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.

IoT/Embedded Security

// // //
08:05 AM
Larry Loeb
Larry Loeb
Larry Loeb

Microsoft's TCPS Project Looks to Secure IIoT & ICS

As industrial systems continue to grow and ICS and IIoT get more connected, Microsoft is looking for a new way to lock down data within these systems. At a recent show, Redmond detailed TCPS, which offers new ways to protect data through the cloud.

At Hannover Messe 2018 show last month, which mainly focuses on industry technology, as well as the growing field of the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT), Microsoft showed up to detail how the company plans to increase the security levels around IIoT, as well as Industrial Control Systems (ICS) devices.

This is being developed by Redmond under a new project that is codenamed TCPS -- Trusted Cyber Physical Systems.

TCPS is composed of three elements that are supposed to catch, as well as block intrusions.

First, there are hardware-level Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs), such as Intel SGX, ARM TrustZone, and SecureElements -- much like the ones seen newer credit cards. These are resident on CPUs at a hardware level for processing sensitive information about chip function.

This means that only signed and authorized code can run in a TEE.

Microsoft wants to keep raw data accessible only from inside a trusted execution environment and only readable by the user and those whom the customer explicitly authorizes.

Additionally, Microsoft is looking to keeping the code inside the trusted execution environment as small as possible -- for a lowered attack area -- and having ways to vouch for its trustworthiness.

Second, Microsoft posits a "Secure Confirmation Terminal," that is operated by a trusted employee. The SCT operator needs to confirm certain operations before they can be executed by the rest of the system. The TEE cryptographically signs the response and forwards it.

The idea is that neither a cloud service provider -- such as Microsoft Azure -- nor a software provider will be able to execute actions on user systems that have not been authorized by the system operator through the SCT.

The third part of all of this is a cloud-based platform used for provisioning, key management, certificate authority, patch management and tamper-proof logging.

Since this is Redmond designing the protocol, Azure is the default cloud.

What is really being added in TCPS is a way to protect data while it is being executed, since the implicit assumptions used in its design are that data in rest and in motion will have already been protected through encryption.

There is also running through TCPS the idea of a chain of trust.

Microsoft notes that the operator of a TCPS solution must be able to follow a chain of trust for code operations (for malware), as well as data (tampering or disclosure). This chain will lead to a Root of Trust (RoT) that the operator ultimately accepts as trusted. But the roots may be different for the two different kinds of information.

The fundamentals of network security are being redefined -- don't get left in the dark by a DDoS attack! Join us in Austin from May 14-16 at the fifth-annual Big Communications Event. There's still time to register and communications service providers get in free!

Updates may be necessary during a system's lifetime. In a TCPS solution, updates are signed by the software or the firmware manufacturer's RoT, and can be required to be counter-signed by the customer's RoT before they can be deployed in a TEE.

TCPS is a work in progress, and it is easy to denigrate particular sections of this as being unrealistic. The TEEs of microprocessors have recently come under attack, for example, yet they remain an integral part of the concept. But, the project is one that relooks at how each part of an overall system should relate to one another and is not finished. (See Intel's SGX Vulnerable to Spectre-Like Flaw.)

It is sort of a template for further design.

What actually evolves from this template will be of interest, of course. But the success of this process of evolution will depend greatly on the details used to make it evolve.

Related posts:

— Larry Loeb has written for many of the last century's major "dead tree" computer magazines, having been, among other things, a consulting editor for BYTE magazine and senior editor for the launch of WebWeek.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
The 10 Most Impactful Types of Vulnerabilities for Enterprises Today
Managing system vulnerabilities is one of the old est - and most frustrating - security challenges that enterprise defenders face. Every software application and hardware device ships with intrinsic flaws - flaws that, if critical enough, attackers can exploit from anywhere in the world. It's crucial that defenders take stock of what areas of the tech stack have the most emerging, and critical, vulnerabilities they must manage. It's not just zero day vulnerabilities. Consider that CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog lists vulnerabilitlies in widely used applications that are "actively exploited," and most of them are flaws that were discovered several years ago and have been fixed. There are also emerging vulnerabilities in 5G networks, cloud infrastructure, Edge applications, and firmwares to consider.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
PUBLISHED: 2023-03-17
The Bookly plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the full name value in versions up to, and including, 21.5 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that w...
PUBLISHED: 2023-03-17
The WP Express Checkout plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the ‘pec_coupon[code]’ parameter in versions up to, and including, 2.2.8 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for authenti...
PUBLISHED: 2023-03-17
A vulnerability was found in SourceCodester Student Study Center Desk Management System 1.0. It has been rated as critical. This issue affects the function view_student of the file admin/?page=students/view_student. The manipulation of the argument id with the input 3' AND (SELECT 2100 FROM (SELECT(...
PUBLISHED: 2023-03-17
A vulnerability classified as critical has been found in SourceCodester Student Study Center Desk Management System 1.0. Affected is an unknown function of the file Master.php?f=delete_img of the component POST Parameter Handler. The manipulation of the argument path with the input C%3A%2Ffoo.txt le...
PUBLISHED: 2023-03-17
A vulnerability classified as critical was found in SourceCodester Student Study Center Desk Management System 1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file admin/?page=reports&date_from=2023-02-17&date_to=2023-03-17 of the component Report Handler. The manipula...