Comments
Majority of Consumers Believe IoT Needs Security Built In
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
rwsmarine
50%
50%
rwsmarine,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/15/2017 | 3:23:54 PM
nomenclature
wht couldn't the nomenclature of the device be its temp password?  As soon as it comes online or booted the first time a mandatory password change is required.  Quick easy not great but at least its something.  Every device has a sn# to it and their all different
mikeroch
50%
50%
mikeroch,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/27/2017 | 11:40:39 AM
Re: Consumer vs manufacturers 192.168.1.1?
Absolutely agree with Dr. T, the responsibility should majorly be upon the manufacturer, it's simple, I buy some product of some brand, I trust them but due to their mistake I suffer the loss. So, even, knowing that it was good company, they failed to stand on it as they did wrong with the product. So, the 56% should be on the manufacturer side. So, IoT should be much cared by the manufacturer.
Nry2137
100%
0%
Nry2137,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/26/2017 | 12:29:05 PM
Re: Consumer vs manufacturer?
I believe the responsibility resides with both parties. However, in order to understand the responsibilities involved with security, I also believe that both parties, users specifically, need to be educated on their expected responsibilities. 
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
7/26/2017 | 10:40:54 AM
Consumer vs manufacturer?
 

"Overall, however, 56% believe it is the responsibility of both the consumer and manufacturer."

I think it should be manufacturer responsibility to secure the device, most customers would not even know how to use the device forget about the security.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
7/26/2017 | 10:38:42 AM
IoT Security
If the device is doing more than one thing and connected to other devices security should be mandatory. If not and simply ringing the door bell and not connected to other things, why go so much trouble and make it expenses, basic security should be ok.


White House Cybersecurity Strategy at a Crossroads
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  7/17/2018
The Fundamental Flaw in Security Awareness Programs
Ira Winkler, CISSP, President, Secure Mentem,  7/19/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-14492
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-21
Tenda AC7 through V15.03.06.44_CN, AC9 through V15.03.05.19(6318)_CN, and AC10 through V15.03.06.23_CN devices have a Stack-based Buffer Overflow via a long limitSpeed or limitSpeedup parameter to an unspecified /goform URI.
CVE-2018-3770
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-20
A path traversal exists in markdown-pdf version <9.0.0 that allows a user to insert a malicious html code that can result in reading the local files.
CVE-2018-3771
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-20
An XSS in statics-server <= 0.0.9 can be used via injected iframe in the filename when statics-server displays directory index in the browser.
CVE-2018-5065
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-20
Adobe Acrobat and Reader 2018.011.20040 and earlier, 2017.011.30080 and earlier, and 2015.006.30418 and earlier versions have a Use-after-free vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user.
CVE-2018-5066
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-20
Adobe Acrobat and Reader 2018.011.20040 and earlier, 2017.011.30080 and earlier, and 2015.006.30418 and earlier versions have an Out-of-bounds read vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to information disclosure.