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
6/27/2019
04:45 PM
50%
50%

NIST Issues IoT Risk Guidelines

A new report offers the first step toward understanding and managing IoT cybersecurity risks.

NIST has issued a new report intended to help managers understand and manage the risks that come with Internet of Things (IoT) devices throughout their life cycles.

The 34-page report, "Considerations for Managing Internet of Things Cybersecurity one Privacy Risks," begins with basic definitions and critical issues, such as the operational difference between privacy and security. It goes on to address large management considerations, including device access and management, and the dramatic difference between the security capabilities of IT hardware and IoT systems.

NIST defines IoT risk and mitigation within a framework of three risk mitigation goals: protect device security, protect data security, and protect individuals' privacy. Within each of these goals are two to five more specific risk mitigation areas, such as vulnerability management, data protection, and information flow management.

The report provides a series of tables listing security expectations IT managers may have for conventional IT devices set against the ways in which IoT devices may be challenged in meeting those expectations.  

While this report, the first in a series addressing the IoT, looks at higher level considerations, NIST says future reports will go into greater depth and detail about related issues.

Read more here.

Dark Reading's Quick Hits delivers a brief synopsis and summary of the significance of breaking news events. For more information from the original source of the news item, please follow the link provided in this article. View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
ylwspd
50%
50%
ylwspd,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/1/2019 | 12:03:15 PM
Re: Protect Individuals Privacy
I agree that creating a policy where BYOD isn't allowed is the "easiest", however it's definitely not the most practical or reasonable.  Businesses want and need employees to be as up to date and responsive as possible, and expecting someone to carry multiple devices is impractical. More things to lose, keep powered up, etc.  It's what makes the dance of IT such an interesting one.
tdsan
50%
50%
tdsan,
User Rank: Ninja
6/30/2019 | 5:17:41 PM
Interesting Article about IoT Devices
Look at the security risk aspects of the NIST Publication:
  • Page 8 (Addresses Risk)
  • Page 12 (Device, Data, and Individual risks)
  • Page 15 (Mgmt, Monitoring Features)
  • Page 21 (Challenges to IT Security)
  • Page 27 (Cannot modify software - cannot remove known vulnerabilities, Expectation 5-6)
  • Page 34 (Expectation 17 - May not be able to detect internal threats)
  • Page 33 (Expectation 21, Sect. 34-35) - Does not verify endpoint and does not perform encryption
  • Page 35 (Section 43) - Remote accessibility, Risk Consideration 2
  • Page 41 (Appendix B)

 
In addition, an organization may need to determine how to manage risk not just by device type, but also by device usage. The way a device is to be used may indicate that one security objective, such as integrity, is more important than another, such as confidentiality, and that in turn may necessitate different mechanisms to risk mitigation. Similarly, a device might be used in such a way that some of its capabilities are not needed and can be disabled, which could reduce the device's risk.

This is probably one of the most important aspects of the document because why would a refrigerator want to communicate with a DB or Web application. If the hacker accessed an IoT device, that device tries to communicate with a server or DB that is not part of its original communication stream (baseline), then we can determine if the device is working outside of its normal function. This could lead to addressing problems before they occur; however, we need to address issues with the manufacturer; one solution would need to create a consortium where minimal security aspects are added to the device to ensure some level of compliance or at least a way to thwart attacks.

Later we found out (from Dark Reading), the FTC has increased the minimal standards for device security (DLink Case), so it may not be a consortium but at least someone is paying attention.

Todd

 
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
6/28/2019 | 10:19:56 AM
Protect Individuals Privacy
I'm interested to read more into the 3rd pillar of the report because typically if you are concerned about security you will infringe on someones privacy. Noticeably in an Acceptable Use Policy you'll find that people wave their right to privacy by utilizing a corporate asset. For a personally owned asset, it's my belief that you are better off stating that BYOD is not allowed so you don't have to navigate the sticky waters of trying to maintain best practice security while being cognizant of an individuals privacy.
For Cybersecurity to Be Proactive, Terrains Must Be Mapped
Craig Harber, Chief Technology Officer at Fidelis Cybersecurity,  10/8/2019
A Realistic Threat Model for the Masses
Lysa Myers, Security Researcher, ESET,  10/9/2019
USB Drive Security Still Lags
Dark Reading Staff 10/9/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
7 Threats & Disruptive Forces Changing the Face of Cybersecurity
This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at the biggest emerging threats and disruptive forces that are changing the face of cybersecurity today.
Flash Poll
2019 Online Malware and Threats
2019 Online Malware and Threats
As cyberattacks become more frequent and more sophisticated, enterprise security teams are under unprecedented pressure to respond. Is your organization ready?
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-17545
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-14
GDAL through 3.0.1 has a poolDestroy double free in OGRExpatRealloc in ogr/ogr_expat.cpp when the 10MB threshold is exceeded.
CVE-2019-17546
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-14
tif_getimage.c in LibTIFF through 4.0.10, as used in GDAL through 3.0.1 and other products, has an integer overflow that potentially causes a heap-based buffer overflow via a crafted RGBA image, related to a "Negative-size-param" condition.
CVE-2019-17547
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-14
In ImageMagick before 7.0.8-62, TraceBezier in MagickCore/draw.c has a use-after-free.
CVE-2019-17501
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-14
Centreon 19.04 allows attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands via the Command Line field of main.php?p=60807&type=4 (aka the Configuration > Commands > Discovery screen).
CVE-2019-17539
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-14
In FFmpeg before 4.2, avcodec_open2 in libavcodec/utils.c allows a NULL pointer dereference and possibly unspecified other impact when there is no valid close function pointer.