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
5/22/2019
09:15 AM
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Consumer IoT Devices Are Compromising Enterprise Networks

While IoT devices continue to multiply, the latest studies show a dangerous lack of visibility into those connected to enterprise networks.

Consumer-grade Internet of Things (IoT) devices continue to multiply within enterprise networks, according to a new report out today that shows these IoT devices open up organizations to a wide range of attacks. 

With data pulled from more than 1,000 enterprise organizations running one or more IoT devices in its network, the "2019 IoT Threats Report" study was conducted by researchers at Zscaler ThreatLabZ. Their goal was to survey the IoT attack surface within typical enterprises by looking at IoT device footprints over the course of a one-month period. It found that the organizations under study were running 270 different IoT device profiles from 153 different IoT manufacturers. All told, these devices pumped out 56 million device transactions over the course of a single month. 

For the most part, all of that IoT data is flying around in the clear. Researchers found that 91.5% of IoT transactions are conducted over a plaintext channel, and a scant 18% of IoT devices running that use SSL exclusively to communicate in enterprise settings.

That low level of encryption should come as no surprise, considering how many consumer-class devices were represented in the mix of IoT devices found in these business environments. Zscaler reports that the top four IoT devices most often seen in the study were set-top boxes, smart TVs, smart watches, and media players. The study shows that in some ways, the IoT phenomenon is just another cycle of the BYOD challenges that security teams were first forced to face a decade ago during the early days of the smartphone boom.

"Many of the devices are employee-owned, and this is just one of the reasons they are a security concern," the report explained.

One of the other big concerns is the high use of default and hard-coded passwords present in IoT devices — a favorite weakness among the most common malware families targeting IoT devices, which included Mirai, Gafgyt, and Hakai. The report said Zscaler blocked about 6,000 malicious transactions on devices during the study period.

"Often, the IoT malware payloads contain a list of known default username/password names, which, among other things, enables one infected IoT device to infect another," the report noted. It explained that Mirai, in particular, also favored leveraging vulnerabilities in IoT management frameworks that could help attackers achieve remote code execution.

Similar to those heady early days of smartphone proliferation, enterprises are reporting extremely low visibility into IoT device prevalence and activity within their networks. A study released by Ponemon Institute earlier this month showed that only 5% of organizations say they keep an inventory of all managed IoT devices. What's more, more than half of organizations do not classify risk from IoT devices based on their functionality or the type of data the devices process or have access to. A lot of this lack of governance boils down to visibility gaps. The Ponemon report found that 49% of enterprises do not regularly scan for IoT devices in the workplace, and only 8% say they have the capability to scan for IoT devices in real-time. 

The good news in all of this is that many enterprises are well-aware of this IoT security visibility gap and are working toward a solution. A study released yesterday by IDG and PulseSecure showed that 46% of enterprises today say that enhancing IoT discovery, isolation, and access control is a top IT priority in 2019.

Related Content:

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
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.