Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Row hammer

Rowhammer is a hardware vulnerability affecting dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) chips, in which repeated activation of a single memory row induces bit flips—unintended changes from 0 to 1 or vice versa—in adjacent or nearby rows due to electrical interference and charge leakage between cells.^[1] This phenomenon, also known as a DRAM disturbance error, arises from voltage fluctuations on the wordline during frequent row accesses, accelerating the natural leakage of charge in neighboring DRAM cells and potentially corrupting data without direct access to those cells.^[1] First rigorously characterized in 2014 through experiments on 129 commodity DRAM modules from three major manufacturers, rowhammer was found to affect 110 of them, with all modules produced between 2012 and 2013 exhibiting the issue; errors could be induced with as few as 139,000 accesses, and up to 1 in 1,700 cells proved susceptible in the worst cases.^[1] The vulnerability has significant security implications, as it undermines the isolation provided by modern operating systems and hypervisors, allowing a malicious user-level process to potentially corrupt data in other processes, the kernel, or even remote systems.^[2] For instance, in 2015, researchers demonstrated a practical exploit using rowhammer to escalate privileges from a user application to kernel level on Linux systems by flipping specific bits in sensitive memory locations, such as page table entries.^[3] This has enabled diverse attacks, including privilege escalation, denial-of-service, and data corruption in virtualized environments, cloud computing, and mobile devices; by 2019, rowhammer persisted across DDR4, ECC-protected, and low-power DRAM variants, with ongoing research highlighting its exploitability in scenarios like GPU memory and remote attacks over networks.^[2] Recent developments as of 2025 have extended concerns to emerging technologies, such as discrete GPUs with GDDR6 memory—where bit flips across multiple banks have been achieved—and even quantum computing systems vulnerable to analogous cross-talk effects. To mitigate rowhammer, hardware and software defenses have been developed and partially adopted by industry. Early proposals included the probabilistic adjacent row activation (PARA) scheme, which refreshes nearby rows with a low probability during normal operation to prevent bit flips without excessive performance overhead.^[1] Increasing DRAM refresh rates—potentially by up to 7.8 times—can eliminate errors in vulnerable modules but incurs energy and bandwidth costs of 10–23%.^[2] By the late 2010s, vendors like Intel, AMD, and ARM implemented target row refresh (TRR) mechanisms in memory controllers to track and proactively refresh at-risk rows, while companies such as Apple and Google integrated software-based counters and monotonic counters for added protection in their ecosystems.^[2] Despite these advances, rowhammer remains an active research area, with 2024–2025 studies revealing limitations in defenses like per-row activation counting (PRAC) against timing-based side-channel attacks and new vectors in high-bandwidth interfaces like PCIe.

Background

Discovery and Definition

Row hammer is a hardware vulnerability inherent to dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) in which the repeated and aggressive activation of a single memory row—known as "hammering"—induces unintended bit flips in physically adjacent rows due to electrical interference between neighboring cells.^[1] This phenomenon arises from disturbance errors, where the voltage fluctuations during row activations accelerate charge leakage in nearby capacitors, potentially corrupting stored data without direct access to the affected cells.^[1] To understand row hammer, it is essential to grasp the basic structure of DRAM, which organizes data in a two-dimensional array of cells. Each cell consists of a tiny capacitor that stores an electrical charge to represent a binary bit (charged for 1, discharged for 0) and an access transistor that connects the capacitor to a bitline during read or write operations. Cells are arranged in rows (activated via wordlines) and columns (connected via bitlines), with activating a row charging its wordline to open the transistors and allow charge sharing with bitlines for data sensing.^[1] The vulnerability was first discovered and systematically characterized in 2014 through experimental research conducted by Yoongu Kim and colleagues from Carnegie Mellon University and Intel Labs, as detailed in their seminal paper presented at the International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA).^[1] The term "row hammer," which originated in industry contexts such as Intel patents around 2012, was used in this work to describe the attack pattern of repeatedly accessing the same row to provoke errors in adjacent "victim" rows.^[1]^[4] The key experiments involved testing 129 commodity DDR3 DRAM modules sourced from major manufacturers (2010–2013 production), using a custom FPGA-based platform for precise, cycle-accurate control over memory accesses independent of standard CPU memory controllers.^[1] Researchers hammered target rows by activating them repeatedly—as few as 139,000 times within the DRAM's refresh interval—while monitoring adjacent rows for bit errors via targeted read patterns, all at ambient temperatures (50 ± 2°C) and without hardware modifications.^[1] Disturbance errors manifested in 110 of the 129 modules (across 836 of 972 individual chips), with vulnerable modules showing bit flip rates up to 1 error per 1,700 cells, confirming the issue's prevalence in real-world DRAM deployed in systems at the time.^[1] Subsequent studies have extended these findings, revealing that row hammer affects later DRAM types including DDR4.^[5]

