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

The IoT Blindspot

Confusion over whether IT staff or line of business professions are responsible for IoT management and security plays big role in a lack of visibility into those devices.

IoT devices are rapidly populating enterprise networks but 82% of IT and line of business professionals struggle to identify all the network-connected devices within their enterprise.

According to a new Forrester study that queried 603 IT and business decision-makers across the globe with 2,500 or more employees, a key contributor to the IoT visibility problem may be confusion over who is responsible for IoT management and security.

While 50% of survey respondents - which include line of business (LoB) and IT security operations center professionals - say the SOC is responsible for default configurations and management of the devices, confusion exists when it's time to configure the devices, according to the survey, which was commissioned by ForeScout Technologies.

LoB personnel, who are responsible for operational technology (OT)  that runs specific lines of business, often find their role falling under the broad category of connected devices, or IoT.

But when drilling down further on the question of which job titles should be responsible for IoT default configurations, 54% of LoB survey respondents feel it should be overseen by device manufacturers or LoB staff. And 45% of IT respondents agree.

As a result, according to the report, LoB users are deploying devices under the assumption all proper controls are in place without touching base with the SOC. Without SOC professionals involved in the initial setup of the IoT devices, it's difficult to get a clear view into what devices are actually riding on the network.

"There is a lot of confusion and lack of clarity of who should own the security of IoT devices and determine what should happen," says Pedro Abreu, chief strategy officer for ForeScout. "LoBs, like plant managers, have a lot of devices that connect to the network. But they tend to think of health and safety first and not security."

Old Tools vs. New Tools

IoT visibility on the network is also impaired by the use of older security tools that do not scale in an IoT environment, says Abreu.

With traditional security tools, an agent can be installed onto a machine, which then communicates back to the SOC what it is seeing, he notes. But with a number of IoT devices, the ability to add software, let alone security updates, is impossible because the devices are closed in their design, especially in the healthcare industry, Abreu says, pointing to insulin pumps as an example.

"They  [insulin pumps]  connect to the network, but you can't install a network agent on them," Abreu says. "We call this a visibility gap."

He advises companies to just not rely on IP addresses to identify devices that are on their network, but to also have an understanding what the device actually is.

"I need to know if it's a Windows server or an MRI machine built using a Windows server," he notes. "The second step would be to set policies around each device and limit what it can do on the network."

Anxiety and Denial

While 54% of survey respondents feel anxious over the security of their IoT devices, line of business respondents have a somewhat higher degree of anxiety, 58%, compared to 51% for IT counterparts, the survey found.

The disconnect between the two groups may be in part due to LoBs having a greater understanding of the magnitude a breach can have on business operations and their concerns that IT can't provide assurances that IoT devices are secure. Despite these anxiety levels, 59% of survey respondents are willing to tolerate medium- to high-risk levels in fulfilling IoT compliance requirements, the survey found.

And companies often miss the mark in meeting IoT compliance requirements.When a compliance auditor evaluates a company for all the IoT devices on their network, it's fairly common to discover 30% to 60% more devices than the company knew they had, Abreu says.

Srinivas Kumar, vice president of engineering at Mocana, says he was shocked by the study's findings. "The tolerance of risk should be a lot lower," Kumar says. "I think it should be in the single digits of 10% or less [for] who would be willing to tolerate medium or high risk. The consequences could be the loss of life if it were an IoT device like a pacemaker. If safety is an issue or loss of life, then there should be zero tolerance."

In the meantime, 90% of survey participants expect the volume of IoT devices on the network will rise over the next year to two years, the survey found.

Join Dark Reading LIVE for two days of practical cyber defense discussions. Learn from the industry’s most knowledgeable IT security experts. Check out the INsecurity agenda here.

Related Content:

 

Dawn Kawamoto is an Associate Editor for Dark Reading, where she covers cybersecurity news and trends. She is an award-winning journalist who has written and edited technology, management, leadership, career, finance, and innovation stories for such publications as CNET's ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Mobile Banking Malware Up 50% in First Half of 2019
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/17/2020
Active Directory Needs an Update: Here's Why
Raz Rafaeli, CEO and Co-Founder at Secret Double Octopus,  1/16/2020
New Attack Campaigns Suggest Emotet Threat Is Far From Over
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  1/16/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
The Year in Security: 2019
This Tech Digest provides a wrap up and overview of the year's top cybersecurity news stories. It was a year of new twists on old threats, with fears of another WannaCry-type worm and of a possible botnet army of Wi-Fi routers. But 2019 also underscored the risk of firmware and trusted security tools harboring dangerous holes that cybercriminals and nation-state hackers could readily abuse. Read more.
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-2011-3622
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-22
A Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in the admin login screen in Phorum before 5.2.18.
CVE-2020-5221
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-22
In uftpd before 2.11, it is possible for an unauthenticated user to perform a directory traversal attack using multiple different FTP commands and read and write to arbitrary locations on the filesystem due to the lack of a well-written chroot jail in compose_abspath(). This has been fixed in versio...
CVE-2019-19834
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-22
Directory Traversal in ruckus_cli2 in Ruckus Wireless Unleashed through 200.7.10.102.64 allows a remote attacker to jailbreak the CLI via enable->debug->script->exec with ../../../bin/sh as the parameter.
CVE-2019-19836
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-22
AjaxRestrictedCmdStat in zap in Ruckus Wireless Unleashed through 200.7.10.102.64 allows remote code execution via a POST request that uses tools/_rcmdstat.jsp to write to a specified filename.
CVE-2019-19843
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-22
Incorrect access control in the web interface in Ruckus Wireless Unleashed through 200.7.10.102.64 allows remote credential fetch via an unauthenticated HTTP request involving a symlink with /tmp and web/user/wps_tool_cache.