TY - GEN
T1 - Microarchitectural Security of Firecracker VMM for Serverless Cloud Platforms
AU - Weissman, Zane
AU - Tiemann, Thore
AU - Eisenbarth, Thomas
AU - Sunar, Berk
N1 - DBLP License: DBLP's bibliographic metadata records provided through http://dblp.org/ are distributed under a Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. Although the bibliographic metadata records are provided consistent with CC0 1.0 Dedication, the content described by the metadata records is not. Content may be subject to copyright, rights of privacy, rights of publicity and other restrictions.
PY - 2025
Y1 - 2025
N2 - Firecracker is a virtual machine manager (VMM) purpose-built by AWS for serverless cloud platforms—services that run code for thousands of end users on a per-task basis, automatically managing server infrastructure. In addition to architectural attacks, AWS states that microarchitectural attacks are included in their threat model. But this class of attacks relies on shared hardware, just as the scalability of serverless computing does, which opens a conflict of interest. In this work, we investigate just how secure Firecracker is against microarchitectural attacks. We review Firecracker’s stated isolation model and recommended best practices for deployment, identify potential threat models for serverless platforms, and analyze potential weak points. Then, we use microarchitectural attack PoCs to test the isolation provided by Firecracker and find that it offers little protection against Spectre or MDS attacks. We discover two particularly concerning cases: (1) a Medusa variant that threatens Firecracker VMs but not processes running outside of them, and is not mitigated by defenses recommended by AWS, and (2) a Spectre-PHT variant that remains exploitable even if recommended countermeasures–including disabled SMT–are in place.
AB - Firecracker is a virtual machine manager (VMM) purpose-built by AWS for serverless cloud platforms—services that run code for thousands of end users on a per-task basis, automatically managing server infrastructure. In addition to architectural attacks, AWS states that microarchitectural attacks are included in their threat model. But this class of attacks relies on shared hardware, just as the scalability of serverless computing does, which opens a conflict of interest. In this work, we investigate just how secure Firecracker is against microarchitectural attacks. We review Firecracker’s stated isolation model and recommended best practices for deployment, identify potential threat models for serverless platforms, and analyze potential weak points. Then, we use microarchitectural attack PoCs to test the isolation provided by Firecracker and find that it offers little protection against Spectre or MDS attacks. We discover two particularly concerning cases: (1) a Medusa variant that threatens Firecracker VMs but not processes running outside of them, and is not mitigated by defenses recommended by AWS, and (2) a Spectre-PHT variant that remains exploitable even if recommended countermeasures–including disabled SMT–are in place.
UR - https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.15999
UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/e2064786-b879-36f9-842f-f3d684999941/
U2 - 10.1007/978-3-031-80020-7_1
DO - 10.1007/978-3-031-80020-7_1
M3 - Conference contribution
SN - 978-3-031-80020-7
T3 - Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)
SP - 3
EP - 24
BT - Information Systems Security
A2 - Patil, Vishwas T.
A2 - Krishnan, Ram
A2 - Shyamasundar, Rudrapatna K.
PB - Springer Nature Switzerland
ER -