Historical Context

Early observations of DRAM cell coupling and disturbance failures date back to the 1970s, coinciding with the commercialization of the first DRAM chips. Manufacturers recognized these issues in devices like the Intel 1103, where repeated accesses to nearby cells could induce charge leakage through inter-cell interference, prompting initial mitigation strategies in semiconductor memory design.^[1] Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, researchers documented specific coupling effects, such as wordline and bitline noise in megabit-scale DRAMs, leading to techniques like twisted bit lines to reduce crosstalk.^[1] For instance, studies in the late 1980s analyzed adjacent bitline coupling in multi-Mb DRAMs, while early 1990s work explored wordline coupling reduction to maintain reliability as cell densities increased.^[1] By the 2000s, production tests incorporated "hammer" patterns to screen for disturbance errors, highlighting ongoing concerns with cell-to-cell interference in scaled memory arrays.^[1] DRAM scaling from early generations to DDR3 significantly exacerbated these reliability challenges by increasing cell density and proximity, which amplified leakage currents and reduced noise margins. As feature sizes shrank below 100 nm, the closer packing of cells intensified electromagnetic coupling and charge leakage, making retention times more variable and susceptible to interference from aggressive access patterns.^[6] This progression, observed in studies from the early 2000s, underscored how sub-50 nm technologies in DDR3-era chips heightened vulnerability to row-to-row disturbances without proportional improvements in isolation techniques.^[1] Leakage mechanisms, including sub-threshold currents in access transistors, became more pronounced, necessitating higher refresh frequencies to preserve data integrity.^[7] Industry awareness of these issues was reflected in pre-2014 JEDEC standards, which specified refresh intervals—such as 7.8 μs for DDR3 under normal temperatures—to counteract leakage-induced data loss from cell coupling.^[8] Manufacturer reports from the late 2000s emphasized adjusting refresh rates for extended temperature ranges, acknowledging the role of scaling in worsening disturbance effects.^[8] Key milestones in the timeline include 1977 patents for reliability enhancements against coupling, 1999 introduction of hammer tests in fault screening, and 2011 analyses linking scaling to electromagnetic interference in high-density DRAM.^[1] Academic work in 2012–2013 began hinting at errors from repeated row activations, setting the stage for the formal identification of the Rowhammer vulnerability in 2014.^[1]

Technical Mechanism

DRAM Cell Interference

Dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) cells are typically organized in a two-dimensional array, where each cell consists of a capacitor to store charge representing data and an access transistor to connect the capacitor to bitlines for read/write operations.^[1] These cells are arranged in rows and columns, with rows sharing a common wordline that activates multiple cells simultaneously during access, and columns connected via bitlines for sensing the stored charge.^[1] In this structure, adjacent rows share proximity along wordlines and bitlines, enabling electrical interactions that can disturb neighboring cells without direct access.^[9] Rowhammer interference arises primarily from charge leakage in victim cells adjacent to a frequently accessed (hammered) row, accelerated by repeated wordline activations.^[1] Capacitive coupling between adjacent wordlines causes voltage fluctuations during hammering, partially turning on access transistors in victim rows and allowing unintended charge sharing or leakage from their capacitors.^[10] Additionally, these activations induce voltage disturbances that stress nearby cells, while in high-density chips, electron migration—such as through hot-carrier injection—can further degrade cell isolation by altering transistor thresholds or increasing leakage currents over time.^[1]^[10] Vulnerability to this interference is influenced by manufacturing process variations, which create inconsistencies in cell capacitance and leakage paths, making some chips more prone to errors.^[9] Temperature plays a role by accelerating charge leakage, though its impact varies; for instance, error rates can increase modestly at higher temperatures like 50°C compared to room conditions.^[10] Supply voltage reductions, common in modern designs, narrow noise margins and heighten susceptibility, while smaller feature sizes—such as the 20 nm nodes in DDR3 DRAM—exacerbate the issue by decreasing cell spacing and capacitance, thereby intensifying coupling effects.^[9] Experimental studies have measured interference thresholds, revealing that bit flips can occur after as few as 139,000 activations of a single row in vulnerable DDR3 modules, with the minimum hammer cycles dropping to around 10,000 in more susceptible modern DDR4 and LPDDR4 chips due to scaling.^[1]^[9] Across tested devices, up to 1 in 1,700 cells showed interference, confirming the physical root cause as wordline voltage disturbances leading to accelerated leakage.^[1]

