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.

Risk

9/5/2014
03:00 PM
Marilyn Cohodas
Marilyn Cohodas
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

Poll: Significant Insecurity About Internet of Things

Fewer than one percent of more than 800 Dark Reading community members are ready for the fast approaching security onslaught of the IoT.

Which "Thing" of the Internet of Things represents the greatest potential security risk? They all do, according to the latest Dark Reading community poll, Security of "Things."

Admittedly, the choices in our unscientific instant poll are somewhat loaded.

When asked to select from a list of six diverse and connected “things” -- cars, cellphones, commercial transportation and communication systems, home appliances, medical devices, and wearables -- starting to show up in today’s consumer and business marketplaces, respondents, not surprisingly, gave the biggest nod to cell phones (16 percent).

But by far the most popular response, was our tongue-in-cheek “Pick just one? You've got to be kidding,” a viewpoint shared by more than half (52 percent) of all 812 participants. Only a scant 6 percent of our most fearless, less risk-averse community members appear undaunted by the expanding attack surface in this newly hyperconnected world. Their mantra was the option, “Can't wait. Bring 'em all on!”

The most revealing response, though, was the scant few -- representing less than 1 percent -- who say they are “somewhat concerned” about public safety and product security in the not-so-distant-world of connected devices. But they believe that the security industry “can handle the risk.”

Now it’s your turn. Is the security industry up to the IoT challenge? What are your biggest concerns? What role can you, as a security practitioner, play? Share your thoughts in the comments.

Marilyn has been covering technology for business, government, and consumer audiences for over 20 years. Prior to joining UBM, Marilyn worked for nine years as editorial director at TechTarget Inc., where she launched six Websites for IT managers and administrators supporting ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Some Guy
50%
50%
Some Guy,
User Rank: Moderator
9/11/2014 | 3:06:12 PM
Biggest Risk is to First Responders
Governments are more worried about the risks of loss of personally identifiable information than they are for the continuity of systems that support first responders.

That's just wrong. In the former instance, they are going to get sued, in the later, the very fabric of society is at risk (e.g., the Superdome after Katrina). So dispatch centers, comms & command and control systems, fire/police/ambulance in-vehicle systems, and emergency-rooms are the targets that I worry about first.
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
9/8/2014 | 9:21:41 AM
Re: Biggest risk? No standards!
Standards are definitely a big issue, @Stratustician, not the least of which is getting the manufacturing industry to heed the advice of the security industry. Don A. Bailey from Lab Mouse Security recently blogged for us about his efforts to develop security frameworks for the IoT (See http://www.darkreading.com/vulnerabilities---threats/all-in-for-the-coming-world-of-things/a/d-id/1298209?page_number=2)And he's looking for reviewers.

One particularly tough frameworks issue is the Goldilocks problem of developing a set of standards that is not overly broad or overly narrow. Don wrote: 

Since everyone was essentially using the same model across all verticals to design and deploy Internet of Things technology, a framework became almost too simple. But, there are a lot of unexpected issues with IoT security frameworks. This is not because frameworks or IoT technologies hold bizarre surprises hidden under PCB boards (although some manufactured in certain countries might). It's because the deployment environments for embedded/IoT devices bring unexpected attacks that you would not otherwise see in server or desktop environments.

Stratustician
50%
50%
Stratustician,
User Rank: Moderator
9/8/2014 | 9:06:15 AM
Biggest risk? No standards!
Well, the good news is that over half realize just about everything is a potential risk when it comes to IoT.  For me, the real risk comes from the fact that many of these connected devices were designed without universal standards so trying to patch security as part of an afterthought is going to reveal some real big headaches.  What we need is a security standard to be created and built into these devices to protect the transmission of information.  Until this piece is figured out, it's probably going to be a bit of an uphill climb for awhile.
For Cybersecurity to Be Proactive, Terrains Must Be Mapped
Craig Harber, Chief Technology Officer at Fidelis Cybersecurity,  10/8/2019
A Realistic Threat Model for the Masses
Lysa Myers, Security Researcher, ESET,  10/9/2019
USB Drive Security Still Lags
Dark Reading Staff 10/9/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
7 Threats & Disruptive Forces Changing the Face of Cybersecurity
This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at the biggest emerging threats and disruptive forces that are changing the face of cybersecurity today.
Flash Poll
2019 Online Malware and Threats
2019 Online Malware and Threats
As cyberattacks become more frequent and more sophisticated, enterprise security teams are under unprecedented pressure to respond. Is your organization ready?
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-17545
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-14
GDAL through 3.0.1 has a poolDestroy double free in OGRExpatRealloc in ogr/ogr_expat.cpp when the 10MB threshold is exceeded.
CVE-2019-17546
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-14
tif_getimage.c in LibTIFF through 4.0.10, as used in GDAL through 3.0.1 and other products, has an integer overflow that potentially causes a heap-based buffer overflow via a crafted RGBA image, related to a "Negative-size-param" condition.
CVE-2019-17547
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-14
In ImageMagick before 7.0.8-62, TraceBezier in MagickCore/draw.c has a use-after-free.
CVE-2019-17501
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-14
Centreon 19.04 allows attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands via the Command Line field of main.php?p=60807&type=4 (aka the Configuration > Commands > Discovery screen).
CVE-2019-17539
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-14
In FFmpeg before 4.2, avcodec_open2 in libavcodec/utils.c allows a NULL pointer dereference and possibly unspecified other impact when there is no valid close function pointer.