analyzing-uefi-bootkit-persistence▌
mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills · updated May 25, 2026
MDX-style export adds YAML metadata + attribution linking explainx.ai and this canonical listing URL.
Analyzes UEFI bootkit persistence mechanisms including firmware implants in SPI flash, EFI System Partition (ESP) modifications, Secure Boot bypass techniques, and UEFI variable manipulation. Covers detection of known bootkit families (BlackLotus, LoJax, MosaicRegressor, MoonBounce, CosmicStrand), ESP partition forensic inspection, chipsec-based firmware integrity verification, and Secure Boot configuration auditing. Activates for requests involving UEFI malware analysis, firmware persistence investigation, boot chain integrity verification, or Secure Boot bypass detection.
| name | analyzing-uefi-bootkit-persistence |
| description | 'Analyzes UEFI bootkit persistence mechanisms including firmware implants in SPI flash, EFI System Partition (ESP) modifications, Secure Boot bypass techniques, and UEFI variable manipulation. Covers detection of known bootkit families (BlackLotus, LoJax, MosaicRegressor, MoonBounce, CosmicStrand), ESP partition forensic inspection, chipsec-based firmware integrity verification, and Secure Boot configuration auditing. Activates for requests involving UEFI malware analysis, firmware persistence investigation, boot chain integrity verification, or Secure Boot bypass detection. ' |
| domain | cybersecurity |
| subdomain | firmware-security |
| tags | - UEFI - bootkit - firmware - Secure-Boot - chipsec - ESP - persistence |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| author | mukul975 |
| license | Apache-2.0 |
| d3fend_techniques | - Platform Hardening - Restore Object - Platform Monitoring - Firmware Verification - Firmware Embedded Monitoring Code |
| nist_csf | - ID.RA-01 - PR.PS-01 - PR.PS-02 |
Analyzing UEFI Bootkit Persistence
When to Use
- A compromised system re-establishes C2 communication after OS reinstallation or disk replacement
- Secure Boot has been tampered with, disabled, or shows unexpected Machine Owner Key (MOK) enrollment
- Firmware integrity verification fails against vendor-provided baselines
- Memory forensics reveals rootkit components loading during early boot phase
- Investigating advanced persistent threat (APT) campaigns known to deploy UEFI implants
- Auditing firmware security posture for enterprise endpoint hardening
Do not use for standard MBR-based bootkits on legacy BIOS systems without UEFI; use MBR/VBR bootkit analysis instead.
Prerequisites
- chipsec framework for SPI flash dumping, UEFI variable inspection, and firmware security modules
- UEFITool / UEFIExtract for firmware volume parsing and DXE driver extraction
- Python 3.8+ with struct, hashlib, subprocess, and os modules
- Bootable Linux live USB for offline analysis (avoid running compromised OS)
- Volatility 3 for memory forensics of boot-phase artifacts
- YARA with UEFI malware rule sets for pattern-based detection
- Access to vendor firmware baselines for integrity comparison
Workflow
Step 1: Dump SPI Flash Firmware
Acquire the UEFI firmware from the SPI flash chip for offline analysis:
# Using chipsec to dump SPI flash contents
python chipsec_util.py spi dump firmware_dump.rom
# Using flashrom as an alternative
flashrom -p internal -r firmware_dump.rom
# Verify dump integrity
sha256sum firmware_dump.rom
# Read SPI flash descriptor information
python chipsec_util.py spi info
# Check SPI flash region access permissions
python chipsec_main.py -m common.spi_access
# Verify BIOS write protection is enabled
python chipsec_main.py -m common.bios_wp
# Check SPI flash controller lock
python chipsec_main.py -m common.spi_lock
Step 2: Inspect UEFI Variables
Enumerate and analyze UEFI variables for unauthorized modifications:
# List all UEFI variables on a live system
python chipsec_util.py uefi var-list
# List UEFI variables from a SPI flash dump
python chipsec_util.py uefi var-list-spi firmware_dump.rom
# Read specific Secure Boot variables
python chipsec_util.py uefi var-read SecureBoot 8BE4DF61-93CA-11D2-AA0D-00E098032B8C
python chipsec_util.py uefi var-read SetupMode 8BE4DF61-93CA-11D2-AA0D-00E098032B8C
python chipsec_util.py uefi var-read PK 8BE4DF61-93CA-11D2-AA0D-00E098032B8C