Bit Flipping Process

In dynamic random-access memory (DRAM), the bit flipping process during a Rowhammer attack begins with the repeated activation of a specific row, known as the aggressor row, through a sequence of activate-precharge cycles. This hammering involves rapidly opening and closing the aggressor row without directly accessing the data in adjacent victim rows, which are physically neighboring in the same memory bank. Each activation causes voltage fluctuations on the shared wordline, leading to unintended electrical interference that disturbs the charge stored in the capacitors of nearby cells. Over numerous cycles—typically on the order of 100,000 to 200,000 activations—these disturbances accelerate charge leakage in the victim rows, creating imbalances where stored charge either leaks excessively (causing a '1' to flip to '0') or, less commonly, gains charge (causing a '0' to flip to '1').^[1] The resulting errors primarily manifest as single-bit flips in the victim rows, though multi-bit errors can occur across multiple cells within the same 64-bit word, complicating detection by error-correcting codes (ECC). Empirical studies on commodity DRAM modules have shown that susceptible chips exhibit bit flip rates where up to 1 in 1,700 cells may be vulnerable, with errors inducible after as few as 139,000 activations under controlled conditions; in more fragile devices, multi-bit flips can affect dozens of bits per row. Probability models for these flips depend on the hammering frequency and DRAM timing parameters, such as the activation interval (typically 55–500 ns), with higher rates correlating to faster access patterns that exacerbate leakage before refresh operations restore charge.^[1] Bit flips propagate primarily to physically adjacent rows within the same bank, where the row layout consists of a linear array of cells organized by wordlines and bitlines, making rows immediately above and below the aggressor (e.g., row N-1 and N+1 for hammered row N) the most susceptible. Interference can also follow diagonal patterns due to the two-dimensional cell arrangement in the DRAM array, where an aggressor cell influences victim cells not directly aligned but offset in both row and column directions, as observed in patterns spanning multiple pages per row. These mechanics are confined to the same bank to maximize disturbance, as cross-bank accesses do not induce significant interference.^[1]^[11] To detect and measure these bit flips in controlled environments, researchers employ techniques such as FPGA-based DRAM testers that systematically hammer rows while varying activation intervals and monitoring error rates through bulk or targeted read-back operations. Software tools, including error counters integrated into operating systems or custom benchmarks, track discrepancies by comparing pre- and post-hammering memory states, often using timing instructions like RDTSC to correlate flips with access patterns; soft-offlining methods can isolate and log faulty regions for analysis without permanent hardware disabling. These approaches have quantified flip probabilities across diverse DRAM modules, revealing variability by vendor and technology node.^[1]^[12]

Mitigation Techniques

Hardware-Based Approaches

Hardware-based approaches to mitigate Rowhammer integrate protective mechanisms directly into DRAM chips or memory controllers, aiming to detect aggressive access patterns and prevent bit flips in victim rows without relying on software intervention. These solutions prioritize low-overhead detection and correction at the hardware level, leveraging standards from organizations like JEDEC to ensure compatibility across devices. By addressing the root cause of cell interference during row activations, they provide a foundational layer of defense in modern memory systems. A cornerstone of these mitigations is Target Row Refresh (TRR), a mechanism developed by DRAM manufacturers for DDR4 modules to counter Rowhammer vulnerabilities. TRR employs an in-DRAM sampler to monitor row activation counts within each bank over a 64 ms refresh window; if activations exceed a manufacturer-specific Maximum Activation Count (typically ranging from 20,000 to 60,000), the mechanism triggers proactive refreshes of adjacent victim rows to restore charge levels and avert bit flips. This approach effectively neutralizes basic single-sided and double-sided hammering patterns by distributing extra refresh operations during standard refresh cycles, though advanced many-sided patterns can bypass it, with lab evaluations demonstrating error rate reductions exceeding 90% under targeted stress tests. However, TRR incurs a modest performance penalty from additional refresh latency, typically adding 1-5% to overall system latency in high-access workloads.^[13] Early proposals included the probabilistic adjacent row activation (PARA) scheme, which refreshes nearby rows with a low probability during normal operation to prevent bit flips without excessive performance overhead. Increasing DRAM refresh rates—potentially by up to 7.8 times—can eliminate errors in vulnerable modules but incurs energy and bandwidth costs of 10–23%.^[1]^[2] Complementing TRR, on-die error-correcting code (ECC) integrates single-error correction capabilities directly within the DRAM die, enabling real-time detection and masking of bit flips that may arise from residual Rowhammer interference. In DDR4, on-die ECC corrects isolated errors using a compact code scheme, while DDR5 enhances this with more robust implementations, support for higher densities (up to 8x that of DDR4 in some configurations), and improved refresh options to further suppress vulnerability across denser cell arrays. These features collectively reduce the likelihood of uncorrectable errors, with studies indicating on-die ECC alone can mitigate over 99% of single-bit disturbances in controlled environments. Additional techniques include voltage modulation and reinforced cell architectures in newer DRAM generations. Reducing wordline voltage during activations diminishes capacitive coupling between adjacent rows, thereby increasing the hammer count threshold required for bit flips by up to 85.8% without altering core DRAM timing. DDR5 further employs improved isolation trenches and staggered activation scheduling in controllers to minimize simultaneous row disturbances, enhancing overall resilience in high-density layouts. These hardware innovations, while varying by manufacturer, collectively ensure scalable protection as DRAM densities continue to rise. As of 2025, research has highlighted limitations in advanced mitigations like per-row activation counting (PRAC), vulnerable to timing-based side-channel attacks, and new vectors in high-bandwidth interfaces like PCIe.^[14]^[15]

Software and System-Level Defenses

Software and system-level defenses against Rowhammer focus on operating system, hypervisor, and firmware mechanisms that detect, isolate, or disrupt attack patterns without requiring hardware modifications. These approaches often involve randomizing memory allocations or inserting protective barriers to reduce the likelihood of bit flips propagating to sensitive data. One seminal example is the introduction of probabilistic countermeasures in OS kernels, such as the 2018 ZebRAM system, which isolates DRAM rows using a zebra-striping pattern where guard rows absorb potential disturbances from hammered aggressor rows.^[16] Implemented as a prototype in the Linux kernel (version 4.4) with QEMU-KVM, ZebRAM remaps memory via virtualization extensions to separate safe and unsafe rows, employing integrity checks like SHA-256 hashing and optional compression for guard rows to maintain usability.^[16] This randomization of page allocations dilutes predictable hammering patterns, preventing attackers from targeting adjacent victim rows containing critical data, though it incurs a performance overhead of approximately 5% on SPEC CPU2006 benchmarks.^[16] Virtualization protections extend these principles at the hypervisor level to enforce isolation between guests and hosts. In environments like KVM or VMware, mechanisms limit guest access to physical rows that could be hammered to affect hypervisor or other VM memory.^[16] For instance, AMD's Secure Memory Encryption (SME) integrates with hypervisors to encrypt DRAM contents using AES-128, mitigating the impact of bit flips by rendering flipped ciphertext unintelligible without the key, thus protecting against exploitation in virtualized setups.^[17] Similarly, Intel's Trust Domain Extensions (TDX) incorporate Rowhammer-specific mitigations within its confidential computing framework, including enhanced memory isolation and error detection to prevent inter-VM disturbances, as verified in TDX 1.0 modules.^[18] These firmware-assisted features ensure that even if a bit flip occurs in a guest's memory, it does not compromise the integrity of the host or other domains, with minimal additional overhead beyond baseline encryption costs. Monitoring tools provide runtime detection of anomalous access patterns to trigger proactive mitigations. Software detectors, such as ANVIL, leverage existing hardware performance counters to track DRAM access locality without dedicated hardware.^[19] Upon identifying frequent activations indicative of hammering—via metrics like last-level cache misses—ANVIL selectively refreshes potential victim rows, achieving a false positive rate under 1% and an average slowdown of 1% across SPEC2006 workloads.^[19] This approach integrates into OS schedulers to pause suspicious processes or isolate affected pages, offering a lightweight layer of defense compatible with Linux environments. Industry standards emphasize balanced implementation of these soft mitigations, as outlined in high-impact USENIX publications, recommending trade-offs like 2-10% CPU overhead for monitoring to ensure practicality in production systems.^[16]^[19] Guidance prioritizes comprehensive coverage through layered defenses—combining allocation randomization, hypervisor isolation, and detection—while evaluating impacts on throughput and latency to avoid over-provisioning resources.^[16] These strategies have been widely adopted in kernel prototypes and virtualized platforms, providing protection against many established Rowhammer variants, though ongoing research as of 2025 highlights limitations against advanced attacks, including those on DDR5 and GPU memories.^[20]^[21]

