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
2/10/2020
11:40 AM
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

6 Factors That Raise the Stakes for IoT Security

Developments that exacerbate the risk and complicate making Internet of Things devices more secure.
Previous
1 of 7
Next

Image Source: Adobe (stokkete)

Image Source: Adobe (stokkete)


The enterprise is finally coming to realize just how risky Internet of Things (IoT) devices are to their security postures. Whether it comes from unencrypted communication with devices, hard-coded passwords, vulnerability-ridden unmanaged devices, or insecure configurations, a huge flaw always seems to be lurking around the corner with regard to IoT deployments.
 
It's only natural for new-ish technology. IoT is following a common progression in security maturation that's happened so many times in everything from Wi-Fi to Web apps.
 
However, as IoT progresses, a number of factors add a greater depth to the IoT problem. Some up the ante considerably by putting way more at risk -- either in consequence or cost -- when an IoT device is compromised. Other factors expand the risk surface by exacerbating already extant vulnerabilities in the IoT ecosystem.
 
Either way, read on for some of the most common factors that raise the stakes for IoT and make the problem more acute within the enterprise.

 

Ericka Chickowski specializes in coverage of information technology and business innovation. She has focused on information security for the better part of a decade and regularly writes about the security industry as a contributor to Dark Reading.  View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Previous
1 of 7
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
DavidS950U01
50%
50%
DavidS950U01,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/2/2020 | 1:08:42 AM
Question about IoT and smart communities; government duty to regulate and protect.
The article names deployments that could be attcked, such as factories, hospitals or body-connected IoT devices, and facilities. I am curious about the negative potentials presented in the smart communities scenarios. What are the dangers? Paralysis of IoT-dependent traffic control and surveillance, for example? And if not paralysis, what about misdirection (a la Stuxnet)?

Next: it's nice that government regulations will role out in 2020--but where? In this country? With the vaunted repeal of 1200 (and counting) "job-killing" regulations that were originally created to protect public health and safety, exactly which competent agency employees remain to do the regulating? (Think State Department, EPA, CDC, etc.) I think it prudent to write to our elected representatives and make the case for, let's say, following the European example.
News
Inside the Ransomware Campaigns Targeting Exchange Servers
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  4/2/2021
Commentary
Beyond MITRE ATT&CK: The Case for a New Cyber Kill Chain
Rik Turner, Principal Analyst, Infrastructure Solutions, Omdia,  3/30/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
Recent breaches of third-party apps are driving many organizations to think harder about the security of their off-the-shelf software as they continue to move left in secure software development practices.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-23381
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-18
This affects all versions of package killing. If attacker-controlled user input is given, it is possible for an attacker to execute arbitrary commands. This is due to use of the child_process exec function without input sanitization.
CVE-2021-23374
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-18
This affects all versions of package ps-visitor. If attacker-controlled user input is given to the kill function, it is possible for an attacker to execute arbitrary commands. This is due to use of the child_process exec function without input sanitization.
CVE-2021-23375
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-18
This affects all versions of package psnode. If attacker-controlled user input is given to the kill function, it is possible for an attacker to execute arbitrary commands. This is due to use of the child_process exec function without input sanitization.
CVE-2021-23376
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-18
This affects all versions of package ffmpegdotjs. If attacker-controlled user input is given to the trimvideo function, it is possible for an attacker to execute arbitrary commands. This is due to use of the child_process exec function without input sanitization.
CVE-2021-23377
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-18
This affects all versions of package onion-oled-js. If attacker-controlled user input is given to the scroll function, it is possible for an attacker to execute arbitrary commands. This is due to use of the child_process exec function without input sanitization.