Perimeter
4/9/2012
11:01 AM
Commentary
Commentary
Commentary
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

How Much Money Do You Need To Lose Before You Start Monitoring?

At what point does turning a blind eye to the loss of revenue spark the inevitable conversation: 'Maybe we should be monitoring this infrastructure more closely?'

A new blog post by Brian Krebs states that the FBI has released a cyberintelligence bulletin claiming that a series of hacks perpetrated against smart-meter installations over the past several years may cost a Puerto Rican electric utility upward of $400 million annually.

According to the post, the FBI said it believes former employees of the meter manufacturer and employees of the utility were altering the meters in exchange for cash and training others to do so. "These individuals are charging $300 to $1,000 to reprogram residential meters, and about $3,000 to reprogram commercial meters," the alert states.

The FBI also said another method of attacking the meters involves placing a strong magnet on the devices, which causes it to stop measuring usage, while still providing electricity to the customer. The article also stated that the hacks described by the FBI did not work remotely and require physical access to the devices.

What I don't understand is how something like this could have gone undetected. If a house, building, or complex has a baseline of usage that suddenly changes (without an associated work order), that's what we in the SIEM world call an anomaly. Why are utilities deploying "smart meters" without accompanying smart monitors?

I'm not saying that the utilities have to use a SIEM product, per se, but they should be implementing some monitoring controls for their environments. If a company is buying the metering technology, then shouldn’t it be pushing for a way to effectively manage and monitor said technology? If an anomaly detection technology or analytical engine was laid atop the company’s usage and billing system, then I would think it would be fairly obvious to notice that something was wrong and that someone should be dispatched to investigate.

Getting down to brass tacks here, monitoring the smart infrastructure would enable the company to protect its infrastructure investment, customer base, and competitive edge, as well as its ability to generate (and collect) revenue. I mean, really, at what point does losing $400 million per year become a problem to the business?

Andrew Hay is senior analyst with 451 Research's Enterprise Security Practice (ESP) and is an author of three network security books. Follow him on Twitter: @andrewsmhay

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading, September 16, 2014
Malicious software is morphing to be more targeted, stealthy, and destructive. Are you prepared to stop it?
Flash Poll
Title Partner’s Role in Perimeter Security
Title Partner’s Role in Perimeter Security
Considering how prevalent third-party attacks are, we need to ask hard questions about how partners and suppliers are safeguarding systems and data.
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2014-4973
Published: 2014-09-23
The ESET Personal Firewall NDIS filter (EpFwNdis.sys) driver in the Firewall Module Build 1183 (20140214) and earlier in ESET Smart Security and ESET Endpoint Security products 5.0 through 7.0 allows local users to gain privileges via a crafted argument to a 0x830020CC IOCTL call.

CVE-2014-5392
Published: 2014-09-23
XML External Entity (XXE) vulnerability in JobScheduler before 1.6.4246 and 7.x before 1.7.4241 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service and read arbitrary files or directories via a request containing an XML external entity declaration in conjunction with an entity reference.

CVE-2014-6646
Published: 2014-09-23
The bellyhoodcom (aka com.tapatalk.bellyhoodcom) application 3.4.23 for Android does not verify X.509 certificates from SSL servers, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof servers and obtain sensitive information via a crafted certificate.

CVE-2014-6647
Published: 2014-09-23
The ElForro.com (aka com.tapatalk.elforrocom) application 2.4.3.10 for Android does not verify X.509 certificates from SSL servers, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof servers and obtain sensitive information via a crafted certificate.

CVE-2014-6648
Published: 2014-09-23
The iPhone4.TW (aka com.tapatalk.iPhone4TWforums) application 3.3.20 for Android does not verify X.509 certificates from SSL servers, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof servers and obtain sensitive information via a crafted certificate.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio