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.

Partner Perspectives  Connecting marketers to our tech communities.
3/30/2015
09:35 AM
Lorie Wigle
Lorie Wigle
Partner Perspectives
50%
50%

Defending Cyber-Physical Systems from Attack Chains

A strong defense against compromise involves three layers: hardening devices, securing communications, and monitoring behavior.

If criminals breach data security and steal credit card numbers or personal information, your company suffers loss of reputation and potentially significant intangible costs. If they breach security of your cyber-physical control systems, you could be facing damage or destruction of physical property and significant tangible costs.

Cyber-physical systems, where computers and the Internet meet the real world, cover a wide range of devices. Industrial automation, home control, smart grids, and medical devices are just a few examples. These machines make decisions and take actions based on inputs from physical readings. Cybersecurity for these systems is an extension of reliability, protecting them from faults or damage introduced by cyberattacks.

These attacks follow a similar attack-chain pattern to non-physical attacks, until the final stages. In the initial reconnaissance, they will research the types of equipment you use that could be compromised and then try to find a weakness in your defenses, whether it is digital, physical, or social. Building a weapon that can get through this weakness comes next, followed by attempted delivery. If delivery is successful, the weapon will exploit the security breach to download and install malware targeting the physical system or device.

Once the malware is installed, the attackers can command and control the compromised device, and this is where the game changes. With access to the device, they can observe your normal operations, query sensors, and run test probes to determine what effect they can have.

Nefarious Objectives

The objectives of a cyber-physical attack are usually not data exfiltration, at least not in the large amounts seen in other attacks. Instead, the attackers could be targeting corporate espionage, denial of control, disablement of alarms, manipulation of sensors or actions to adversely affect output, or physical damage. Overt control could be deferred for a long time while they watch, waiting for the right opportunity to execute or to coordinate with other actions.

A carefully researched and executed series of phishing emails gave attackers access to and control of the production systems in a German steel mill in 2014. Disabling various alarms and safety mechanisms, attackers instigated equipment failures that triggered an emergency shutdown of a blast furnace, causing a massive amount of damage.

In another attack in 2013, snipers shot at and damaged 17 electrical transformers in California, causing them to leak coolant, overheat, and shut down. Just before the attack, they cut the phone and data cables in an attempt to disable the alarms. While there was no cyber component to this attack, it provides an example of the potential of a coordinated cyber and physical attack on vulnerable physical systems.

Defending cyber-physical systems from attack and compromise involves three layers: hardening the devices, securing communications, and monitoring behavior. Older devices can be protected by hardened gateways with a tamper-resistant operating system and strong application execution controls, while new ones should have these functions designed in. Communications between all processes, devices, and systems, should be encrypted in virtual private network tunnels to keep them secure from unauthorized interception or modification. And monitoring of the system and all its components needs to be automated, based on clearly defined policies, to quickly distinguish between normal and suspicious behavior and to catch threats as early as possible.

Sharing intelligence on threats and attacks, with industry partners, government agencies, and security companies is another important step in moving up the attack chain. Given the importance of cyber-physical systems to our lives and communities, it is imperative that we secure them from attacks, and I am confident that we have the resolve and ability to do so.

Lorie Wigle is building a new business focused on securing critical infrastructure and IOT more broadly at Intel subsidiary McAfee. Lorie has been with Intel for nearly 30 years in a wide variety of marketing and technical roles. She has an MBA from Portland State University ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
News
Inside the Ransomware Campaigns Targeting Exchange Servers
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  4/2/2021
Commentary
Beyond MITRE ATT&CK: The Case for a New Cyber Kill Chain
Rik Turner, Principal Analyst, Infrastructure Solutions, Omdia,  3/30/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2015-20001
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-11
In the standard library in Rust before 1.2.0, BinaryHeap is not panic-safe. The binary heap is left in an inconsistent state when the comparison of generic elements inside sift_up or sift_down_range panics. This bug leads to a drop of zeroed memory as an arbitrary type, which can result in a memory ...
CVE-2020-36317
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-11
In the standard library in Rust before 1.49.0, String::retain() function has a panic safety problem. It allows creation of a non-UTF-8 Rust string when the provided closure panics. This bug could result in a memory safety violation when other string APIs assume that UTF-8 encoding is used on the sam...
CVE-2020-36318
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-11
In the standard library in Rust before 1.49.0, VecDeque::make_contiguous has a bug that pops the same element more than once under certain condition. This bug could result in a use-after-free or double free.
CVE-2021-28875
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-11
In the standard library in Rust before 1.50.0, read_to_end() does not validate the return value from Read in an unsafe context. This bug could lead to a buffer overflow.
CVE-2021-28876
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-11
In the standard library in Rust before 1.52.0, the Zip implementation has a panic safety issue. It calls __iterator_get_unchecked() more than once for the same index when the underlying iterator panics (in certain conditions). This bug could lead to a memory safety violation due to an unmet safety r...