Firmware Patch BackdoorSecurity & Forensics
All trialsGPT-5.4codexTrial 01
Trial reward
GPT-5.4Fail
Trial 01 — 1st of 8 by reward score. This model averages 0% across 8 trials on this task.
- 39Turns
- $0.26Cost
- 1.3mTime
- 7kOutput tokens
Failed — graded by execution verdict, the complete grading on this bench.
User prompt → 39 turns → final responsecodex
1systempermissions instructions · Filesystem sandboxing defines which files can be read or written. sandbox_mode is danger-full…
permissions instructions
Filesystem sandboxing defines which files can be read or written.
sandbox_modeisdanger-full-access: No filesystem sandboxing - all commands are permitted. Network access is enabled.
Approval policy is currently never. Do not provide thesandbox_permissionsfor any reason, commands will be rejected.skills instructions
Skills
A skill is a set of instructions provided through a
SKILL.mdsource. Below is the list of skills that can be used. Each entry includes a name, description, and source locator.filelocators are on the host filesystem,environment resourcelocators are owned by an execution environment,orchestrator resourcelocators are opaque non-filesystem resources, andcustom resourcelocators use their provider's access mechanism.Available skills
- imagegen: Generate or edit raster images when the task benefits from AI-created bitmap visuals such as photos, illustrations, textures, sprites, mockups, or transparent-background cutouts. Use when Codex should create a brand-new image, transform an existing image, or derive visual variants from references, and the output should be a bitmap asset rather than repo-native code or vector. Do not use when the task is better handled by editing existing SVG/vector/code-native assets, extending an established icon or logo system, or building the visual directly in HTML/CSS/canvas. (file: /tmp/codex-home/skills/.system/imagegen/SKILL.md)
- openai-docs: Use when the user asks how to build with OpenAI products or APIs, asks about Codex itself or choosing Codex surfaces, needs up-to-date official documentation with citations, help choosing the latest model for a use case, latest/current/default-model prompting guidance, or model upgrade and prompt-upgrade guidance; use OpenAI docs MCP tools for non-Codex docs questions, use the Codex manual helper first for broad Codex self-knowledge, and restrict fallback browsing to official OpenAI domains.
… 1,000 more characters in the raw trajectory.
2userenvironment context · /app bash 2026-07-23 Etc/UTC /app
environment context
- cwd
- /app
- shell
- bash
- current date
- 2026-07-23
- timezone
- Etc/UTC
- root
- /app
3userFirmware patch backdoor Two signed RISC-V firmware images for a small device are in /app: - firmware_v1.bin — the releas…
Firmware patch backdoor
Two signed RISC-V firmware images for a small device are in
/app:firmware_v1.bin— the release from day N.firmware_v2.bin— the release from day N+1, signed and claiming only bugfixes.bootloader.elf— the day N+1 bootloader as an ELF with symbols.
The vendor supplied release notes, a third-party audit report, and one or more symbol maps in
/app. Treat them as untrusted clues; the ground truth is in the firmware binaries. The day-N+1 image contains several documented changes; exactly one of them is a malicious backdoor.Produce a forensic report that identifies the backdoor. Write these four artifacts under
/logs/artifacts/:offset.txt— the file offset (hex, e.g.0x1a4) of the patched instruction infirmware_v2.bin.function.txt— the name of the bootloader function where the patch was inserted.trigger.txt— the certificate extension OID or field value that activates the backdoor (hex, e.g.0x00badc0d).payload.txt— the exact ASCII payload/secret that the patched code exfiltrates.
All hex values should be lower-case;
offset.txtmay include or omit leading zeros.4I’m going to diff the two firmware images, inspect the bootloader symbols and any vendor-provided notes, then trace whic…
I’m going to diff the two firmware images, inspect the bootloader symbols and any vendor-provided notes, then trace which code change is actually behaviorally suspicious in the binaries.
5Executed exec_command call_ws1qeQOTN5oBeKOGgwvuTdFD
Executed exec_command call_ws1qeQOTN5oBeKOGgwvuTdFD
6Executed exec_command call_9x0BdoFdyA7N3lyMjKMglcgY
Executed exec_command call_9x0BdoFdyA7N3lyMjKMglcgY
7I have the candidate inputs. Next I’m locating the exact byte-level differences between firmware_v1.bin and firmware_v2.…
I have the candidate inputs. Next I’m locating the exact byte-level differences between
firmware_v1.binandfirmware_v2.bin, then I’ll map those offsets back to bootloader functions.8Executed exec_command call_0hjLQmM4geXKZlQS3U5gqeS6
Executed exec_command call_0hjLQmM4geXKZlQS3U5gqeS6
9Executed exec_command call_oAoSkitqBXmLngcX7kgajGJq
Executed exec_command call_oAoSkitqBXmLngcX7kgajGJq
10Executed exec_command call_GOHqt1SGE10MWP64PrhFK05E
Executed exec_command call_GOHqt1SGE10MWP64PrhFK05E
11The notes and audit already point at a likely story, but I’m treating them as hints only. I’m now disassembling the boot…
The notes and audit already point at a likely story, but I’m treating them as hints only. I’m now disassembling the bootloader and reconciling the actual changed bytes against symbol addresses.
