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
8/4/2020
10:00 AM
Karen Walsh
Karen Walsh
Commentary
Connect Directly
Facebook
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

Securing IoT as a Remote Workforce Strategy

Digital transformation with Internet of Things devices offers organizations a way forward in the era of COVID-19. Optimizing this approach for the future will need to start with security.

Regardless of how long workers remain locked down in quasi-quarantine, remote work is the new wave of the future. Although many companies have remote work policies, few existed as primarily distributed workforces prior to March 2020. However, as with everything else, companies seeking to secure their remote workers need to move away from traditional security methodologies and look for technologies that enable digital transformation while mitigating the risks from cloud-first or cloud-only IT ecosystems.

The Internet of Things (IoT) presents organizations with a dual-edged sword. While it enables companies to monitor processes from a distance, the inability to secure IoT heightens security risks. The technologies themselves are inherently risky and lack a cohesive set of security protocols both during development and while being used. Assessing IoT risk and implementing security controls for the devices means understanding the gaps that relying solely on traditional methodologies and closing those gaps.

With that in mind, companies need to focus directly on solutions that secure IoT technologies which creates an entirely new attack surface as these devices move toward becoming cornerstones of a distributed workforce. Below are three important questions to get started.

Question 1: What are your organization's IoT security risks?
IoT historically lacks a set of cohesive security guidelines, making the devices more difficult to protect. Their low levels of processing power and memory undermine security controls such as encryption. Simultaneously, in the early days of IoT, device manufacturing designers and developers rarely thought to insert security protections, leading to security issues such as requiring manual security updates, incorporating default passwords many users fail to change, and leaving open backdoors that malicious actors can use.

Question 2: How will your team secure IoT devices?
As organizations accelerate their cloud-first and cloud-only initiatives, they also need to work toward securing IoT, which has often been left out of security frameworks. In May 2020, the Internet of Things Security Foundation (IoTSF) released the second version of its IoT Security Compliance Framework (IoTSCF). According to the IoTSCF, organizations need to take a risk-based approach to IoT security by creating "compliance classes" and weighing the security objectives of confidentiality, integrity, and availability.

Some mandatory controls listed in the IoTSCF across all risk classes include ensuring the following:

  • The product's processor system has an irrevocable hardware Secure Boot process.
  • The product has measures to prevent unauthenticated software and files being loaded on to it.
  • The software images can be digitally signed by an appropriate authority for remote software updates.
  • Software update packages include a digital signature, signing certificate, and signing certificate chain verified prior to updating the device.
  • Processes for reverting to last known good configurations when a device cannot verify the authenticity of the updates.
  • Factory issues or reset password is unique to each device in a product family.
  • Products require a password.
  • Ability to change factory default user login passwords when installed or commissioned.

Although many of these mandatory controls align with traditional security controls, such as generating unique user passwords, IoT certificate authentication means organizations need to look for providers that can meet these needs.

Question 3: What should I look for in an IoT authentication tool?
As with all cybersecurity issues, there is no "one-size-fits-all" approach to IoT authentication, primarily because IoT development itself lacks a standard approach. In short, for organizations leveraging IoT as part of their remote work plans, finding the right tool to manage IoT authentication requires research and review.

As part of that review, IT departments should incorporate:

  • Device authentication: For each connected device, the tool should be able to incorporate credentials, symmetric keys, certificates, or tokens.
  • User authentication: Incorporating multifactor authentication for users who access IoT devices can increase security.
  • System authentication: Connected devices and users need to be granted only the necessary access to complete mission functions.
  • Platform-generated certificates: Any IoT platform should generate and load a unique certificate to the device.
  • Device-generated keys: Devices should be able to generate asymmetric keys in response to the certificates loaded by the platform.

Successfully managing IoT access requires organizations to consistently verify the devices and ensure continued appropriate maintenance over them. While many organizations understand this in terms of human users, they often need to think more creatively about devices as "identities."

Functionally, organizations need to enforce their own security risk tolerance rather than being led by device manufacturers. Leveraging digital certificates and public key infrastructure (PKI) as part of the device to system communication process can act as a way to incorporate encryption and authentication throughout the IoT deployment.

Moving Toward the Future
Increased IoT device deployments may be a way to maintain business continuity and grow a remote workforce across industries that traditionally rely on in-person, on-premises operations. However, organizations can leverage these devices only if they can maintain a robust cybersecurity posture. To move toward that future, organizations incorporating IoT as part of their digital transformation strategy must start by securing the devices purposefully and in alignment with the new IoTSCF to mitigate both data breach and compliance risks.

Related Content:

 

 

Register now for this year's fully virtual Black Hat USA, scheduled to take place August 1–6, and get more information about the event on the Black Hat website. Click for details on conference information and to register.

Karen Walsh is a data-driven compliance expert focused on cybersecurity and privacy who believes that securing today's data protects tomorrow's users. Her work includes collaboration with security analysts and ghostwriting for C-suite level security leaders across a variety ... View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 9/25/2020
Hacking Yourself: Marie Moe and Pacemaker Security
Gary McGraw Ph.D., Co-founder Berryville Institute of Machine Learning,  9/21/2020
Startup Aims to Map and Track All the IT and Security Things
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/22/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15208
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, when determining the common dimension size of two tensors, TFLite uses a `DCHECK` which is no-op outside of debug compilation modes. Since the function always returns the dimension of the first tensor, malicious attackers can ...
CVE-2020-15209
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, a crafted TFLite model can force a node to have as input a tensor backed by a `nullptr` buffer. This can be achieved by changing a buffer index in the flatbuffer serialization to convert a read-only tensor to a read-write one....
CVE-2020-15210
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, if a TFLite saved model uses the same tensor as both input and output of an operator, then, depending on the operator, we can observe a segmentation fault or just memory corruption. We have patched the issue in d58c96946b and ...
CVE-2020-15211
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, saved models in the flatbuffer format use a double indexing scheme: a model has a set of subgraphs, each subgraph has a set of operators and each operator has a set of input/output tensors. The flatbuffer format uses indices f...
CVE-2020-15212
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, models using segment sum can trigger writes outside of bounds of heap allocated buffers by inserting negative elements in the segment ids tensor. Users having access to `segment_ids_data` can alter `output_index` and then write to outside of `outpu...