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

9/6/2017
10:30 AM
Robert Clyde
Robert Clyde
Commentary
Connect Directly
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

Workplace IoT Puts Companies on Notice for Smarter Security

Blacklisting every "thing" in sight and banning connections to the corporate network may sound tempting, but it's not a realistic strategy.

The security threats posed by the proliferation of Internet of Things (IoT) devices are top of mind for security practitioners, and with good reason.

Gartner projects 8.4 billion connected things will be in use this year, and that includes far too many devices with vulnerabilities that are a recipe for disaster. IoT devices should have secure passwords that can automatically be updated with the most current patches. Too often, though, that is not the case. In the rush to market, devices are manufactured and shipped with easy-to-guess passwords and outdated operating systems, making devices such as webcams, surveillance cameras, and baby monitors relatively easy targets for attackers.

But it's not just at home where IoT devices can invite disaster. IoT security risks often play out in the workplace. We are a gadget-loving society, especially the younger generations, so it's no surprise to see that employees expect to take their smart watches, fitness devices, and other connected devices to work. Consequently, in ISACA's State of Cyber Security 2017 research, only 13% of respondents indicated their enterprise is unconcerned with IoT in the workplace.

Given the understandable unease, employers may be tempted to take a knee-jerk approach and ban employees from using their connected devices in the workplace, similar to what they did when people started taking smartphones to work. But organizations should avoid that inclination and instead focus on providing clear instructions for how employees can safely and appropriately use their devices in a way that does not put the organization at risk. Otherwise, current and prospective employees may look for a friendlier workplace to take their devices — and their talents.

Putting a sound IoT policy in place — with emphasis on separate network segments for employee-owned devices — is a far better alternative. The policy should address issues such as whether devices will be allowed to connect to the Internet and how to handle devices capable of recording sound or video. If connections to the Internet are allowed, devices should be funneled to a guest or other network segment that is not connected to the corporate network. That way, if those devices are infected or tampered with, they do not spread the infection to the internal network. A monitoring component is also necessary to ensure that unapproved devices are blocked.

There are, however, some connected devices that legitimately rely upon connections to the internal enterprise network — think medical devices at hospitals or clinics that are storing critical data in an internal storage area on the network. These devices should be connected to the enterprise network, but without Internet connectivity that could enable external attacks. Whenever possible, such devices should be locked down so that only trusted apps approved by IT are installed on them.

Organizations committed to sound IoT security also must factor in employee training. If a smart TV is purchased for a conference room, does it need to be connected to the Internet? Should the microphone be turned on? Are staff members allowed to take photos of whiteboards, and if so, to whom could that data eventually be accessible? Most employers would struggle with those answers — and likely not even have thought to ask the questions, underscoring the need for training.

These dynamics are only going to become more pronounced in the foreseeable future. We're still much closer to the beginning than the end of the attack cycle leveraging IoT devices. But as valid as the security concerns are — and I hear them all the time from my colleagues in the industry — blacklisting everything in sight and banning connected devices from the workplace is not a realistic approach.

Instead, having sound policies in place, making effective use of network segmentation, and monitoring the corporate network diligently will position organizations to operate securely, without alienating their workforce.

Related Content:

 

Learn from the industry’s most knowledgeable CISOs and IT security experts in a setting that is conducive to interaction and conversation. Click for more info and to register.

Robert Clyde, CISM, NACD Board Leadership Fellow, is vice-chair of ISACA's board of directors and is managing director of Clyde Consulting LLC, which provides board and executive advisory services to cybersecurity software companies. He is the executive chair of the board of ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Small Business Security: 5 Tips on How and Where to Start
Mike Puglia, Chief Strategy Officer at Kaseya,  2/13/2020
Architectural Analysis IDs 78 Specific Risks in Machine-Learning Systems
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  2/13/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
6 Emerging Cyber Threats That Enterprises Face in 2020
This Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at six emerging cyber threats that enterprises could face in 2020. Download your copy today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
The concept of application security is well known, but application security testing and remediation processes remain unbalanced. Most organizations are confident in their approach to AppSec, although others seem to have no approach at all. Read this report to find out more.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2011-2498
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-20
The Linux kernel from v2.3.36 before v2.6.39 allows local unprivileged users to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) by triggering creation of PTE pages.
CVE-2012-2629
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-20
Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) and cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in Axous 1.1.1 and earlier allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that (1) add an administrator account via an addnew action to admin/administrators_add.php; or (2) c...
CVE-2014-3484
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-20
Multiple stack-based buffer overflows in the __dn_expand function in network/dn_expand.c in musl libc 1.1x before 1.1.2 and 0.9.13 through 1.0.3 allow remote attackers to (1) have unspecified impact via an invalid name length in a DNS response or (2) cause a denial of service (crash) via an invalid ...
CVE-2015-2923
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-20
The Neighbor Discovery (ND) protocol implementation in the IPv6 stack in FreeBSD through 10.1 allows remote attackers to reconfigure a hop-limit setting via a small hop_limit value in a Router Advertisement (RA) message.
CVE-2014-4660
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-20
Ansible before 1.5.5 constructs filenames containing user and password fields on the basis of deb lines in sources.list, which might allow local users to obtain sensitive credential information in opportunistic circumstances by leveraging existence of a file that uses the "deb http://user:[email protected]