this lead to the same stuff ? Freestyledash, xellous, freeboot and stuff ?
 
i wonder if 3ds at the end will require an advance hack like this
i do also remember fast talked about messing around with the clocks to get some strange results. this is a rare hack i have read about.
if i am not mistaken, its all about making a false hash (SHA) to think it is the correct hash value right?

A little info i know about SHA from a book
Similar to MD5, the message digest is 160 bits instead of 128 bits.This algorithm provides the hash function for the DSA algorithm specified within the DSS.
 
If you are referring to that hacking concepts thread in the 3ds section clock hacks there were more about superclocking or underclocking to cause commands to be missed, interpreted badly or a race condition which is a similar class of attack the eventual one here. However from reading the above it seems as though the clocks were slowed to allow things to work on simpler hardware- trying to get things to mesh at 200MHz or higher (the post said the point viewed was a fraction of the actual speed) is a nightmare (pretty much university or corporate level) but at the sort of speeds they are mentioning when the CPU gets slowed down is far easier to work with.

Once this is done the CPU reset function seems to get abused- I am guessing it resets any flags in the CPU that get returned on the compare check as "not a match" just in time for the next part of the routine to think it is in fact correct and carry on booting. It being that early in the boot process means you can tell it whatever you like and that includes getting it to give you the keys to the kingdom.
 
Nice, might have to grab a slim when funds allow it, already got a jtag, but with fans at 80% it's pretty loud.

This line from the readme

"Now, maybe you haven't realised yet, but CB_A contains no checks on revocation fuses, so it's an unpatchable hack !"

So does that mean unpatchable by software? or just unpatchable forever
biggrin.gif
. It's a glitch on the cpu, so I'd assume any fix would have to be a hardware one, but I'm just wondering if the attack is at such a level, would the console need a complete redesign to fix it.

I see a wave of 360 modchips coming now.
 
Great news, but debating on if I should pick one up. 25% boot rate isn't too bad either.
 
so speed is such a strange thing in processing that even a computer/machine can misinterpret a situation

then again, i dont understand how they figure it out to try this... is there a clue or have they searched through the codes? or is it a guess/chance based on some info?

PS - Fast, i had to read yer post at least 4 times to try to understand what u said and hopefully i get u
 

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum