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.

IoT
2/10/2020
11:40 AM
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

6 Factors That Raise the Stakes for IoT Security

Developments that exacerbate the risk and complicate making Internet of Things devices more secure.
Previous
1 of 7
Next


The enterprise is finally coming to realize 
just how risky Internet of Things (IoT) devices are to their security postures. Whether it comes from unencrypted communication with devices, hard-coded passwords, vulnerability-ridden unmanaged devices, or insecure configurations, a huge flaw always seems to be lurking around the corner with regard to IoT deployments.
 
It's only natural for new-ish technology. IoT is following a common progression in security maturation that's happened so many times in everything from Wi-Fi to Web apps.
 
However, as IoT progresses, a number of factors add a greater depth to the IoT problem. Some up the ante considerably by putting way more at risk -- either in consequence or cost -- when an IoT device is compromised. Other factors expand the risk surface by exacerbating already extant vulnerabilities in the IoT ecosystem.
 
Either way, read on for some of the most common factors that raise the stakes for IoT and make the problem more acute within the enterprise.

 

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
 

Recommended Reading:

Previous
1 of 7
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
DavidS950U01
50%
50%
DavidS950U01,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/2/2020 | 1:08:42 AM
Question about IoT and smart communities; government duty to regulate and protect.
The article names deployments that could be attcked, such as factories, hospitals or body-connected IoT devices, and facilities. I am curious about the negative potentials presented in the smart communities scenarios. What are the dangers? Paralysis of IoT-dependent traffic control and surveillance, for example? And if not paralysis, what about misdirection (a la Stuxnet)?

Next: it's nice that government regulations will role out in 2020--but where? In this country? With the vaunted repeal of 1200 (and counting) "job-killing" regulations that were originally created to protect public health and safety, exactly which competent agency employees remain to do the regulating? (Think State Department, EPA, CDC, etc.) I think it prudent to write to our elected representatives and make the case for, let's say, following the European example.
Manchester United Suffers Cyberattack
Dark Reading Staff 11/23/2020
As 'Anywhere Work' Evolves, Security Will Be Key Challenge
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  11/23/2020
Cloud Security Startup Lightspin Emerges From Stealth
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  11/24/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win an Amazon Gift Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
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-2020-29378
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-29
An issue was discovered on V-SOL V1600D V2.03.69 and V2.03.57, V1600D4L V1.01.49, V1600D-MINI V1.01.48, V1600G1 V2.0.7 and V1.9.7, and V1600G2 V1.1.4 OLT devices. It is possible to elevate the privilege of a CLI user (to full administrative access) by using the password [email protected]#y$z%x6x7q8c9z) for the e...
CVE-2020-29379
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-29
An issue was discovered on V-SOL V1600D4L V1.01.49 and V1600D-MINI V1.01.48 OLT devices. During the process of updating the firmware, the update script starts a telnetd -l /bin/sh process that does not require authentication for TELNET access.
CVE-2020-29380
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-29
An issue was discovered on V-SOL V1600D V2.03.69 and V2.03.57, V1600D4L V1.01.49, V1600D-MINI V1.01.48, V1600G1 V2.0.7 and V1.9.7, and V1600G2 V1.1.4 OLT devices. TELNET is offered by default but SSH is not always available. An attacker can intercept passwords sent in cleartext and conduct a man-in-...
CVE-2020-29381
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-29
An issue was discovered on V-SOL V1600D V2.03.69 and V2.03.57, V1600D4L V1.01.49, V1600D-MINI V1.01.48, V1600G1 V2.0.7 and V1.9.7, and V1600G2 V1.1.4 OLT devices. Command injection can occur in "upload tftp syslog" and "upload tftp configuration" in the CLI via a crafted filename...
CVE-2020-29382
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-29
An issue was discovered on V-SOL V1600D V2.03.69 and V2.03.57, V1600G1 V2.0.7 and V1.9.7, and V1600G2 V1.1.4 OLT devices. A hardcoded RSA private key (specific to V1600D, V1600G1, and V1600G2) is contained in the firmware images.