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-2014-4774
Published: 2015-05-25
Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the login page in IBM License Metric Tool 9 before 9.1.0.2 and Endpoint Manager for Software Use Analysis 9 before 9.1.0.2 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users via vectors involving a FRAME element.

CVE-2014-4778
Published: 2015-05-25
IBM License Metric Tool 9 before 9.1.0.2 and Endpoint Manager for Software Use Analysis 9 before 9.1.0.2 do not send an X-Frame-Options HTTP header in response to requests for the login page, which allows remote attackers to conduct clickjacking attacks via vectors involving a FRAME element.

CVE-2014-6190
Published: 2015-05-25
The log viewer in IBM Workload Deployer 3.1 before 3.1.0.7 allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information via a direct request for the URL of a log document.

CVE-2014-6192
Published: 2015-05-25
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in IBM Curam Social Program Management 6.0 SP2 before EP26, 6.0.4 before 6.0.4.5 iFix10, 6.0.5 before 6.0.5.6, and 6.0.5.5a before 6.0.5.8 allows remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted URL.

CVE-2014-8926
Published: 2015-05-25
Common Inventory Technology (CIT) before 2.7.0.2050 in IBM License Metric Tool 7.2.2, 7.5, and 9; Endpoint Manger for Software Use Analysis 9; and Tivoli Asset Discovery for Distributed 7.2.2 and 7.5 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption or application crash) via a cr...

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Join security and risk expert John Pironti and Dark Reading Editor-in-Chief Tim Wilson for a live online discussion of the sea-changing shift in security strategy and the many ways it is affecting IT and business.