Vulnerabilities / Threats

7/26/2017
10:00 AM
50%
50%

Majority of Consumers Believe IoT Needs Security Built In

Respondents to a global survey say Internet of Things security is a shared responsibility between consumers and manufacturers.

While 90% of consumers across six different countries expect security to be built into their Internet of Things devices, the question about who should be responsible for implementing IoT security is divided, according to a survey released today by Irdeto.

The Irdeto Global Consumer IoT Security Survey, which queried 7,882 consumers in the US, Brazil, China, Germany, India, and the UK, reports that 15% of respondents believe consumers are responsible for implementing the security, while 20% say manufacturers should play that role. Overall, however, 56% believe it is the responsibility of both the consumer and manufacturer.

“While consumers across the globe believe that IoT devices need to have security manufactured into the product in order to prevent against cyberattacks, it’s encouraging that they also recognize the important role they play in IoT security,” says Mark Hearn, director of IoT security at Irdeto, in a statement.

The survey reports that 89% of respondents have at least one connected device in their home and of this group 81% have more than one IoT device. Among the six countries included in the survey, India has the most IoT users with 97% of residents having at least one IoT device in their home. The US has the fewest, with only 80%. 

Read more about the survey here

Dark Reading's Quick Hits delivers a brief synopsis and summary of the significance of breaking news events. For more information from the original source of the news item, please follow the link provided in this article. View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
rwsmarine
50%
50%
rwsmarine,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/15/2017 | 3:23:54 PM
nomenclature
wht couldn't the nomenclature of the device be its temp password?  As soon as it comes online or booted the first time a mandatory password change is required.  Quick easy not great but at least its something.  Every device has a sn# to it and their all different
mikeroch
50%
50%
mikeroch,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/27/2017 | 11:40:39 AM
Re: Consumer vs manufacturers 192.168.1.1?
Absolutely agree with Dr. T, the responsibility should majorly be upon the manufacturer, it's simple, I buy some product of some brand, I trust them but due to their mistake I suffer the loss. So, even, knowing that it was good company, they failed to stand on it as they did wrong with the product. So, the 56% should be on the manufacturer side. So, IoT should be much cared by the manufacturer.
Nry2137
100%
0%
Nry2137,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/26/2017 | 12:29:05 PM
Re: Consumer vs manufacturer?
I believe the responsibility resides with both parties. However, in order to understand the responsibilities involved with security, I also believe that both parties, users specifically, need to be educated on their expected responsibilities. 
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
7/26/2017 | 10:40:54 AM
Consumer vs manufacturer?
 

"Overall, however, 56% believe it is the responsibility of both the consumer and manufacturer."

I think it should be manufacturer responsibility to secure the device, most customers would not even know how to use the device forget about the security.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
7/26/2017 | 10:38:42 AM
IoT Security
If the device is doing more than one thing and connected to other devices security should be mandatory. If not and simply ringing the door bell and not connected to other things, why go so much trouble and make it expenses, basic security should be ok.
WebAuthn, FIDO2 Infuse Browsers, Platforms with Strong Authentication
John Fontana, Standards & Identity Analyst, Yubico,  9/19/2018
NSS Labs Files Antitrust Suit Against Symantec, CrowdStrike, ESET, AMTSO
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/19/2018
Turn the NIST Cybersecurity Framework into Reality: 5 Steps
Mukul Kumar & Anupam Sahai, CISO & VP of Cyber Practice and VP Product Management, Cavirin Systems,  9/20/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Are you sure this is how we get our data into the cloud?
Current Issue
Flash Poll
The Risk Management Struggle
The Risk Management Struggle
The majority of organizations are struggling to implement a risk-based approach to security even though risk reduction has become the primary metric for measuring the effectiveness of enterprise security strategies. Read the report and get more details today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-14633
PUBLISHED: 2018-09-25
A security flaw was found in the chap_server_compute_md5() function in the ISCSI target code in the Linux kernel in a way an authentication request from an ISCSI initiator is processed. An unauthenticated remote attacker can cause a stack buffer overflow and smash up to 17 bytes of the stack. The at...
CVE-2018-14647
PUBLISHED: 2018-09-25
Python's elementtree C accelerator failed to initialise Expat's hash salt during initialization. This could make it easy to conduct denial of service attacks against Expat by contructing an XML document that would cause pathological hash collisions in Expat's internal data structures, consuming larg...
CVE-2018-10502
PUBLISHED: 2018-09-24
This vulnerability allows local attackers to escalate privileges on vulnerable installations of Samsung Galaxy Apps Fixed in version 4.2.18.2. An attacker must first obtain the ability to execute low-privileged code on the target system in order to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exist...
CVE-2018-11614
PUBLISHED: 2018-09-24
This vulnerability allows remote attackers to escalate privileges on vulnerable installations of Samsung Members Fixed in version 2.4.25. An attacker must first obtain the ability to execute low-privileged code on the target system in order to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists wit...
CVE-2018-14318
PUBLISHED: 2018-09-24
This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on vulnerable installations of Samsung Galaxy S8 G950FXXU1AQL5. User interaction is required to exploit this vulnerability in that the target must have their cellular radios enabled. The specific flaw exists within the handling of ...