python chipsec_util.py uefi var-read KEK 8BE4DF61-93CA-11D2-AA0D-00E098032B8C
python chipsec_util.py uefi var-read db D719B2CB-3D3A-4596-A3BC-DAD00E67656F
# Dump UEFI key databases for analysis
python chipsec_util.py uefi keys
# Check Secure Boot configuration module
python chipsec_main.py -m common.secureboot.variables
Step 3: Analyze EFI System Partition (ESP)
Inspect the ESP for unauthorized or modified boot components:
# Mount ESP (typically the first FAT32 partition, ~100-500MB)
mkdir /mnt/esp
mount /dev/sda1 /mnt/esp
# List all files on ESP with timestamps
find /mnt/esp -type f -exec ls -la {} \;
# Check for BlackLotus indicators - custom directory under ESP:/system32/
ls -la /mnt/esp/system32/ 2>/dev/null
# Verify Windows Boot Manager signature
sigcheck -a /mnt/esp/EFI/Microsoft/Boot/bootmgfw.efi
# Hash all EFI binaries for comparison against known-good values
find /mnt/esp -name "*.efi" -exec sha256sum {} \;
# Check for unauthorized .efi files outside standard directories
find /mnt/esp -name "*.efi" | grep -v "Microsoft\|Boot\|ubuntu\|grub"
# Look for grubx64.efi planted by BlackLotus
find /mnt/esp -name "grubx64.efi" -exec sha256sum {} \;
# Examine MeasuredBoot logs for anomalies (Windows)
# Logs located at C:\Windows\Logs\MeasuredBoot\
Step 4: Scan Firmware for Known Bootkit Signatures
Analyze the firmware dump for known UEFI malware patterns:
# Extract all firmware modules with UEFIExtract
UEFIExtract firmware_dump.rom all
# Generate firmware module whitelist from vendor baseline
python chipsec_main.py -m tools.uefi.whitelist -a generate,baseline.json,firmware_vendor.rom
# Compare current firmware against whitelist
python chipsec_main.py -m tools.uefi.whitelist -a check,baseline.json,firmware_dump.rom
# Scan firmware with UEFI-specific YARA rules
yara -r uefi_bootkits.yar firmware_dump.rom
# Scan extracted modules individually
find firmware_dump.rom.dump -name "*.efi" -exec yara -r uefi_bootkits.yar {} \;
# Check for modified CORE_DXE module (targeted by MoonBounce, CosmicStrand)
# Compare GUID and hash against vendor baseline
Step 5: Detect Secure Boot Bypass Mechanisms
Check for known Secure Boot bypass techniques:
# Check if Secure Boot is enabled
python chipsec_main.py -m common.secureboot.variables
# Verify SMM (System Management Mode) protections
python chipsec_main.py -m common.smm
# Check SMM BIOS write protection
python chipsec_main.py -m common.bios_smi
# On Windows - check boot configuration for bypass indicators
bcdedit /enum firmware
bcdedit /v
# Check for testsigning/nointegritychecks/debug flags
bcdedit | findstr /i "testsigning nointegritychecks debug"
# Verify HVCI (Hypervisor-enforced Code Integrity) is not disabled
# BlackLotus sets HKLM:\...\DeviceGuard\...\HypervisorEnforcedCodeIntegrity Enabled=0
reg query "HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\DeviceGuard\Scenarios\HypervisorEnforcedCodeIntegrity" /v Enabled
# Check Secure Boot state via PowerShell
# Confirm-SecureBootUEFI returns True if properly enabled
Step 6: Perform Boot Chain Integrity Verification
Verify every component in the boot chain from firmware through kernel:
# Verify firmware integrity against vendor hash
sha256sum firmware_dump.rom
# Compare with vendor-published hash
# Verify bootloader signatures
sigcheck -a C:\Windows\Boot\EFI\bootmgfw.efi
sigcheck -a C:\Windows\System32\winload.efi
sigcheck -a C:\Windows\System32\ntoskrnl.exe
# Check for unsigned or invalid boot drivers
sigcheck -u -e C:\Windows\System32\drivers\
# Analyze Measured Boot logs for unexpected EFI_Boot_Services_Application entries
# BlackLotus components appear as EV_EFI_Boot_Services_Application
# Memory forensics for boot-phase artifacts
vol3 -f memory.dmp windows.modules
vol3 -f memory.dmp windows.driverscan
Step 7: Document UEFI Bootkit Analysis Findings
Compile a comprehensive analysis report:
Report should include:
- Firmware version, vendor, and platform identification
- SPI flash protection status (write protect, lock bits, access control)
- Secure Boot configuration and any bypass indicators detected
- UEFI variable anomalies (unauthorized keys, modified db/dbx, MOK enrollment)
- ESP contents inventory with hash verification against known-good baselines
- Firmware module comparison against vendor whitelist (added, modified, removed)
