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.

Threat Intelligence

12/24/2019
09:00 AM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail
100%
0%

IoT Security: How Far We've Come, How Far We Have to Go

As organizations fear the proliferations of connected devices on enterprise networks, the private and public sector come together to address IoT vulnerabilities.

The Internet of Things is bringing every aspect of our lives online. Phones, watches, printers, thermostats, lightbulbs, cameras, and refrigerators are only a handful of devices connecting to home and enterprise networks. This web of products is seemingly intended to make everyday tasks more convenient; unfortunately, their weak security gives attackers an easy route in.

"[The IoT] is still a computer on a network, but it's different," says Joseph Carson, chief security scientist with Thycotic. Unlike traditional PCs, the functionality for IoT devices is very specific; further, they're designed to be inexpensive and simple to deploy. As more employees bring devices into the workplace and connect them to Wi-Fi, the challenge to protect them escalates.

Enterprise devices not historically connected to the Internet are now part of the IoT, complicating the issue, adds Deral Heiland, IoT research lead at Rapid7. He points to multi-functional printers, which he says have long been a corporate security risk. Modern printers can control myriad functions, send data over the Internet, or print remotely via the cloud.

"One of the big things I run into at a lot of organizations is, 'What really is the IoT?'" he says. "Things that weren't on the IoT a decade ago, which have always been in the environment, have morphed into IoT technology." As a result, many businesses don't understand the full breadth of devices putting them at risk.

Routers, printers, and IP cameras are among the most prominently discussed devices in corporate IoT security. Cybercriminals are studying the IoT attack surface, figuring out what works and doesn't work, and how they can profit from vulnerabilities in connected devices. A recent Trend Micro report sheds light on how attackers profit from the IoT: many sell access to hacked IoT devices built into botnets; others extort owners of connected industrial equipment.

In particular, security experts point to the Mirai botnet as a turning point for connected device security. Mirai and its variants "seem to be the big one these days," says Jon Clay, Trend Micro's director of global threat communications. The botnet has "stifled creativity" in the underground for this type of malware: it's open-source and free, so attackers don't have to work very hard.

"The attack surface is growing incrementally," he says. "There are so many new devices coming online." Criminals are narrowing their focus on IoT, evolving from ransomware or point-of-sale malware to specifically targeting connected devices.

Compounding the danger of IoT threats is the rise of nation-state attackers, who are targeting firmware at scale or leveraging connected devices in DDoS attacks. They don't have to attack a major entity in order to have far-reaching effects, either: as NotPetya demonstrated, a nation-state actor could target one single component supplier to have devastating consequences.

Organizations' attitude toward IoT security is similar to their approach to smartphones several years back, Heiland says. Now, they're in the early stages of how they'll improve their business model and put together processes to stay secure. At the same time, standards and regulations are emerging to inform manufacturers how to build security into these devices from the start.

Where Businesses and Manufacturers Fall Short

A combination of poor device security and higher interest among attackers is driving businesses to pay more attention to the IoT. "The attack surface they're responsible for has grown so immensely," says Mike Janke, CEO of DataTribe, where a group of advisory CISOs uses the term "shadow IoT" to refer to the smartwatches, headphones, and tablets appearing on networks.

"That's a big pain because [the CISOs] are ultimately responsible," he continues, noting most don't have the budget, people, or resources to combat the problem. "It's very frustrating."

Many companies continue to struggle with patch management efforts, adds Clay, which adds to the challenge as IoT device manufacturers typically require users to apply updates. "A lot of these devices aren't traditional PCs," he explains. "Even though they have operating systems and applications inside, they aren't treated like a server or a PC is in an organization."

Carson advises organizations to consider the function of IoT devices before permitting them on a corporate network. Is it a data collector or aggregator? Can the rest of the network be accessed through the device? Does it introduce new threats? Who owns the device; can they view or download data? He suggests personal devices be required to access a guest network.

                                                                      (Continued on Next Page)

Kelly Sheridan is the Staff Editor at Dark Reading, where she focuses on cybersecurity news and analysis. She is a business technology journalist who previously reported for InformationWeek, where she covered Microsoft, and Insurance & Technology, where she covered financial ... View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Previous
1 of 3
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
tlanowitz
50%
50%
tlanowitz,
User Rank: Author
1/24/2020 | 11:58:04 AM
Need for a Shared Security Model
This insightful article exemplifies the need for a shared security model. In a shared security model, the enterprise assumes responsibility for devices (IoT in this example) on the network. And, with a 5G network, which will allow IoT initiatives to gain momentum in the market, the network operator is responsible for the elements of security listed out in 3GPP frameworks and standards (i.e. data encryption and radio access network) as well as the handling the security of the network infrastructure.
More SolarWinds Attack Details Emerge
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  1/12/2021
Vulnerability Management Has a Data Problem
Tal Morgenstern, Co-Founder & Chief Product Officer, Vulcan Cyber,  1/14/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
2020: The Year in Security
Download this Tech Digest for a look at the biggest security stories that - so far - have shaped a very strange and stressful year.
Flash Poll
Assessing Cybersecurity Risk in Today's Enterprises
Assessing Cybersecurity Risk in Today's Enterprises
COVID-19 has created a new IT paradigm in the enterprise -- and a new level of cybersecurity risk. This report offers a look at how enterprises are assessing and managing cyber-risk under the new normal.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-35128
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-19
Mautic before 3.2.4 is affected by stored XSS. An attacker with permission to manage companies, an application feature, could attack other users, including administrators. For example, by loading an externally crafted JavaScript file, an attacker could eventually perform actions as the target user. ...
CVE-2020-35129
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-19
Mautic before 3.2.4 is affected by stored XSS. An attacker with access to Social Monitoring, an application feature, could attack other users, including administrators. For example, an attacker could load an externally drafted JavaScript file that would allow them to eventually perform actions on th...
CVE-2020-23342
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-19
A CSRF vulnerability exists in Anchor CMS 0.12.7 anchor/views/users/edit.php that can change the Delete admin users.
CVE-2020-20950
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-19
Bleichenbacher's attack on PKCS #1 v1.5 padding for RSA in Microchip Libraries for Applications 2018-11-26 All up to 2018-11-26. The vulnerability can allow one to use Bleichenbacher's oracle attack to decrypt an encrypted ciphertext by making successive queries to the server using the vulnerable li...
CVE-2020-23522
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-19
Pixelimity 1.0 has cross-site request forgery via the admin/setting.php data [Password] parameter.