Perimeter
4/9/2012
11:01 AM
Commentary
Commentary
Commentary
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
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-2014-3653
Published: 2015-07-06
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the template preview function in Foreman before 1.6.1 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted provisioning template.

CVE-2014-5406
Published: 2015-07-06
The Hospira LifeCare PCA Infusion System before 7.0 does not validate network traffic associated with sending a (1) drug library, (2) software update, or (3) configuration change, which allows remote attackers to modify settings or medication data via packets on the (a) TELNET, (b) HTTP, (c) HTTPS, ...

CVE-2014-9737
Published: 2015-07-06
Open redirect vulnerability in the Language Switcher Dropdown module 7.x-1.x before 7.x-1.4 for Drupal allows remote attackers to redirect users to arbitrary web sites and conduct phishing attacks via a URL in a block.

CVE-2014-9738
Published: 2015-07-06
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the Tournament module 7.x-1.x before 7.x-1.2 for Drupal allow remote authenticated users with certain permissions to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via an (1) account username, a (2) node title, or a (3) team entity title.

CVE-2014-9739
Published: 2015-07-06
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the Node Field module 7.x-2.x before 7.x-2.45 for Drupal allows remote authenticated users with certain permissions to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors involving internal fields.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Marc Spitler, co-author of the Verizon DBIR will share some of the lesser-known but most intriguing tidbits from the massive report