Security Implications

Recent Developments and Vulnerabilities

In 2025, researchers from ETH Zurich and Google introduced the Phoenix attack, a novel Rowhammer variant (CVE-2025-6202) that bypasses advanced target row refresh (TRR) defenses in DDR5 memory through self-correcting synchronization techniques.^[22] This method monitors and aligns thousands of refresh operations to induce bit flips reliably, succeeding on all 15 tested SK Hynix DDR5 devices and enabling privilege escalation in under 109 seconds, even against on-die error-correcting code (ECC).^[20] The attack highlights persistent gaps in DDR5's Rowhammer resistance, as disclosed on September 15, 2025, and is slated for presentation at IEEE Security & Privacy 2026.^[23] Also in 2025, the GPUHammer attack marked the first practical demonstration of Rowhammer on discrete graphics processing units (GPUs), targeting NVIDIA's A6000 with GDDR6 memory.^[24] Developed by University of Toronto researchers, it leverages CUDA programs to hammer rows and inject up to 8 bit flips across four DRAM banks, evading existing mitigations like TRR.^[25] NVIDIA issued a July 9, 2025, security notice acknowledging the vulnerability and recommending activation of system-level ECC to mitigate risks, particularly in AI workloads where bit flips could degrade model integrity.^[26] The ρHammer framework, unveiled in October 2025, revived Rowhammer attacks on modern architectures by exploiting prefetching instructions to amplify hammering efficiency and overcome mitigation-induced challenges.^[27] This approach systematically addresses timing inconsistencies and access restrictions in contemporary x86 and ARM systems, restoring attack viability despite enhanced hardware protections.^[28] These 2025 developments underscore a trend of escalating Rowhammer sophistication, with attacks increasingly targeting specialized hardware like GPUs and next-generation DDR5, outpacing mitigation advancements and posing broader threats to system integrity.^[29]

