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.
Stop Defending Everything
Kevin Kurzawa, Senior Information Security Auditor,  2/12/2020
Small Business Security: 5 Tips on How and Where to Start
Mike Puglia, Chief Strategy Officer at Kaseya,  2/13/2020
5 Common Errors That Allow Attackers to Go Undetected
Matt Middleton-Leal, General Manager and Chief Security Strategist, Netwrix,  2/12/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
6 Emerging Cyber Threats That Enterprises Face in 2020
This Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at six emerging cyber threats that enterprises could face in 2020. Download your copy today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
The concept of application security is well known, but application security testing and remediation processes remain unbalanced. Most organizations are confident in their approach to AppSec, although others seem to have no approach at all. Read this report to find out more.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-20477
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-19
PyYAML 5.1 through 5.1.2 has insufficient restrictions on the load and load_all functions because of a class deserialization issue, e.g., Popen is a class in the subprocess module. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2017-18342.
CVE-2019-20478
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-19
In ruamel.yaml through 0.16.7, the load method allows remote code execution if the application calls this method with an untrusted argument. In other words, this issue affects developers who are unaware of the need to use methods such as safe_load in these use cases.
CVE-2011-2054
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-19
A vulnerability in the Cisco ASA that could allow a remote attacker to successfully authenticate using the Cisco AnyConnect VPN client if the Secondary Authentication type is LDAP and the password is left blank, providing the primary credentials are correct. The vulnerabilities is due to improper in...
CVE-2015-0749
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-19
A vulnerability in Cisco Unified Communications Manager could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to conduct a cross-site scripting (XSS) attack on the affected software. The vulnerabilities is due to improper input validation of certain parameters passed to the affected software. An attacker ...
CVE-2015-9543
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-19
An issue was discovered in OpenStack Nova before 18.2.4, 19.x before 19.1.0, and 20.x before 20.1.0. It can leak consoleauth tokens into log files. An attacker with read access to the service's logs may obtain tokens used for console access. All Nova setups using novncproxy are affected. This is rel...