Vulnerabilities / Threats

6/22/2017
04:35 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Nuclear Plants, Hospitals at Risk of Hacked Radiation Monitoring Devices

Security researcher discovers major security flaws that can't be patched or fixed.

Design flaws in devices used to monitor radiation levels in nuclear plants, hospitals, seaports, and at border controls, could be exploited by an attacker to inject phony radiation readings, a security researcher has found.

Ruben Santamarta, principal security consultant at IOActive, reverse-engineered the firmware of two different brands of radiation monitoring devices as well as analyzed their hardware and a proprietary radio frequency (RF) protocol used for communicating with those devices, and discovered major design flaws that leave them open for hacking.

The vulnerabilities are not your standard buffer overflows or other known classes of bugs, he says. "This research covers several design-level vulnerabilities," says Santamarta. "The vulnerabilities are related to the design of these devices and their radio protocols."

And the catch: there's no fix or patch that can remedy them, he says. "There's no solution for these issues," Santamarta says. "You can't patch them because it's the way they are designed."

Santamarta won't name the affected vendors or provide many of the technical details of his findings until his presentation on his research next month at Black Hat USA, Go Nuclear: Breaking Radiation Monitoring Devices. He says many other brands of radiation monitoring devices are also vulnerable to attack because they all use the same RF protocols for communications.

The RF protocol used for communicating to and from the devices both lack encryption as well as use weak encryption algorithms in cases where they do employ crypto, he says. "There were weak encryption algorithms for radio communications and for updates to" the device firmware, he says.

"In this [Black Hat] talk, I'm going to try to explain how to reverse-engineer an entire radio protocol, from physical to application layer," he says.

An attacker could wage a cyberattack on these devices as far away as 20 kilometers, he says. "You don't need to be near the facility to attack it," Santamarta says. And there are plenty of tools available for an attacker to jump onto the RF network. "The problem with radio is it's difficult to mitigate" an attack via it, he says.

The weak RF protocols and firmware could allow an attacker to inject fake radiation readings, so that if there were a radiation accident or leak, it couldn't be detected, for example. Or the reverse: it could send phony readings of high radiation levels when none were actually present, he says.

"Potentially false readers can trick operators into performing actions" that aren't correct if they incorrectly are alerted that radiation exposure has occurred, for example, he says. "An attacker could inject false readings into a nuclear power plant's radiation monitoring device simulating a massive radiation leak … How is the operator going to react?

"These are the worst-case" scenarios of attacks exploiting the design flaws in the devices and their protocols, he says.

So what can organizations using radiation monitoring devices do to prevent a cyberattack on the equipment?

"The best thing is to know that these attacks are feasible. The problem … is there are no solutions for the vulnerabilities. The only way to protect is to raise awareness of these attacks … and identify when they may be happening," says Santamarta, who will detail at Black Hat some methods of mitigating the potential impact of a hacked radiation monitoring device.

"It's complicated," he says.

The inspiration for Santamarta's research, he notes, were two famous nuclear facility incidents: the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear plant core meltdown and the 2007 theft of fuel pellets of uranium oxide from a nuclear fuel facility in Spain. Three Mile Island's mechanical failure led to inconsistent radiation level readings to the plant's operators that ultimately exacerbated the accident, according to Santamarta.

"They were receiving false information," he says. "So I wondered, what happens if someone tries to send false information that's then consumed by operators? What could happen?"

Black Hat USA returns to the fabulous Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas, Nevada, July 22-27, 2017. Click for information on the conference schedule and to register.

Related Content:

Kelly Jackson Higgins is Executive Editor at DarkReading.com. She is an award-winning veteran technology and business journalist with more than two decades of experience in reporting and editing for various publications, including Network Computing, Secure Enterprise ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Higher Education: 15 Books to Help Cybersecurity Pros Be Better
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  12/12/2018
Worst Password Blunders of 2018 Hit Organizations East and West
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  12/12/2018
2019 Attacker Playbook
Ericka Chickowski, Contributing Writer, Dark Reading,  12/14/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
The Year in Security 2018
This Dark Reading Tech Digest explores the biggest news stories of 2018 that shaped the cybersecurity landscape.
Flash Poll
[Sponsored Content] The State of Encryption and How to Improve It
[Sponsored Content] The State of Encryption and How to Improve It
Encryption and access controls are considered to be the ultimate safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of data, which is why they're mandated in so many compliance and regulatory standards. While the cybersecurity market boasts a wide variety of encryption technologies, many data breaches reveal that sensitive and personal data has often been left unencrypted and, therefore, vulnerable.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-6978
PUBLISHED: 2018-12-18
vRealize Operations (7.x before 7.0.0.11287810, 6.7.x before 6.7.0.11286837 and 6.6.x before 6.6.1.11286876) contains a local privilege escalation vulnerability due to improper permissions of support scripts. Admin user of the vROps application with shell access may exploit this issue to elevate the...
CVE-2018-20213
PUBLISHED: 2018-12-18
wbook_addworksheet in workbook.c in libexcel.a in libexcel 0.01 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (SEGV) via a long name. NOTE: this is not a Microsoft product.
CVE-2017-15031
PUBLISHED: 2018-12-18
In all versions of ARM Trusted Firmware up to and including v1.4, not initializing or saving/restoring the PMCR_EL0 register can leak secure world timing information.
CVE-2018-19522
PUBLISHED: 2018-12-18
DriverAgent 2.2015.7.14, which includes DrvAgent64.sys 1.0.0.1, allows a user to send an IOCTL (0x800020F4) with a buffer containing user defined content. The driver's subroutine will execute a wrmsr instruction with the user's buffer for partial input.
CVE-2018-1833
PUBLISHED: 2018-12-18
IBM Event Streams 2018.3.0 could allow a remote attacker to submit an API request with a fake Host request header. An attacker, who has already gained authorised access via the CLI, could exploit this vulnerability to spoof the request header. IBM X-Force ID: 150507.