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.


Navigating Security in the Cloud
Diya Jolly, Chief Product Officer, Okta,  12/4/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: "The security team seem to be taking SiegeWare seriously" 
Current Issue
Navigating the Deluge of Security Data
In this Tech Digest, Dark Reading shares the experiences of some top security practitioners as they navigate volumes of security data. We examine some examples of how enterprises can cull this data to find the clues they need.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2012-1114
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-05
A Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in LDAP Account Manager (LAM) Pro 3.6 in the filter parameter to cmd.php in an export and exporter_id action. and the filteruid parameter to list.php.
CVE-2012-1115
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-05
A Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in LDAP Account Manager (LAM) Pro 3.6 in the export, add_value_form, and dn parameters to cmd.php.
CVE-2012-1592
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-05
A local code execution issue exists in Apache Struts2 when processing malformed XSLT files, which could let a malicious user upload and execute arbitrary files.
CVE-2019-16770
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-05
A poorly-behaved client could use keepalive requests to monopolize Puma's reactor and create a denial of service attack. If more keepalive connections to Puma are opened than there are threads available, additional connections will wait permanently if the attacker sends requests frequently enough.
CVE-2019-19609
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-05
The Strapi framework before 3.0.0-beta.17.8 is vulnerable to Remote Code Execution in the Install and Uninstall Plugin components of the Admin panel, because it does not sanitize the plugin name, and attackers can inject arbitrary shell commands to be executed by the execa function.