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.

Vulnerabilities / Threats

7/29/2014
09:15 AM
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Internet Of Things Contains Average Of 25 Vulnerabilities Per Device

New study finds high volume of security flaws in such IoT devices as webcams, home thermostats, remote power outlets, sprinkler controllers, home alarms, and garage door openers.

A new study published this week found that among even among just a small sample of some of the most popular and prevalent Internet of Things (IoT) devices, researchers uncovered 250 vulnerabilities -- many of which were severe and resulted in remote code execution, including vulnerabilities to Heartbleed, denial of service, and cross-site scripting.

Conducted by researchers at HP Fortify, the study was meant to demonstrate what may be found when a more comprehensive and disciplined approach is taken to examining this growing new class of devices.

Daniel Miessler, practice principle for Fortify On Demand at HP Fortify, who led the project, says many of the vulnerability discoveries announced about IoT devices over the last couple of years have been one-off findings.

"We haven't really seen a comprehensive approach when people talk about it -- they might talk about one vulnerability on the device or one relevant Internet vulnerability," he says, explaining that what makes IoT devices different is their multi-faceted nature. "When you think about what all is involved in an Internet of Things device, you've got the device itself, network access, authentication, the Internet component; and all these pieces together are what stack up to be the Internet of Things device. If you're not looking at the big picture, you're missing a lot of stuff."

This is why Miessler earlier this year collaborated with researchers Craig Smith and Jason Haddix to come up with the OWASP Internet of Things Top Ten Project, which delineates the top 10 security problems seen in IoT devices and tips on how to prevent them. For the study, he used that list as a backbone for testing 10 common devices, including a webcam, home thermostat, sprinkler controller, home alarm, and garage door opener.

Among those 10 devices, HP Security Research found an average of 25 vulnerabilities per device. Seven out of 10 of the devices when combined with their cloud and mobile applications gave attackers the ability to identify valid user accounts through enumeration. Nine out of 10 devices collected at least one piece of personal information through the device or related cloud or mobile app; and six of the devices had user interfaces vulnerable to a range of web flaws such as persistent XSS.

"We had one where you were able to log in and get root access to the device, and from there you could actually run and execute commands, pivot over to various locations on the internal  network," Miessler tells us.

He explains that, though many IoT devices are marketed to consumers, these rampant vulnerabilities have quite a bit of relevance for enterprises as well.

"They're not going to be closed to the devices we have here: TVs, webcams, home thermostats. They're not adverse to rolling out prosumer versions of these products, and we're already getting pings from our large corporate customers asking how secure these exact devices are."

And that's not to mention other very corporate devices such as SCADA networks, which exhibit the same multi-faceted attack surfaces as consumer IoT devices, he says. The biggest thing he wants enterprises to realize is they need to broaden their testing horizons lest they miss some very glaring vulnerabilities.

"It's not just cloud, it's not just the device, and it's not just network security," says Miessler. "People shouldn't view it as a one-dimensional problem."

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

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
markoer
50%
50%
markoer,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/30/2014 | 6:06:36 AM
Re: Ok, but....
Thanks a lot, Kelly!
Kelly Jackson Higgins
50%
50%
Kelly Jackson Higgins,
User Rank: Strategist
7/29/2014 | 2:43:42 PM
Re: Ok, but....
Here you go: http://fortifyprotect.com/HP_IoT_Research_Study.pdf

The link has now been added to the story, too. Thanks!
Kelly Jackson Higgins
50%
50%
Kelly Jackson Higgins,
User Rank: Strategist
7/29/2014 | 2:41:22 PM
Re: Ok, but....
Here you go: http://fortifyprotect.com/HP_IoT_Research_Study.pdf

The link has now been added to the story, too. Thanks!
markoer
50%
50%
markoer,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/29/2014 | 12:08:28 PM
Ok, but....
...where is the link to the HP study?...
GonzSTL
50%
50%
GonzSTL,
User Rank: Ninja
7/29/2014 | 10:53:30 AM
Re: 25 vulns/device
I think we have come to accept that all things are vulnerable, so it really boils down to a risk vs benefit/utility analysis. If vulnerabilities can be mitigated without outweighing the benefit or utility, then it becomes an organizational decision. On a personal level, my smartphone is an essential need, but the need to control my home thermostat remotely just doesn't have the same level of utility as my phone, and is the last thing I need to worry about. I guess it all comes down to a matter of priorities.
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
7/29/2014 | 9:44:33 AM
25 vulns/device
That seems pretty high to me, but how does that compare to, for instance, a typical smartphone or tablet? I'd also be curious to know if OWASP has info abut which are most vulnerabe IoT devices on the market.
Firms Improve Threat Detection but Face Increasingly Disruptive Attacks
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  2/20/2020
Ransomware Damage Hit $11.5B in 2019
Dark Reading Staff 2/20/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
6 Emerging Cyber Threats That Enterprises Face in 2020
This Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at six emerging cyber threats that enterprises could face in 2020. Download your copy today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
The concept of application security is well known, but application security testing and remediation processes remain unbalanced. Most organizations are confident in their approach to AppSec, although others seem to have no approach at all. Read this report to find out more.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-17274
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-26
NetApp FAS 8300/8700 and AFF A400 Baseboard Management Controller (BMC) firmware versions 13.x prior to 13.1P1 were shipped with a default account enabled that could allow unauthorized arbitrary command execution via local access.
CVE-2019-17275
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-26
OnCommand Cloud Manager versions prior to 3.8.0 are susceptible to arbitrary code execution by remote attackers.
CVE-2020-3169
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-26
A vulnerability in the CLI of Cisco FXOS Software could allow an authenticated, local attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying Linux operating system with a privilege level of root on an affected device. The vulnerability is due to insufficient validation of arguments passed to a spe...
CVE-2020-3170
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-26
A vulnerability in the NX-API feature of Cisco NX-OS Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause an NX-API system process to unexpectedly restart. The vulnerability is due to incorrect validation of the HTTP header of a request that is sent to the NX-API. An attacker could expl...
CVE-2020-3171
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-26
A vulnerability in the local management (local-mgmt) CLI of Cisco FXOS Software and Cisco UCS Manager Software could allow an authenticated, local attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system (OS) of an affected device. The vulnerability is due to insufficient input vali...