IoT vulnerability management: Adhering to the new laws

June 02, 2020 //By John Moor
IoT Vulnerability Management: Adhering to the New Laws
In January 2020, the U.K. became the first country to announce a law specifying vulnerability management. Others are now eyeing consumer IoT labeling schemes, with more likely to follow suit. What does this mean to the IoT vendor?

Vulnerability management is one of the most basic tenets of security, and a precept all IoT manufacturers should be implementing. It’s used to enable users or researchers to alert a vendor to exploitable system weakness—before they’re widely abused.

Though common practice in IT security, it hasn’t traditionally been an embedded systems concern, and as such the overwhelming majority of IoT manufacturers lack it (Fig. 1). And governments are now beginning to eye legislation to solve this problem.

1. Vulnerability management is one of the most basic tenets of security, yet fewer than one in six firms manufacturing IoT devices have a way for researchers to report an exploitable weakness.
1. Vulnerability management is one of the most basic tenets of security, yet fewer than one in six firms manufacturing IoT devices have a way for researchers to report an exploitable weakness.
 

New Laws

Last year, representatives of the Five Eyes governments (the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) met to discuss IoT security (often described as the wild west) and measures to protect their citizens. Specifically, what should be done to improve it? And how do we ensure manufacturers start adopting some of the established good practices used in IT security? 

Key among topics discussed was vulnerability disclosure and reporting protocols. The governments agreed to collaborate and advocated that IoT should be secured by design.

In January, the U.K. became the first country to announce a law specifying vulnerability reporting. In short, the law states that any company selling an IoT product in the country needs to use unique passwords for every device. It also needs to state how long devices will receive security patches and must enable vulnerability reporting. 

The law is expected to come into force as soon as is allowed by the required political and legal process. And with the U.K. being the world’s 6th largest economy—a market IoT manufacturers will find hard to write off—precedent suggests the law’s requirements will be almost universally adopted, even for companies outside of the U.K. 

What’s more, the U.K. isn’t alone. Australia is likely to soon follow, announcing a draft code of practice that closely mirrors the U.K.’s, mandating vulnerability disclosure policies be in place. 

In addition, while the U.S. hasn’t yet set a law at the federal level (despite calls for it to mimic the U.K.), state laws are being introduced: California announced legislation demanding devices be equipped with “reasonable” security. Yes, this is vague, but vulnerability reporting is already a key recommendation in IoT system protection documentation from the Dept. of Homeland Security. On top of that, existing federal law prevents government departments form purchasing equipment with outstanding vulnerabilities, adding market-based incentives to all firms.

In Asia, Chinese legislation allows for the state to pen-test IoT devices operating in the country to identify weaknesses. In India, calls have long been made for the government to release public vulnerability reporting guidelines. And while no vulnerability reporting legislation exists in South Korea, its Personal Information Protection Act is among the world’s strictest data-protection regimes.

At an organizational level, vulnerability reporting is also a key requirement for consumer IoT security in documentation from ETSI, the IEEE, and multiple IoT security organizations. 

The Need for Such Laws is Growing 

The list of IoT hacks is growing at an alarming rate. In the first half of 2019, observed IoT cyberattacks increased more than 300%, with over 2.9 billion events observed during the six months. Just last month (March), the U.K. National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) advised owners of smart cameras and baby monitors to check the settings after buying them. 

This adds to many recent high-profile alerts and hacks. They range from a life-threatening flaw in an implantable cardiac device; to a fitness-watch API that revealed users’ home addresses, including those of spies, military personnel, and users who had put the device in private mode. Or from a video camera that allowed a hacker to talk to a young girl in her bedroom, saying “It's Santa. It's your best friend,” to flaws that allowed a smart lock to be unlocked—and even the hacking of the video feed from a sex toy’s in-built camera.

Thankfully many of the above were by ethical pen testers, but not all of them. And there exists a large black market for vulnerabilities, meaning companies need to make it as easy as possible for researchers to alert them if a weakness is found. 

State of Vulnerability Reporting in IoT

The current picture isn’t a healthy one. In March, the IoT Security Foundation released its second annual report on vulnerability disclosure. And while there’s been a slight improvement since its original study, just 13.3% implemented any level of vulnerability reporting, yielding the conclusion that “industry must do better… much better” (Fig. 2, below).

State of Vulnerability Reporting in IoT

The report analyzed the vulnerability reporting protocols of 330 companies—from Google and Amazon to small IoT startups, as well as companies such as Yale (locks) and Mattel (toys) where connectivity is an add on. To rephrase/stress again: 86.7% of the IoT manufacturers did not provide a simple mechanism for researchers to alert them. 

The report shows that, with few exceptions, only major brands supported vulnerability reporting. They include Amazon, Apple, FitBit, Dyson, Garmin, Google, HP, HTC, Huawei, Lenovo, LG, Motorola, Samsung, Siemens, Signify and Sony. 

And while the history of our industry means we might expect an embedded engineer to be less aware of the importance of vulnerability reporting, the report also highlighted many major brands who should know better.

Adding to the bleak picture, significant variations exist among those that do implement vulnerability reporting. Many use a weakened policy; for example, nearly two fifths (38.6%) indicated no timeline of disclosure.

And despite Europe (through ETSI’s standards and the U.K.’s new law) taking the lead on standards and legislation, European-headquartered firms performed the worst of those analyzed (Fig. 3). Just five of the 82 companies based in the region (6.1%) comply with incoming standards and laws. For North America-headquartered manufacturers, it’s 16.0% (23 of 144), and for those in Asia, it’s 16.3% (16 of 98).

3. Despite Europe leading the way in terms of standards and legislation, European firms lag significantly behind their Asian and American counterparts.
3. Despite Europe leading the way in terms of standards and legislation, European firms lag significantly behind their Asian and American counterparts.

 

The 7 Considerations for Implementing a Vulnerability Reporting Protocol

It’s vital that companies don’t fall into the trap of “shooting the messenger”, which reduces the willingness of people to report a vulnerability. However, a company should never encourage damaging activity. 

Below is an outline a “coordinated vulnerability disclosure” process, which is most equitable and reasonable. There are several grey areas, which means it’s up to each individual provider to decide exactly what process to adopt, and we’ve highlighted some of the arguments behind them. Be aware that it’s important to be clear about the process in public materials, websites, and in communications with researchers to align expectations. It can also be beneficial to have a certain amount of flexibility in certain cases. 

Next: How can the process be implemented?


Vous êtes certain ?

Si vous désactivez les cookies, vous ne pouvez plus naviguer sur le site.

Vous allez être rediriger vers Google.