Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

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.  
10 Ways to Keep a Rogue RasPi From Wrecking Your Network
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  7/10/2019
The Security of Cloud Applications
Hillel Solow, CTO and Co-founder, Protego,  7/11/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Building and Managing an IT Security Operations Program
As cyber threats grow, many organizations are building security operations centers (SOCs) to improve their defenses. In this Tech Digest you will learn tips on how to get the most out of a SOC in your organization - and what to do if you can't afford to build one.
Flash Poll
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
Your enterprise's cyber risk may depend upon the relationship between the IT team and the security team. Heres some insight on what's working and what isn't in the data center.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-0234
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-15
A Reflected Cross-site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in Apache Roller. Roller's Math Comment Authenticator did not property sanitize user input and could be exploited to perform Reflected Cross Site Scripting (XSS). The mitigation for this vulnerability is to upgrade to the latest version of ...
CVE-2018-7838
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-15
A CWE-119 Buffer Errors vulnerability exists in Modicon M580 CPU - BMEP582040, all versions before V2.90, and Modicon Ethernet Module BMENOC0301, all versions before V2.16, which could cause denial of service on the FTP service of the controller or the Ethernet BMENOC module when it receives a FTP C...
CVE-2019-6822
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-15
A Use After Free: CWE-416 vulnerability exists in Zelio Soft 2, V5.2 and earlier, which could cause remote code execution when opening a specially crafted Zelio Soft 2 project file.
CVE-2019-6823
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-15
A CWE-94: Code Injection vulnerability exists in ProClima (all versions prior to version 8.0.0) which could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to execute arbitrary code on the targeted system in all versions of ProClima prior to version 8.0.0.
CVE-2019-6824
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-15
A CWE-119: Buffer Errors vulnerability exists in ProClima (all versions prior to version 8.0.0) which allows an unauthenticated, remote attacker to execute arbitrary code on the targeted system in all versions of ProClima prior to version 8.0.0.