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.  
7 Tips for Infosec Pros Considering A Lateral Career Move
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/21/2020
For Mismanaged SOCs, The Price Is Not Right
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/22/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
IT 2020: A Look Ahead
Are you ready for the critical changes that will occur in 2020? We've compiled editor insights from the best of our network (Dark Reading, Data Center Knowledge, InformationWeek, ITPro Today and Network Computing) to deliver to you a look at the trends, technologies, and threats that are emerging in the coming year. Download it today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Organizations have invested in a sweeping array of security technologies to address challenges associated with the growing number of cybersecurity attacks. However, the complexity involved in managing these technologies is emerging as a major problem. Read this report to find out what your peers biggest security challenges are and the technologies they are using to address them.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-8003
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-27
A double-free vulnerability in vrend_renderer.c in virglrenderer through 0.8.1 allows attackers to cause a denial of service by triggering texture allocation failure, because vrend_renderer_resource_allocated_texture is not an appropriate place for a free.
CVE-2019-20427
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-27
In the Lustre file system before 2.12.3, the ptlrpc module has a buffer overflow and panic, and possibly remote code execution, due to the lack of validation for specific fields of packets sent by a client. Interaction between req_capsule_get_size and tgt_brw_write leads to a tgt_shortio2pages integ...
CVE-2019-20428
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-27
In the Lustre file system before 2.12.3, the ptlrpc module has an out-of-bounds read and panic due to the lack of validation for specific fields of packets sent by a client. The ldl_request_cancel function mishandles a large lock_count parameter.
CVE-2019-20429
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-27
In the Lustre file system before 2.12.3, the ptlrpc module has an out-of-bounds read and panic (via a modified lm_bufcount field) due to the lack of validation for specific fields of packets sent by a client. This is caused by interaction between sptlrpc_svc_unwrap_request and lustre_msg_hdr_size_v2...
CVE-2019-20430
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-27
In the Lustre file system before 2.12.3, the mdt module has an LBUG panic (via a large MDT Body eadatasize field) due to the lack of validation for specific fields of packets sent by a client.