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
7/10/2019
09:00 AM
50%
50%

10 Ways to Keep a Rogue RasPi From Wrecking Your Network

A Raspberry Pi attached to the network at NASA JPL became the doorway for a massive intrusion and subsequent data loss. Here's how to keep the same thing from happening to your network.
Previous
1 of 11
Next

Since 2011, engineers, students, and hobbyists have been using a small Linux server called the Raspberry Pi (or RasPi, for short). Many of these servers, roughly the size of a deck of playing cards, are in workshops and classrooms, but their capabilities have made them popular with corporate engineers and scientists looking to solve specific problems on a small budget.

But with that popularity has come the inevitability of RasPis being attached to corporate networks, with results that can be, well, problematic. For example, a report issued last month by NASA's Inspector General on security at its Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) cites a serious intrusion into the network — one that began in a vulnerable RasPi attached to the network without the approval or knowledge of the IT team.

There are now a dozen different RasPi versions, including the new Raspberry Pi 4, which includes models with up to 4 gigabytes of RAM and a powerful ARM processor. Even with the new specifications, RasPis start at $5 and top out at $55 per system.

If history is any indication, more individuals will decide they can solve problems without bothering with enterprise requisitions or approvals. So how can an enterprise security team protect the corporate network from these "rogue" RasPis? 

We've collected 10 possibilities to get you started, five aimed at applying protection to the network and five aimed at making the RasPi itself less vulnerable to intrusion. Implementing any one will make your network safer. Implementing all should go a long way toward ensuring that RasPis are good, safe, citizens on your enterprise network.

(Image: goodcatfelix VIA Adobe Stock)

 

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
 

Recommended Reading:

Previous
1 of 11
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
schopj
100%
0%
schopj,
User Rank: Strategist
7/12/2019 | 4:52:22 PM
Pi not RasPi
RasPi might look good on paper, but say it out loud.  Ive never heard anyone call a Pi a RasPi.  Its just a Raspberry Pi, or a Pi.  Pi 1, Pi2, etc.  

 
websitejk
100%
0%
websitejk,
User Rank: Strategist
7/16/2019 | 4:04:10 PM
Re: Pi not RasPi
Concur 💯
websitejk
100%
0%
websitejk,
User Rank: Strategist
7/16/2019 | 4:12:55 PM
Re: Pi not RasPi
Concur
tdsan
50%
50%
tdsan,
User Rank: Ninja
7/12/2019 | 5:48:53 PM
Raspberry PI Concerns
It's not important to use a particular firewall or defensive mechanism. It is important to think about defense and use some method (or, ideally, [the] combination of methods) to protect the RasPi and the network on which it sits from criminal exploit and intrusion.

I am not so sure I agree with the ending comment made by the presenter, secuirty controls are put in place at various layers but it is knowledgebase, human interaction and device set to limit the organizations area of penetration (attack vector). However, I do think the best way of addressing this issue would be to setup a NAC (Network Access Control) system that limits what can run on the existing network. This should have been one of the first options along with:
  • Port Management/Access
  • MAC Address Control

These two methods disable the port (Port Mgmt) and MAC address policies so as not to allow unauthorized devices on the network.

Also, they should have had an NMS (Network Management System) in place to identify the systems on the network by their MAC addresses. I think this was more about incompetence and lack of attention to detail than anything else (the human factor is what we need to be focusing on). The NASA hack went on for about 10 months.