12Executed exec_command call_Hky6WcjmQFIvH1XsfhCdQCJg
Executed exec_command call_Hky6WcjmQFIvH1XsfhCdQCJg
13Executed exec_command call_wPvH3R4lVIe9jwIPs4wbrMlz
Executed exec_command call_wPvH3R4lVIe9jwIPs4wbrMlz
14Executed exec_command call_rLLaseUplWR7ybgjCO5IwwYQ
Executed exec_command call_rLLaseUplWR7ybgjCO5IwwYQ
15The provided map.json has one candidate patch at 0x70 inside cert_validate, and the decoy map contradicts it. I’m going…
The provided
map.jsonhas one candidate patch at0x70insidecert_validate, and the decoy map contradicts it. I’m going to verify directly from the ELF and raw image bytes before writing artifacts.16Executed update_plan call_AQT7SfujxRuvLGmj1n1XEXTC
Executed update_plan call_AQT7SfujxRuvLGmj1n1XEXTC
17Executed exec_command call_Y2xmCEdJpWzKEB7aBVjN2Tek
Executed exec_command call_Y2xmCEdJpWzKEB7aBVjN2Tek
18Executed exec_command call_IYafcQAkb8YeFCDJG9lnXHS4
Executed exec_command call_IYafcQAkb8YeFCDJG9lnXHS4
19Executed exec_command call_Zd6GzgGL2dhNFSoXzp2AFBCd
Executed exec_command call_Zd6GzgGL2dhNFSoXzp2AFBCd
20Executed exec_command call_sVkXFffX01F1ovqs0e8e3m10
Executed exec_command call_sVkXFffX01F1ovqs0e8e3m10
21Executed exec_command call_dtvdtB7KfvlgXS3vDLwCrwO1
Executed exec_command call_dtvdtB7KfvlgXS3vDLwCrwO1
22Executed exec_command call_WHB3KIL7iUH3G1QXw60kmGoE
Executed exec_command call_WHB3KIL7iUH3G1QXw60kmGoE
23The code diff is narrow: five changed instructions/operands, but only one introduces a new secret-copy path. I’m decodin…
The code diff is narrow: five changed instructions/operands, but only one introduces a new secret-copy path. I’m decoding the v1 branch targets directly so the report rests on the binaries, not the vendor map.
24Executed exec_command call_6Vm3es6KNHCFg1HfBFb2XM0l
Executed exec_command call_6Vm3es6KNHCFg1HfBFb2XM0l
25Executed exec_command call_Cj869jtAIL5ki8r0sCtsajNR
Executed exec_command call_Cj869jtAIL5ki8r0sCtsajNR
26Executed exec_command call_nWvOJTrAWyZZJznZrTWM1aTS
Executed exec_command call_nWvOJTrAWyZZJznZrTWM1aTS
27I’ve confirmed the only control-flow patch that unlocks new behavior is the branch at 0x70 in cert_validate; the hash_up…
I’ve confirmed the only control-flow patch that unlocks new behavior is the branch at
0x70incert_validate; thehash_updatechange is structurally similar but consistent with a documented policy path. I’m extracting the exact ASCII value that flows out of the legacy path now.28Executed exec_command call_qnLCYySXZzfnqwOkzPLiJTlz
Executed exec_command call_qnLCYySXZzfnqwOkzPLiJTlz
29Executed exec_command call_5B0NdlRp1D7KzRTlOyXucAHZ
Executed exec_command call_5B0NdlRp1D7KzRTlOyXucAHZ
30Executed exec_command call_bTc0Ljj2tQqaIrc1IwrhbDjp
Executed exec_command call_bTc0Ljj2tQqaIrc1IwrhbDjp
31Executed exec_command call_019RbjNNgbnGbHMXRNEQAEgC
Executed exec_command call_019RbjNNgbnGbHMXRNEQAEgC
32Executed exec_command call_WCbT9mTj4EccRAHDl6hrLcgj
Executed exec_command call_WCbT9mTj4EccRAHDl6hrLcgj
33Executed exec_command call_SoI5AY173XnZRR4G27Z31qDd
Executed exec_command call_SoI5AY173XnZRR4G27Z31qDd
34I have the ground-truth values from the binaries. I’m writing the four artifact files now and then I’ll do a quick read-…
I have the ground-truth values from the binaries. I’m writing the four artifact files now and then I’ll do a quick read-back to confirm the contents.
35Executed apply_patch call_PYNWzRSvcflY7Zzt5R8drMxO
Executed apply_patch call_PYNWzRSvcflY7Zzt5R8drMxO
36Executed exec_command call_vAt2QhcItOTnezBOagSr6YWs
Executed exec_command call_vAt2QhcItOTnezBOagSr6YWs
37Executed exec_command call_0ZtSsxgjRgqt6DK1WR47hRfR
Executed exec_command call_0ZtSsxgjRgqt6DK1WR47hRfR
38Executed update_plan call_46qLEO8pZ71Z3TzfYcsw6ysm
Executed update_plan call_46qLEO8pZ71Z3TzfYcsw6ysm
39The artifacts are written under [/logs/artifacts](/logs/artifacts): cert_validate contains the malicious patch. The patc…
The artifacts are written under /logs/artifacts:
cert_validatecontains the malicious patch. The patched instruction starts at offset0x70infirmware_v2.bin, accepts the legacy certificate OID0x00badc0d, and unlocks a path that yields the payloadexfiltrated_core_secret=RV32I_PATCH_BACKDOOR.Files:
- /logs/artifacts/offset.txt
- /logs/artifacts/function.txt
- /logs/artifacts/trigger.txt
- /logs/artifacts/payload.txt