Endpoint

IT Pros Worried About IoT But Not Prepared to Secure It

Few organizations have a security policy in place for Internet of Things devices, new survey shows.

Some 85% of IT professionals believe their country will suffer a major critical infrastructure cyberattack in the next five years and 64% say they're more concerned this year than last about connected device threats in their organizations - and slightly fewer are actually doing anything about Internet of Things security.

The 2018 Internet of Evil Things Report, sponsored by Pwnie Express, surveyed more than 700 IT professionals who took the online survey via SurveyMonkey. Those responding have felt the effects of cybercrime, with more than 60% saying that their organization was hit by malware last year.

When it comes to future worries, 80% listed connected devices, from industrial control to employee wearables, as their major source of concern. But less than half say that they have technology in place to monitor and secure them. "Security has been traditional devices in traditional implementations, though BYOD stretched it a bit. But now, things that might have been air-gapped are being exposed to the Internet," says Todd DeSisto, CEO of Pwnie Express.

"It's a non-traditional solution stack. It's not one hardware or software company; there aren't standards, there are proprietary protocols, and the life-cycles are much different," DeSisto explains, noting that many devices may be in place for decades rather than the three- to five years of a usual IT replacement cycle. And when the time for replacement rolls around, almost two-thirds of security professionals are often left out of the process.

"That doesn't make sense," he says.

Indeed, according to the report, 75% of organizations have a security policy in place for purchasing traditional IT devices, and nearly half have some sort of policy governing BYOD for the enterprise. When it comes to IoT devices, though, that number drops to one-third or less, depending on the nature of the connected device.

The responsibility for the security of all these devices falls squarely on the shoulders of IT security, according to the respondents, with 61% saying that the burden rests with professionals like themselves. Only 13% say that it should be up to manufacturers to make sure that the devices they design and sell should be secure from vulnerability to attack.

Related Content:

Curtis Franklin Jr. is Senior Editor at Dark Reading. In this role he focuses on product and technology coverage for the publication. In addition he works on audio and video programming for Dark Reading and contributes to activities at Interop ITX, Black Hat, INsecurity, and ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
REISEN1955
50%
50%
REISEN1955,
User Rank: Ninja
5/17/2018 | 8:09:19 AM
The Numbers!!!
What we have here is a failure to communicate --- so said Strother Martin.   Actually a failure of sheer numbers as they are literally THOUSANDS OF DIFFERENT IoT devices around any network and I am including my wireless internal defibulator.   A recent story told of hacking a network through an IoT thermostat in a fish tank of all things and how IT can address THAT endpoint is a miracle.  We can secure alot of stuff and generally do but the bulk of these odd, strange devices works against success.  Multiple layers and multiple firewalls is about the best i can come up with right now - 2 layer identification too.  
Crowdsourced vs. Traditional Pen Testing
Alex Haynes, Chief Information Security Officer, CDL,  3/19/2019
BEC Scammer Pleads Guilty
Dark Reading Staff 3/20/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Well, at least it isn't Mobby Dick!
Current Issue
5 Emerging Cyber Threats to Watch for in 2019
Online attackers are constantly developing new, innovative ways to break into the enterprise. This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at five emerging attack trends and exploits your security team should look out for, along with helpful recommendations on how you can prevent your organization from falling victim.
Flash Poll
The State of Cyber Security Incident Response
The State of Cyber Security Incident Response
Organizations are responding to new threats with new processes for detecting and mitigating them. Here's a look at how the discipline of incident response is evolving.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-9923
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-22
pax_decode_header in sparse.c in GNU Tar before 1.32 had a NULL pointer dereference when parsing certain archives that have malformed extended headers.
CVE-2019-9924
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-22
rbash in Bash before 4.4-beta2 did not prevent the shell user from modifying BASH_CMDS, thus allowing the user to execute any command with the permissions of the shell.
CVE-2019-9925
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-22
S-CMS PHP v1.0 has XSS in 4.edu.php via the S_id parameter.
CVE-2019-9927
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-22
Caret before 2019-02-22 allows Remote Code Execution.
CVE-2019-9936
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-22
In SQLite 3.27.2, running fts5 prefix queries inside a transaction could trigger a heap-based buffer over-read in fts5HashEntrySort in sqlite3.c, which may lead to an information leak. This is related to ext/fts5/fts5_hash.c.