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.
The Problem with Proprietary Testing: NSS Labs vs. CrowdStrike
Brian Monkman, Executive Director at NetSecOPEN,  7/19/2019
How Attackers Infiltrate the Supply Chain & What to Do About It
Shay Nahari, Head of Red-Team Services at CyberArk,  7/16/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Building and Managing an IT Security Operations Program
As cyber threats grow, many organizations are building security operations centers (SOCs) to improve their defenses. In this Tech Digest you will learn tips on how to get the most out of a SOC in your organization - and what to do if you can't afford to build one.
Flash Poll
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
Your enterprise's cyber risk may depend upon the relationship between the IT team and the security team. Heres some insight on what's working and what isn't in the data center.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-13096
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-22
TronLink Wallet 2.2.0 stores user wallet keystore in plaintext and places them in insecure storage. An attacker can read and reuse the user keystore of a valid user via /data/data/com.tronlink.wallet/shared_prefs/<wallet-name>.xml to gain unauthorized access.
CVE-2019-13097
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-22
The application API of Cat Runner Decorate Home version 2.8.0 for Android does not sufficiently verify inputs that are assumed to be immutable but are actually externally controllable. Attackers can manipulate users' score parameters exchanged between client and server.
CVE-2019-10102
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-22
OFFIS.de DCMTK 3.6.3 and below is affected by: Buffer Overflow. The impact is: Possible code execution and confirmed Denial of Service. The component is: DcmRLEDecoder::decompress() (file dcrledec.h, line 122). The attack vector is: Many scenarios of DICOM file processing (e.g. DICOM to image conver...
CVE-2019-12326
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-22
Missing file and path validation in the ringtone upload function of the Akuvox R50P VoIP phone 50.0.6.156 allows an attacker to upload a manipulated ringtone file, with an executable payload (shell commands within the file) and trigger code execution.
CVE-2019-13100
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-22
The Send Anywhere application 9.4.18 for Android stores confidential information insecurely on the system (i.e., in cleartext), which allows a non-root user to find out the username/password of a valid user via /data/data/com.estmob.android.sendanywhere/shared_prefs/sendanywhere_device.xml.