- Known bootkit family attribution with confidence level
- Boot chain integrity verification results for each component
- Remediation steps (reflash, key rotation, hardware replacement)
- MITRE ATT&CK mapping (T1542.001 - System Firmware, T1542.003 - Bootkit)
Key Concepts
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| UEFI Bootkit | Malware that persists in UEFI firmware or the boot process, executing before the operating system loads and surviving OS reinstallation |
| SPI Flash | Serial Peripheral Interface flash memory chip on the motherboard storing UEFI firmware; firmware-level bootkits like LoJax and MoonBounce modify SPI flash contents |
| EFI System Partition (ESP) | FAT32 partition containing EFI bootloaders and drivers; bootkits like BlackLotus and ESPecter modify files on the ESP for persistence |
| Secure Boot | UEFI security feature that verifies digital signatures of boot components; can be bypassed via vulnerabilities (CVE-2022-21894) or MOK enrollment |
| DXE Driver | Driver Execution Environment driver loaded during UEFI boot; firmware implants inject malicious DXE drivers that execute before the OS |
| Machine Owner Key (MOK) | User-installable Secure Boot key; BlackLotus enrolls attacker-controlled MOKs to sign malicious bootloaders |
| chipsec | Intel platform security assessment framework for analyzing SPI flash, UEFI variables, Secure Boot, and hardware security configurations |
| HVCI | Hypervisor-enforced Code Integrity, a Windows security feature that bootkits disable to load unsigned kernel drivers |
Tools & Systems
- chipsec: Intel framework for dumping SPI flash, reading UEFI variables, verifying firmware write protection, and Secure Boot configuration auditing
- UEFITool: Open-source UEFI firmware image parser for inspecting firmware volumes, extracting DXE drivers, and comparing module GUIDs
- sigcheck: Sysinternals utility for verifying digital signatures of EFI binaries and boot chain components
- flashrom: Open-source SPI flash programmer for reading and writing firmware chips on supported platforms
- YARA: Pattern matching engine used with UEFI-specific rule sets to detect known bootkit signatures in firmware dumps
Common Scenarios
Scenario: Investigating Persistent Compromise Surviving OS Reinstallation
Context: An enterprise endpoint was reimaged after a confirmed breach, but identical C2 beaconing resumed within hours. The endpoint has UEFI firmware with Secure Boot enabled, and a TPM 2.0 chip. The security team suspects a UEFI-level implant similar to BlackLotus or LoJax.
Approach:
- Boot the system from a trusted Linux live USB to avoid executing any compromised OS components
- Dump SPI flash firmware using
chipsec_util.py spi dumpfor offline analysis - Mount the ESP and hash all
.efifiles for comparison against known-good values from identical hardware - Check for the
ESP:/system32/directory (BlackLotus indicator) and unauthorizedgrubx64.efi - Extract firmware modules with UEFIExtract and compare GUID inventory against vendor baseline
- Verify Secure Boot variables -- look for unauthorized MOK enrollment or modified db/dbx
- Check SPI flash write protection and lock bits using chipsec modules
- Scan firmware dump and extracted modules with UEFI-specific YARA rules
- If BlackLotus is suspected, check registry for HVCI disabled and MeasuredBoot logs for anomalous entries
Pitfalls:
- Running analysis from the compromised OS (rootkit components hide from live analysis)
- Only checking the ESP without examining SPI flash firmware (misses firmware-level implants like LoJax, MoonBounce)
- Assuming Secure Boot prevents all bootkits (CVE-2022-21894 and other bypasses exist)
- Not preserving the original firmware dump before remediation (critical forensic evidence)
- Reflashing firmware without verifying the vendor image is authentic and unmodified
Output Format
UEFI BOOTKIT PERSISTENCE ANALYSIS REPORT
============================================
System: Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon Gen 11
Firmware: N3HET82W (1.54) - Lenovo UEFI BIOS
Platform: Intel 13th Gen (Raptor Lake)
TPM: 2.0 (Infineon SLB 9672)
Secure Boot: ENABLED (BYPASSED via CVE-2022-21894)
Analysis Method: Linux live USB + chipsec + UEFITool
SPI FLASH PROTECTION STATUS
BIOS Write Protection: DISABLED [!]
