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.

Comments
NIST Issues IoT Risk Guidelines
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.


Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
News
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
Commentary
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
The State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
In this report learn how enterprises are building their incident response teams and processes, how they research potential compromises, how they respond to new breaches, and what tools and processes they use to remediate problems and improve their cyber defenses for the future.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-29741
PUBLISHED: 2021-08-02
IBM AIX 7.1, 7.2, and VIOS 3.1 could allow a local user to exploit a vulnerability in Korn Shell (ksh) to gain root privileges. IBM X-Force ID: 201478.
CVE-2021-37840
PUBLISHED: 2021-08-02
aaPanel through 6.8.12 allows Cross-Site WebSocket Hijacking (CSWH) involving OS commands within WebSocket messages at a ws:// URL for /webssh (the victim must have configured Terminal with at least one host). Successful exploitation depends on the browser used by a potential victim (e.g., exploitat...
CVE-2021-20332
PUBLISHED: 2021-08-02
Specific MongoDB Rust Driver versions can include credentials used by the connection pool to authenticate connections in the monitoring event that is emitted when the pool is created. The user's logging infrastructure could then potentially ingest these events and unexpectedly leak the credentials. ...
CVE-2021-37160
PUBLISHED: 2021-08-02
A firmware validation issue was discovered in HMI3 Control Panel in Swisslog Healthcare Nexus Panel operated by released versions of software before Nexus Software 7.2.5.7. There is no firmware validation (e.g., cryptographic signature validation) during a File Upload for a firmware update.
CVE-2021-37161
PUBLISHED: 2021-08-02
A buffer overflow issue was discovered in the HMI3 Control Panel contained within the Swisslog Healthcare Nexus Panel, operated by released versions of software before Nexus Software 7.2.5.7. A buffer overflow allows an attacker to overwrite an internal queue data structure and can lead to remote co...