Undocumented "backdoor" found in Bluetooth chip used by a billion devices

Comments

• Dekkia@this.doesnotcut.it ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Someone correct me if i’m wrong, but it looks like it’s not the big deal the original blog post makes it out to be.

  To issue those undocumented HCI commands one either needs to hijack a computer/soc/mcu that is connected to an esp32 with HCI UART transport enabled or put malicious software on the esp itself.

  The mac spoofing might be interesting for people building hacking tool, however.

  source

  • catloaf@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Yeah, this is hyped for clicks. This requires the target device to already be paired and requires privileged access on the local system to install the custom driver. NVD rates the exploitability of CVE-2025-27840 as 0.3 out of 10.

    source
• randompasta@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  The ESP32 chip is used in tons of devices. The scope of this is really broad.

  source

  • Xanza@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    HeartBleed level.

    source

    • chaospatterns@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      No way they’re on the same level. Heartbleed allowed for remote memory reads. This requires you to have access to change the firmware.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • dzso@lemmy.world ⁨23⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Can someone explain how to know if my devices have this chip, what risks it exposes me to, and what, if anything, I should do to protect myself?

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• tal@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Armed with this new tool, which enables raw access to Bluetooth traffic, Targolic discovered hidden vendor-specific commands (Opcode 0x3F) in the ESP32 Bluetooth firmware that allow low-level control over Bluetooth functions.

  In total, they found 29 undocumented commands, collectively characterized as a “backdoor,” that could be used for memory manipulation (read/write RAM and Flash), MAC address spoofing (device impersonation), and LMP/LLCP packet injection.

  Espressif has not publicly documented these commands, so either they weren’t meant to be accessible, or they were left in by mistake.

  I’d kind of like to know whether these can be used against an unpaired device or not. That’d seem to have a pretty dramatic impact on the scope of the vulnerability.

  source

  • CosmicCleric@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    I’d kind of like to know whether these can be used against an unpaired device or not. That’d seem to have a pretty dramatic impact on the scope of the vulnerability.

    Don’t see how that would matter much. The “scope of the vulnerability” is sufficiently large enough that it should not be partially or otherwise discredited as a risk.

    If someone owns a Bluetooth device, then its fair to think that at some point they’d actually use it, being vulnerable to the backdoor access. That’s billions of uses right there, on a regular basis.

    ~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~

    source

    • rezifon@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      It’s a reasonable question. There are countless devices using esp32 chips which do not use the Bluetooth parts of the chip at all.

      source
• technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Gotta blame China to get upvoted on Lemmy.

  Image

  source
• Treczoks@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  While I have a few ESP32 in my collection, I am now happy that I chose a different platform for my project.

  I wonder what people will say in Nürnberg next week at Embedded World.

  source
• Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Computers are what we’d get if Epimetheus stole something from the gods for us instead

  source