Vulnerabilities / Threats

7/18/2017
10:00 AM
Dawn Kawamoto
Dawn Kawamoto
Slideshows
100%
0%

IoT Security Incidents Rampant and Costly

New research offers details about the hidden - and not so hidden - costs of defending the Internet of Things.
Previous
1 of 9
Next

Image Source: Shutterstock

Image Source: Shutterstock

Internet of Things breaches and security incidents have hit nearly half of the companies that use such devices, and the cost to deal with these attacks is usually more than traditional breaches, according to recent survey results.

In two separate reports, each of the studies found that 46% of respondents report they suffered a security breach or incident as a result of an attack on IoT devices.

One survey, released this month by IDC, queried approximately 100 IT security, IT operations, and other C-level suite executives, while another, released in June by consulting firm Altman Vilandrie & Co., gathered data from approximately 400 IT executives in 19 countries.

Not only are the costs associated with securing IoT devices expected to rise in the coming years but they are also expected to account for as much as of a third of the IT spending budget, according to Altman Vilandrie. The vast majority of IDC survey respondents say the cost to address IoT security incidents and breaches tends to run more than the cost of fixing traditional breaches and incidents.

Here is a breakdown of the combined results. 

 

Dawn Kawamoto is an Associate Editor for Dark Reading, where she covers cybersecurity news and trends. She is an award-winning journalist who has written and edited technology, management, leadership, career, finance, and innovation stories for such publications as CNET's ... View Full Bio

Previous
1 of 9
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
LindsayW718
50%
50%
LindsayW718,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/26/2017 | 5:25:42 AM
Great emphasis
IoT is really just THE internet - information has become more powerful than intangible knowledge, but is proactively leading change. As work will inevitably transcend office-commute-home cycles, security by design cannot be limited to the company, but the person too. Organisations like CybSafe have integrated this thinking into their training.
Election Websites, Back-End Systems Most at Risk of Cyberattack in Midterms
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  8/14/2018
Intel Reveals New Spectre-Like Vulnerability
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  8/15/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-13435
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-16
** DISPUTED ** An issue was discovered in the LINE jp.naver.line application 8.8.0 for iOS. The Passcode feature allows authentication bypass via runtime manipulation that forces a certain method to disable passcode authentication. NOTE: the vendor indicates that this is not an attack of interest w...
CVE-2018-13446
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-16
** DISPUTED ** An issue was discovered in the LINE jp.naver.line application 8.8.1 for Android. The Passcode feature allows authentication bypass via runtime manipulation that forces a certain method's return value to true. In other words, an attacker could authenticate with an arbitrary passcode. ...
CVE-2018-14567
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-16
libxml2 2.9.8, if --with-lzma is used, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (infinite loop) via a crafted XML file that triggers LZMA_MEMLIMIT_ERROR, as demonstrated by xmllint, a different vulnerability than CVE-2015-8035 and CVE-2018-9251.
CVE-2018-15122
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-16
An issue found in Progress Telerik JustAssembly through 2018.1.323.2 and JustDecompile through 2018.2.605.0 makes it possible to execute code by decompiling a compiled .NET object (such as DLL or EXE) with an embedded resource file by clicking on the resource.
CVE-2018-11509
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-16
ASUSTOR ADM 3.1.0.RFQ3 uses the same default root:admin username and password as it does for the NAS itself for applications that are installed from the online repository. This may allow an attacker to login and upload a webshell.