T

 
BradleyRoss
50%
50%
BradleyRoss,
User Rank: Moderator
7/13/2019 | 2:15:06 PM
Network Segmentation
I think that the only reasonable approach is to divide your network into multiple subnets with firewalls between them.  One should be the production subnet with strict physical controls over what can be attached and rules for configuration.  Another should be a development area where it is difficult to control what is attached or the software configuration.  Another network would be used for administration of the system, and still another would be used for normal users.  You may be able to have firewall rules enforce connections based on IP addresses and port numbers, but antivirus software can't be counted on to stop malicious software and access.
tdsan
50%
50%
tdsan,
User Rank: Ninja
7/14/2019 | 7:40:28 AM
Re: Network Segmentation
To BradlyRoss,

They had Network Segmentation in place, that was not the problem (review the link and the satellite layout). Their labs, production, admin, mgmt aspect of the network was in place; the problem was that they got lax and the tools the had in place reported on its existence, no one from the security team, admin or development team identified this system as being a problem especially when you have applications that are associated with internal systems (i.e. hardware - NMS, SIEM, IPS, etc).

Remember, this device was in place for 10 months on a production network (did not matter if the network was segmented, they had time to run Wireshark or tcpdump, with all of the Ph.ds and engineering staff; they could not find this device listed as a blimp on the "network radar". You have to ask yourself, NASA has numerous layers of security, why was this ignored, it took an audit team to go through the network to find this device. That is why NSA needs a NAC (Network Access Control) device along with mac address and port filtering configured on the network.



Satellite, GSS and Network Architecture

Todd
JamesS94103
100%
0%
JamesS94103,
User Rank: Strategist
7/26/2019 | 12:50:20 PM
Likely a good article ..... BUT
I'm not interested in a revinew generating slide show.  DNR
peternjohnson
50%
50%
peternjohnson,
User Rank: Strategist
7/26/2019 | 2:06:57 PM
Pretty much done with darkreading
Always appears that it is going to be a good article that I can read, but I never find out because it's a slideshow. No thank you. dark reading used to be a good source of relevant information.

Maybe you should put your slideshows on facebook with the rest of the clickbait.

 
tdsan
100%
0%
tdsan,
User Rank: Ninja
7/26/2019 | 7:48:58 PM
Re: Pretty much done with darkreading
eternjohnson,

All I can say is wow to the comment you made below, these people are writing and devoting their time to material that could be used to address significant cybersecurity problems. For someone to call this site "clickbait", that just goes beyond disrespectful. If you don't like the articles and the way they are laid out, then just remove yourself from the list, but don't disrespect people like that on a security blog, this for all people.

It is amazing, people express themselves in such a way that is belittling and disparaging on a public site and they hide behind the veil of the internet, but when you walk up to them on the street, then it is a different story.

T

 

 
ereardon
50%
50%
ereardon,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/26/2019 | 8:14:47 PM
Re: Pretty much done with darkreading
I really do enjoy the information provided here, it's good information. DarkReading does need to fund themselves and if using a slide show format to help keep themselves operational is how they succeed good for them... they keep on providing good content... I'll click through the slideshow and support them.

 
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 9/25/2020
Hacking Yourself: Marie Moe and Pacemaker Security
Gary McGraw Ph.D., Co-founder Berryville Institute of Machine Learning,  9/21/2020
Startup Aims to Map and Track All the IT and Security Things
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/22/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15208
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, when determining the common dimension size of two tensors, TFLite uses a `DCHECK` which is no-op outside of debug compilation modes. Since the function always returns the dimension of the first tensor, malicious attackers can ...
CVE-2020-15209
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, a crafted TFLite model can force a node to have as input a tensor backed by a `nullptr` buffer. This can be achieved by changing a buffer index in the flatbuffer serialization to convert a read-only tensor to a read-write one....
CVE-2020-15210
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, if a TFLite saved model uses the same tensor as both input and output of an operator, then, depending on the operator, we can observe a segmentation fault or just memory corruption. We have patched the issue in d58c96946b and ...
CVE-2020-15211
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, saved models in the flatbuffer format use a double indexing scheme: a model has a set of subgraphs, each subgraph has a set of operators and each operator has a set of input/output tensors. The flatbuffer format uses indices f...
CVE-2020-15212
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, models using segment sum can trigger writes outside of bounds of heap allocated buffers by inserting negative elements in the segment ids tensor. Users having access to `segment_ids_data` can alter `output_index` and then write to outside of `outpu...