SPI Flash Lock (FLOCKDN): SET [OK]
SMM BIOS Write Protect: DISABLED [!]
SPI Protected Ranges: Region 0 only (descriptor)
UEFI VARIABLE ANALYSIS
SecureBoot: Enabled (value=1)
SetupMode: Disabled (value=0)
PK: Lenovo Ltd. (legitimate)
KEK: Microsoft + Lenovo (legitimate)
db: MODIFIED - contains unauthorized entry [!]
[!] Unknown certificate: CN=Secure Boot Signing, O=Unknown
[!] Not present in vendor baseline db
MOK: 1 unauthorized key enrolled [!]
[!] MOK enrolled: CN=shim, self-signed, not from distro vendor
ESP PARTITION ANALYSIS
Total EFI binaries: 12
Verified (signed): 9
Modified (hash mismatch): 2 [!]
Unauthorized: 1 [!]
[!] EFI/Microsoft/Boot/bootmgfw.efi - MODIFIED
Expected SHA-256: a3f2c8...
Current SHA-256: 7b1e4d...
Signature: Valid (signed with unauthorized MOK)
[!] EFI/Microsoft/Boot/grubx64.efi - UNAUTHORIZED
SHA-256: e9c1a7...
Not present in vendor baseline
Matches BlackLotus stage-2 loader signature
[!] system32/ directory present on ESP (BlackLotus artifact)
Directory empty (files deleted post-installation)
FIRMWARE MODULE ANALYSIS
Total firmware modules: 312
Vendor baseline modules: 312
Added modules: 0
Modified modules: 0
SPI flash integrity: CLEAN (no firmware-level implant detected)
BOOTKIT ATTRIBUTION
Family: BlackLotus
Confidence: HIGH
Persistence: ESP-based (not SPI flash)
Bypass Method: CVE-2022-21894 (baton drop)
MITRE ATT&CK: T1542.003 (Bootkit), T1553.006 (Code Signing Policy Modification)
INDICATORS OF COMPROMISE
- ESP:/system32/ directory (empty, post-cleanup artifact)
- ESP:/EFI/Microsoft/Boot/grubx64.efi (unauthorized, BlackLotus loader)
- Modified bootmgfw.efi (re-signed with attacker MOK)
- HVCI disabled via registry: DeviceGuard\...\Enabled = 0
- Unauthorized MOK enrollment in UEFI variable store
- MeasuredBoot log shows EV_EFI_Boot_Services_Application for grubx64.efi
REMEDIATION
1. Replace bootmgfw.efi with authentic copy from Windows installation media
2. Delete unauthorized grubx64.efi and system32/ directory from ESP
3. Reset Secure Boot keys to factory defaults (clear MOK, restore PK/KEK/db)
4. Enable BIOS write protection and verify SPI flash lock bits
5. Apply firmware update to latest version (patches CVE-2022-21894)
6. Enable HVCI and verify via Group Policy
7. Reimport only trusted certificates into Secure Boot db
8. Monitor MeasuredBoot logs for anomalous boot component loading
How to use analyzing-uefi-bootkit-persistence on Cursor
AI-first code editor with Composer
Prerequisites
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
- ›Cursor installed and configured on your development machine
- ›Node.js version 16.0+ with npm package manager (verify with
node --version) - ›Active project directory or workspace where you want to add analyzing-uefi-bootkit-persistence
Execute installation command
Execute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
The skills CLI fetches analyzing-uefi-bootkit-persistence from GitHub repository mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills and configures it for Cursor.
