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

Most Security Pros Expect to Suffer Cyberattacks via Unsecured IoT

A new report shows the majority of security professionals believe within the next two years they will be victims of DDoS and other attacks due to unsecured IoT devices.

IT security professionals expect their companies' wireless printers to wireless thermostats and other IoT devices in the next two years to rebel against them in a big way as cyber attackers take advantage of vulnerabilities in the software and devices, according to a report released today by the Ponemon Institute.

The Internet of Things (IoT): A New Era of Third Party Risk report, which surveyed 553 risk management professionals, found that 94% of these security pros believe that in the next two years unsecured IoT devices and IoT applications will likely lead to a catastrophic event; data loss or theft (78%); DDoS attack (76%); and a cyberattack (76%).

As a result, companies need to track third-party IoT devices and IoT software connecting to their network and provide a way to centrally monitor their activities, according to Larry Ponemon, chairman and founder of the Ponemon Institute and the report's author, and Charlie Miller, senior vice president of Shared Assessments, which sponsored the report.

But less than half of the survey respondents say they monitor the risk of IoT devices used in the workplace. 

Source: Ponemon Institute

Ponemon Institute

[Charts Source: Ponemon Institute and The Santa Fe Group, Shared Assessments Program] 

As for holding IoT third-party vendors accountable, Miller suggests it should be addressed in the vendor contract. But he admits that isn't easy: "Many rely on a contractual relationship for security. It is easy to say, but can be difficult to manage."

Ponemon suggests CISOs take several steps toward managing the security risks around IoT third-party devices and software.

"Currently, there are no standards, or processes, or checklists to reduce the risk of IoT," Ponemon says. "One of the first steps is around governance and figuring out who should own the responsibility of unsecured IoT devices and working with the third parties who bring in IoT."

The second step is to take inventory of all IoT tools and relationships that have business risks - like wireless printers or wireless security cameras - and establish IoT categories such as security that would include security cameras, rather than every camera.

And lastly, CISOs should consider creating specific policies and procedures for each category of IoT, Ponemon says. An IoT refrigerator poses a different security risk than an IoT printer, for example.

Ponemon Institute

[Charts Source: Ponemon Institute and The Santa Fe Group, Shared Assessments Program] 

The report also shows that a vast majority of companies use traditional network firewalls and anti-malware software to guard their network from unsecured IoT devices and IoT applications:

Ponemon Institute

[Charts Source: Ponemon Institute and The Santa Fe Group, Shared Assessments Program] 

Ponemon says while protecting the enterprise running IoT devices and applications, organizations also must avoid making security so difficult that it stops innovation or interferes with operations. 

Related Content:

Dawn Kawamoto is an Associate Editor for Dark Reading, where she covers cybersecurity news and trends. She is an award-winning journalist who has written and edited technology, management, leadership, career, finance, and innovation stories for such publications as CNET's ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
Exploits Released for As-Yet Unpatched Critical Citrix Flaw
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  1/13/2020
Major Brazilian Bank Tests Homomorphic Encryption on Financial Data
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/10/2020
Will This Be the Year of the Branded Cybercriminal?
Raveed Laeb, Product Manager at KELA,  1/13/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
The Year in Security: 2019
This Tech Digest provides a wrap up and overview of the year's top cybersecurity news stories. It was a year of new twists on old threats, with fears of another WannaCry-type worm and of a possible botnet army of Wi-Fi routers. But 2019 also underscored the risk of firmware and trusted security tools harboring dangerous holes that cybercriminals and nation-state hackers could readily abuse. Read more.
Flash Poll
[Just Released] How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
[Just Released] How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Organizations have invested in a sweeping array of security technologies to address challenges associated with the growing number of cybersecurity attacks. However, the complexity involved in managing these technologies is emerging as a major problem. Read this report to find out what your peers biggest security challenges are and the technologies they are using to address them.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-3683
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-17
The keystone-json-assignment package in SUSE Openstack Cloud 8 before commit d7888c75505465490250c00cc0ef4bb1af662f9f every user listed in the /etc/keystone/user-project-map.json was assigned full "member" role access to every project. This allowed these users to access, modify, create and...
CVE-2019-3682
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-17
The docker-kubic package in SUSE CaaS Platform 3.0 before 17.09.1_ce-7.6.1 provided access to an insecure API locally on the Kubernetes master node.
CVE-2019-17361
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-17
In SaltStack Salt through 2019.2.0, the salt-api NEST API with the ssh client enabled is vulnerable to command injection. This allows an unauthenticated attacker with network access to the API endpoint to execute arbitrary code on the salt-api host.
CVE-2019-19142
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-17
Intelbras WRN240 devices do not require authentication to replace the firmware via a POST request to the incoming/Firmware.cfg URI.
CVE-2019-19801
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-17
In Gallagher Command Centre Server versions of v8.10 prior to v8.10.1134(MR4), v8.00 prior to v8.00.1161(MR5), v7.90 prior to v7.90.991(MR5), v7.80 prior to v7.80.960(MR2) and v7.70 or earlier, an unprivileged but authenticated user is able to perform a backup of the Command Centre databases.