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.

Perimeter

1/31/2018
01:00 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

IoT Botnets by the Numbers

IoT devices are a botherder's dream attack-vector.
Previous
1 of 10
Next

Image Source: Adobe Stock

Image Source: Adobe Stock

Even before Mirai burst onto the scene a year-and-a-half ago, security experts had been warning anyone who listened about how juicy Internet of things (IoT) devices were looking to criminal botnet herders. Proliferating faster than black t-shirts at a security conference, IoT sensors have spread throughout our personal and business lives inside cameras, automobiles, TVs, refrigerators, wearable technology, and more.

They offer the perfect combination of variables for attackers seeking an ideal botnet node: ubiquity, connectivity, poor default settings, rampant software vulnerability - and utter forgetability. Once these devices are deployed, they're rarely patched or even monitored. So it was only a matter of time before cybercriminals started harvesting them for botnet operations.

Mirai offered one of the first large-scale implementations of IoT botnets, and since its inception in late 2016 the attacks have been relentless.

Here is a rundown of some of the most relevant stats around IoT botnet attacks.

 

Ericka Chickowski specializes in coverage of information technology and business innovation. She has focused on information security for the better part of a decade and regularly writes about the security industry as a contributor to Dark Reading.  View Full Bio

Previous
1 of 10
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
BrianN060
50%
50%
BrianN060,
User Rank: Ninja
2/5/2018 | 7:18:27 PM
Re: Frightening? Gets worse
@REISEN: I wouldn't put implanted medical devices in the same risk category as "smart" home appliances.  You have a couple of layers of added safeguard protection.

Your doctors and the device maker are responsible (in both senses of the word).  It's also probable that your device can't be reprogrammed remotely.  Interception and misuse of your device's sensor data is technically possible; but hard to imagine anyone wanting to.  Contact your doctor, if you need more reasons not to worry about it.  -- Wish you well.  
REISEN1955
50%
50%
REISEN1955,
User Rank: Ninja
2/5/2018 | 2:12:23 PM
Frightening? Gets worse
I am the owner of an internal defibulator (could be a pacemaker for arguments sake) and it has a wireless output to a small box in my kitchen to transmit data and box by phone to hospital.  Now I wonder about that? 
BrianN060
50%
50%
BrianN060,
User Rank: Ninja
2/5/2018 | 11:53:57 AM
Re: Why is anybody surprised?
"...computer systems have proven to be vulnerable, why should we trust IOT personal items to be any different?"  In some ways IOT is worse - principally, in that compromise is less noticeable, until it's painfully obvious.  Even when attackers make no special effort to remain undetected, IoT device processing is generally not user interactive, and a hack doesn't have to be disruptive: "Ah! The fridge door located at this address hasn't been opened in 3 days; I bet they're out of town."
rjones2818
50%
50%
rjones2818,
User Rank: Strategist
2/5/2018 | 10:40:09 AM
Why is anybody surprised?
The fault lies with the companies who have unleashed an immature technology upon the world in a rush to grub for more money.  Many regular computer systems have proven to be vulnerable, why should we trust IOT personal items to be any different?
jenshadus
50%
50%
jenshadus,
User Rank: Strategist
2/5/2018 | 9:23:43 AM
Don't want no IoT
It's hard to find appliances, cars, office equipment without IoT anymore.  And it's frightening.  I have a pretty old kitchen, so I'm not worred about it, but when things break down will anything I choose include IoT comms on it?  Will I have the choice of turning off any communication?  How will this affect self driving cars.  This really is could become very scary.

I agree with the 1st post.  We've reared of a generation of me, dependent, and spoiled.  Far in between there are golden nuggets, but they may not be easy to find.
BrianN060
50%
50%
BrianN060,
User Rank: Ninja
1/31/2018 | 3:36:30 PM
Brought to justice?
"...three creators of Mirai come to justice..."  5 years and $250k fines are a lot for people that didn't kill anyone; but trivial compared to the economic damage they  caused.  I hope we all realize that economic damage can severely damage lives - even fataly. 

"...developed Mirai in their dorm room."  That highlights the culture component of the problem.  Solutions there will be difficult and generational. 
7 Truths About BEC Scams
Ericka Chickowski, Contributing Writer,  6/13/2019
DNS Firewalls Could Prevent Billions in Losses to Cybercrime
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  6/13/2019
Can Your Patching Strategy Keep Up with the Demands of Open Source?
Tim Mackey, Principal Security Strategist, CyRC, at Synopsys,  6/18/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Building and Managing an IT Security Operations Program
As cyber threats grow, many organizations are building security operations centers (SOCs) to improve their defenses. In this Tech Digest you will learn tips on how to get the most out of a SOC in your organization - and what to do if you can't afford to build one.
Flash Poll
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
Your enterprise's cyber risk may depend upon the relationship between the IT team and the security team. Heres some insight on what's working and what isn't in the data center.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-12875
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-18
Alpine Linux abuild through 3.4.0 allows an unprivileged member of the abuild group to add an untrusted package via a --keys-dir option that causes acceptance of an untrusted signing key.
CVE-2017-8335
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-18
An issue was discovered on Securifi Almond, Almond+, and Almond 2015 devices with firmware AL-R096. The device provides a user with the capability of setting name for wireless network. These values are stored by the device in NVRAM (Non-volatile RAM). It seems that the POST parameters passed in this...
CVE-2017-8336
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-18
An issue was discovered on Securifi Almond, Almond+, and Almond 2015 devices with firmware AL-R096. The device provides a user with the capability of adding new routes to the device. It seems that the POST parameters passed in this request to set up routes on the device can be set in such a way that...
CVE-2019-12874
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-18
An issue was discovered in zlib_decompress_extra in modules/demux/mkv/util.cpp in VideoLAN VLC media player 3.x through 3.0.7. The Matroska demuxer, while parsing a malformed MKV file type, has a double free.
CVE-2012-6711
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-18
A heap-based buffer overflow exists in GNU Bash before 4.3 when wide characters, not supported by the current locale set in the LC_CTYPE environment variable, are printed through the echo built-in function. A local attacker, who can provide data to print through the "echo -e" built-in func...