Select Cursor when prompted
The CLI will show a list of available agents. Use arrow keys to navigate and space to select Cursor:
Verify installation
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Reload or restart Cursor to activate analyzing-uefi-bootkit-persistence. Access the skill through slash commands (e.g., /analyzing-uefi-bootkit-persistence) or your agent's skill management interface.
Security & Verification Notice
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your development environment. Always verify the publisher's identity, review recent commits, and test in isolated environments before production deployment.
List & Monetize Your Skill
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Use Cases▌
Task Automation & Efficiency
Automate repetitive workflows and reduce manual effort
Example
Generate reports, summarize documents, draft communications
Save 3-5 hours per week on routine tasks
Knowledge Enhancement
Learn new skills, understand complex topics, get expert guidance
Example
Explain concepts, provide examples, suggest learning resources
Accelerate learning and skill development by 2x
Quality Improvement
Enhance output quality through reviews, suggestions, and refinements
Example
Review drafts, suggest improvements, catch errors
Improve work quality by 30-40% with less effort
Implementation Guide▌
Prerequisites
- ›Claude Desktop or compatible AI client with skill support
- ›Clear understanding of task or problem to solve
- ›Willingness to iterate and refine outputs
Time Estimate
15-45 minutes depending on use case complexity
Installation Steps
- 1.Install skill using provided installation command
- 2.Test with simple use case relevant to your work
- 3.Evaluate output quality and relevance
- 4.Iterate on prompts to improve results
- 5.Integrate into regular workflow if valuable
Common Pitfalls
- ⚠Expecting perfect results without iteration
- ⚠Not providing enough context in prompts
- ⚠Using skill for tasks outside its intended scope
- ⚠Accepting outputs without review and validation
Best Practices▌
✓ Do
- +Start with clear, specific prompts
- +Provide relevant context and constraints
- +Review and refine all outputs before using
- +Iterate to improve output quality
- +Document successful prompt patterns
✗ Don't
- −Don't use without understanding skill limitations
- −Don't skip validation of outputs
- −Don't share sensitive information in prompts
- −Don't expect skill to replace human judgment
💡 Pro Tips
- ★Be specific about desired format and style
- ★Ask for multiple options to choose from
- ★Request explanations to understand reasoning
- ★Combine AI efficiency with human expertise
When to Use This▌
✓ Use When
Use when skill capabilities match your task, clear ROI on time saved, and you can validate outputs. Best for repetitive tasks, learning, and quality improvement.
✗ Avoid When
Avoid when task requires deep expertise you can't validate, involves sensitive decisions, or when learning process is more valuable than speed of completion.
Learning Path▌
- 1Familiarize yourself with skill capabilities and limitations
- 2Start with low-risk, non-critical tasks
- 3Progress to more complex and valuable use cases
- 4Build expertise through regular use and experimentation
Discussion
Product Hunt–style comments (not star reviews)- No comments yet — start the thread.
Ratings
4.8★★★★★27 reviews- ★★★★★Shikha Mishra· Dec 12, 2024
Useful defaults in analyzing-uefi-bootkit-persistence — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
- ★★★★★Ganesh Mohane· Dec 8, 2024
analyzing-uefi-bootkit-persistence fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
- ★★★★★Yash Thakker· Nov 3, 2024
analyzing-uefi-bootkit-persistence has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
- ★★★★★Dhruvi Jain· Oct 22, 2024
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: analyzing-uefi-bootkit-persistence is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
- ★★★★★Sophia Desai· Sep 9, 2024
Keeps context tight: analyzing-uefi-bootkit-persistence is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
- ★★★★★Ishan Patel· Sep 5, 2024
analyzing-uefi-bootkit-persistence is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
- ★★★★★William Gupta· Aug 28, 2024
analyzing-uefi-bootkit-persistence is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
- ★★★★★Ishan Gupta· Aug 24, 2024
Keeps context tight: analyzing-uefi-bootkit-persistence is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
- ★★★★★Ira Chawla· Jul 19, 2024
analyzing-uefi-bootkit-persistence reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
- ★★★★★Omar Harris· Jul 15, 2024
Registry listing for analyzing-uefi-bootkit-persistence matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
showing 1-10 of 27