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 //

Sensor

End of Bibblio RCM includes -->
9/4/2018
08:05 AM
Alan
 Zeichick
Alan Zeichick
Alan Zeichick

Get Ready for Realistic Attacks on the Internet of Things

Good news: We haven't seen a widespread action against IoT devices. Bad news: IoT devices are shockingly vulnerable.

"Everyone wants to attack the Internet of Things! Oh, no, the sky is falling!" pundits say, some meaningfully, some sarcastically. I've heard a lot about threats against the IoT at events like this past spring's RSA Conference and this month's Black Hat 2018. Those warnings are justified.

 

The good news is that we haven't seen a widespread action against IoT devices -- or at least, we haven't heard about one yet. The bad news is that IoT devices are shockingly vulnerable. Nobody knows where they are and what software they're running. Many of them are running out-of-date software and either can't be or won't be updated. Some of them have enough horsepower, bandwidth and data to be credible targets.

 

Let's move out of "The sky is falling!" mode (which isn't helpful) and try to understand likely attack scenarios that could be deployed against IoT devices.

 

A root source for this discussion is a taxonomy of IoT threats published by the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA), called "Baseline Security Recommendations for IoT in the context of Critical Information Infrastructures."

 

Attacks against the IoT don't necessarily mean compromising end-point devices themselves. Sure, unpatched and otherwise insecure devices are vulnerable. But so are the devices they connect to, either with wires or without -- including networking infrastructure, like routers, switches and gateways. The on-premises and cloud-based servers are also points of attack, as well as databases and other repositories for that information.

 

For example, remember that every use of a credit-card skimmer is an attack on an IoT device -- and so is every breach of a retail store's database of stored customer information gathered from its point of sale kiosks.

Geralt via Pixabay
Geralt via Pixabay

Here are some of the threats in a taxonomy of IoT attacks:

  • Malware: Placing software onto IoT devices or servers to damage the device, corrupt data, steal data -- or spread more malware
  • DDoS: Use many IoT devices to flood some other attack victim across the Internet with unwanted traffic, resulting in a Distributed Denial of Service attack.
  • Counterfeit attack: Using faked credentials to simulate an IoT device, perhaps to compromise data or perhaps to steal data.
  • Privacy attacks: Trying to steal information about people in general, or specific people, in order to learn more about them, such as bank information, passwords or other info.
  • Modification of information: Manipulating information for some illicit purpose, such as to cause chaos or steal information. Think about tricking a police department into thinking there is a robbery, so they divert resources away from other areas.
  • Man in the middle: Basically eavesdropping as a middleman, the hackers relay presumed-to-be-safe information from an IoT device to its server… while keeping a copy for themselves.
  • Session hijacking: Acting as a legitimate host in order to seal, modify or delete information, such as authentication credentials or telemetry.
  • Service outage: Disrupting communications between an IoT device and its host, perhaps by causing network errors, to deny service.

Realistic attack scenarios
In the guide mentioned above, the ENISA researchers postulate many attack scenarios that could be deployed against IoT devices or systems. Here are three, and I'm quoting directly from the ENISA report here:

 

Attack against sensors, modifying their values or thresholds
The attacker manipulates the configuration of the sensors, changing the threshold values established on the sensors to allow out-of-range read values to be accepted when they should not, posing a severe threat to the systems and installations. Because larger installations usually have multiple and redundant sensors, the attacker would have to compromise multiple sensors for the attack to be efficient. If only one were compromised, the readings could be compensated with the input from the rest of the sensors.

 

Impact:Allowing sensors to report and accept incorrect values puts the IoT environment at risk. A malfunctioning sensor may allow a power spike to go through, physically damaging the systems.

 

Attack against actuators, modifying or sabotaging their settings
Manipulation of the actuators' configuration or parameters to make them use wrong configurations, thresholds or data, and therefore affect their normal behavior by sabotaging their operation settings.

 

Impact:It varies depending on the actuators affected. It can affect production processes.

 

Attacks against the IoT administrative systems
An attacker tries to gain full control over the administration system of an IoT system or device, potentially compromising the whole environment. It can be quite successful if weak or default passwords are used. This type of attack comprises different stages, and it is usually launched in a covert manner. It should be noted that this type of attack should be taken into account for the entire life cycle of the device.

 

Impact:The compromise, manipulation or interruption of certain IoT systems could affect many people, cause environmental issues and even extend to other systems, affecting their communications or even disabling them.

Maybe the sky is falling
IoT has the potential to be incredibly useful, but security is key. If sensors are compromised, the sky might be falling and we wouldn't even know it. If actuators are attacked, our own devices could be causing the sky to fall. And if administrative systems are breached, there ain't nothing we can do about it.

Related posts:

Alan Zeichick is principal analyst at Camden Associates, a technology consultancy in Phoenix, Arizona, specializing in enterprise networking, cybersecurity and software development. Follow him @zeichick.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
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
News
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
Commentary
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
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Incorporating a Prevention Mindset into Threat Detection and Response
Threat detection and response systems, by definition, are reactive because they have to wait for damage to be done before finding the attack. With a prevention-mindset, security teams can proactively anticipate the attacker's next move, rather than reacting to specific threats or trying to detect the latest techniques in real-time. The report covers areas enterprises should focus on: What positive response looks like. Improving security hygiene. Combining preventive actions with red team efforts.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2022-26773
PUBLISHED: 2022-05-26
A logic issue was addressed with improved state management. This issue is fixed in iTunes 12.12.4 for Windows. An application may be able to delete files for which it does not have permission.
CVE-2022-26774
PUBLISHED: 2022-05-26
A logic issue was addressed with improved state management. This issue is fixed in iTunes 12.12.4 for Windows. A local attacker may be able to elevate their privileges.
CVE-2022-26775
PUBLISHED: 2022-05-26
An integer overflow was addressed with improved input validation. This issue is fixed in Security Update 2022-004 Catalina, macOS Monterey 12.4. An attacker may be able to cause unexpected application termination or arbitrary code execution.
CVE-2022-26776
PUBLISHED: 2022-05-26
This issue was addressed with improved checks. This issue is fixed in macOS Monterey 12.4, macOS Big Sur 11.6.6. An attacker may be able to cause unexpected application termination or arbitrary code execution.
CVE-2022-29632
PUBLISHED: 2022-05-26
An arbitrary file upload vulnerability in the component /course/api/upload/pic of Roncoo Education v9.0.0 allows attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted file.