References

[1]
[PDF] Flipping Bits in Memory Without Accessing Them
Jun 24, 2014 · In this paper, we expose the vulnerability of commodity. DRAM chips to disturbance errors. By reading from the same address in DRAM, we show ...
[2]
[PDF] RowHammer: A Retrospective - Ethz
RowHammer is a DRAM vulnerability where repeatedly accessing a row causes bit flips in adjacent rows at predictable locations.
[3]
[PDF] Exploiting the DRAM rowhammer bug to gain kernel privileges
The rowhammer bug causes bit flips in adjacent DRAM rows by repeated row activations, bypassing memory protection and affecting other processes.
[4]
[1904.09724] RowHammer: A Retrospective - arXiv
Apr 22, 2019 · RowHammer is a DRAM vulnerability where repeatedly accessing a row causes bit flips in adjacent rows, due to DRAM disturbance errors.Missing: original | Show results with:original
[5]
(PDF) A study of scaling effects on DRAM reliability - ResearchGate
Jan 24, 2015 · In DRAM every memory cell experiences an individual mixture of leakage currents which consume part of the stored charge and lead to a wide ...
[6]
[PDF] An Experimental Study of Data Retention Behavior in Modern DRAM ...
The retention time of a DRAM cell depends on the leakage current for that cell's capacitor and access transistor, which differs between cells due to ...
[7]
[PDF] DRAM Refresh Mechanisms, Penalties, and Trade-Offs
For exam- ple, all DDR3 devices require refresh rate of 7.8 us at normal temperature range (0–85. C), and 3.9 us at extended temperature range (up to 95. C).
[8]
[PDF] Revisiting RowHammer: An Experimental Analysis of Modern DRAM ...
May 29, 2020 · RowHammer is a DRAM vulnerability where repeatedly accessing data in a row can cause bit flips in nearby rows, allowing an attacker to modify ...Missing: seminal | Show results with:seminal
[9]
[PDF] RowHammer: A Retrospective - ETH Zürich
Inspired by our ISCA 2014 paper's fundamental find- ings, researchers from Google Project Zero demonstrated in 2015 that RowHammer can be effectively exploited.
[10]
[PDF] Drammer: Deterministic Rowhammer Attacks on Mobile Platforms
Oct 24, 2016 · The Rowhammer hardware bug allows an attacker to mod- ify ... The diagonal pattern clearly indicates that the row size is 16 pages = 64K.
[11]
Exploiting the DRAM rowhammer bug to gain kernel privileges
Mar 9, 2015 · We built two working privilege escalation exploits that use this effect. One exploit uses rowhammer-induced bit flips to gain kernel privileges on x86-64 Linux.
[12]
[PDF] ZebRAM: Comprehensive and Compatible Software Protection ...
Oct 10, 2018 · Abstract. The Rowhammer vulnerability common to many modern. DRAM chips allows attackers to trigger bit flips in a row.
[13]
AMD Secure Memory Encryption is not vulnerable to rowhammer ...
Jan 4, 2018 · The SME encrypts data when it is written to DRAM and decrypts it when it is read. The AES-128 key is generated by a NIST SP 800-90-compliant ...
[14]
Intel Trust Domain Extensions Security Research and Assurance
May 8, 2024 · A class of RowHammer attacks and mitigations ... Intel TDX 1.0 contains a mitigation for the demonstrated TDX-Step attacks in the Intel TDX Module ...
[15]
Software-Based Protection Against Next-Generation Rowhammer ...
ANVIL detects rowhammer attacks by tracking the locality of DRAM accesses using existing hardware performance counters. Our detector identifies the rows being ...
[16]
Rowhammer Attacks on DDR5 with Self-Correcting Synchronization
Our reverse engineering of their in-DRAM Rowhammer mitigations reveals more sophisticated protection mechanisms, which resist all known Rowhammer patterns. To ...
[17]
Phoenix RowHammer Attack Bypasses Advanced DDR5 Memory ...
Sep 16, 2025 · "We also proved that on-die ECC does not stop RowHammer, and RowHammer end-to-end attacks are still possible with DDR5." DFIR Retainer ...
[18]
Supporting Rowhammer research to protect the DRAM ecosystem
Sep 15, 2025 · It is a hardware vulnerability in DRAM where repeatedly accessing a row of memory can cause bit flips in adjacent rows, leading to data ...
[19]
GPUHammer
GPUHammer is the first attack to show Rowhammer bit flips on GPU memories, specifically on a GDDR6 memory in an NVIDIA A6000 GPU.
[20]
GPUHammer: Rowhammer Attacks on GPU Memories are Practical
Thus, we demonstrate the first successful Rowhammer attack on a discrete GPU, injecting up to 8 bit-flips across 4 DRAM banks on an NVIDIA A6000 with GDDR6 ...
[21]
Security Notice: Rowhammer - July 2025 - NVIDIA support
Jul 9, 2025 · ... On-Die ECC (OD-ECC) to help with DRAM scaling. OD-ECC indirectly provides protection against Rowhammer bit flips. Note: OD-ECC is not ...Missing: DDR5 | Show results with:DDR5
[22]
Reviving RowHammer Attacks on New Architectures via Prefetching
Oct 18, 2025 · In this paper, we present \rhoHammer, a new Rowhammer framework that systematically overcomes three core challenges impeding attacks on these ...Missing: ARM | Show results with:ARM
[23]
Reviving RowHammer Attacks on New Architectures via Prefetching
Oct 23, 2025 · In this paper, we present ρHammer, a new Rowhammer framework that systematically overcomes three core challenges impeding attacks on these new ...Missing: rHammer | Show results with:rHammer
[24]
New Rowhammer technique against DDR5 achieves privilege ...
Sep 18, 2025 · The exploit is now tracked as CVE-2025-6202. “Our evaluation shows that Phoenix triggers bit flips on 15 out of 15 DDR5 devices in our test ...