Perimeter

10/11/2018
10:30 AM
Satish Gannu
Satish Gannu
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

The Better Way: Threat Analysis & IIoT Security

Threat analysis offers a more nuanced and multidimensional approach than go/no-go patching in the Industrial Internet of Things. But first, vendors must agree on how they report and address vulnerabilities.

The best approach for securing operational technology is to, first, examine OT's significant security challenges in a far more discriminating manner than the industry currently does. I propose that we use the time-tested threat analysis approach to patching OT systems that can't simply be patched the way IT systems are, for many reasons.

The first step in threat analysis would be to hold off taking any immediate action — patching, not patching, something else — until we validate if a system vulnerability actually exists and, if it does, how it can be exploited.

There are multiple factors to consider. For one, some systems that operate deep inside enterprises may indeed have vulnerabilities, but because the system is so isolated within the enterprise, the actual security risk is less than the risk of shutting the systems down for patching, assuming patches exist.

The calculus changes, of course, when evaluating systems that are exposed to the cloud or the Internet, where the security risk is obviously much greater. Threat analysis would identify which systems can probably go on operating without patches, and which need to be stopped for patching.

Threat analysis would also validate a vulnerability, but it is important to ask another question: If this vulnerability can be exploited by certain threats, is there a way to protect from those threats short of patching? For example, security experts could create a set of predetermined scripts within the network, or on the endpoint device itself, that would help identify the appropriate response to a number of different threats. These scripts would serve as an "if/then" template to formalize, automate, and accelerate responses to threats. The point is to think with more sophistication than a binary patch/don't patch decision.

Wanted: Better Patch Info
Software companies must support the development of threat analysis by telling customers more about the patches they release. Key pieces of information we'd like to see are how vulnerabilities can be exploited and possible ways to protect against them. This extra transparency would give customers more information to make decisions on the right security actions for affected systems. Security experts need to be confident a patch will, at the very least, maintain the same risk level that existed before a vulnerability was discovered.

Threat analysis must be extremely granular. If an enterprise has 100 devices running, each one requires its own threat analysis, which would include a comparison of vulnerabilities versus patch benefits, as well as a resulting menu of security options. The primary goal, of course, is to enhance security while at the same time maximizing OT uptime.

Clearly, threat analysis is more nuanced and multidimensional than go/no-go patching decisions. But it's a challenge the industry must solve to get from where we are to where we should be. Right now, following the process described above takes time, costs money, requires highly skilled professionals — and even then, it's not easy to do. However, if the vendor community agreed upon a set of standards on how it reports and addresses vulnerabilities, this entire process could be automated. 

Some security approaches developed in IT port beautifully to OT, but in this case, patching, what worked so well in IT doesn't entirely fit OT — and now it's time for industry-wide innovation beyond the choice between patch, patch, patch or letting unpatched systems run vulnerably. Our goal must be to build powerful, effective processes, and then automate them to put this new approach within the reach of industrial companies and nations on a global basis. Just because we can see this better future clearly doesn't mean it is close. But let's start now to get there, together.

Related Content:

 

Black Hat Europe returns to London Dec. 3-6, 2018, with hands-on technical Trainings, cutting-edge Briefings, Arsenal open-source tool demonstrations, top-tier security solutions, and service providers in the Business Hall. Click for information on the conference and to register.

Satish joined San Jose-based ABB in February 2017 as chief security officer and Group VP, architecture and analytics, ABB Ability™, responsible for the security of all products, services and cybersecurity services. Satish brings to this position a background in computer ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Devastating Cyberattack on Email Provider Destroys 18 Years of Data
Jai Vijayan, Freelance writer,  2/12/2019
Up to 100,000 Reported Affected in Landmark White Data Breach
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  2/12/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
5 Emerging Cyber Threats to Watch for in 2019
Online attackers are constantly developing new, innovative ways to break into the enterprise. This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at five emerging attack trends and exploits your security team should look out for, along with helpful recommendations on how you can prevent your organization from falling victim.
Flash Poll
How Enterprises Are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How Enterprises Are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Data breach fears and the need to comply with regulations such as GDPR are two major drivers increased spending on security products and technologies. But other factors are contributing to the trend as well. Find out more about how enterprises are attacking the cybersecurity problem by reading our report today.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-8358
PUBLISHED: 2019-02-16
In Hiawatha before 10.8.4, a remote attacker is able to do directory traversal if AllowDotFiles is enabled.
CVE-2019-8354
PUBLISHED: 2019-02-15
An issue was discovered in SoX 14.4.2. lsx_make_lpf in effect_i_dsp.c has an integer overflow on the result of multiplication fed into malloc. When the buffer is allocated, it is smaller than expected, leading to a heap-based buffer overflow.
CVE-2019-8355
PUBLISHED: 2019-02-15
An issue was discovered in SoX 14.4.2. In xmalloc.h, there is an integer overflow on the result of multiplication fed into the lsx_valloc macro that wraps malloc. When the buffer is allocated, it is smaller than expected, leading to a heap-based buffer overflow in channels_start in remix.c.
CVE-2019-8356
PUBLISHED: 2019-02-15
An issue was discovered in SoX 14.4.2. One of the arguments to bitrv2 in fft4g.c is not guarded, such that it can lead to write access outside of the statically declared array, aka a stack-based buffer overflow.
CVE-2019-8357
PUBLISHED: 2019-02-15
An issue was discovered in SoX 14.4.2. lsx_make_lpf in effect_i_dsp.c allows a NULL pointer dereference.