Tuesday, 25 November 2014

Vulnerable "Smart" Devices Make an Internet of Insecure Things

 

According to recent research , 70 percent of Americans plan to own, in the next five years, at least one smart appliance like an internet-connected refrigerator or thermostat. That's a skyrocketing adoption rate considering the number of smart appliance owners in the United States today is just four percent.
Yet backdoors and other insecure channels have been found in many such devices, opening them to possible hacks, botnets, and other cyber mischief. Although the widely touted hack of smart refrigerators earlier this year has since been debunked, there’s still no shortage of vulnerabilities in the emerging, so-called Internet of Things.





Enter, then, one of the world’s top research centers devoted to IT security, boasting 700 students in this growing field, the Horst Görtz Institute for IT Security at Ruhr-University Bochum in Germany. A research group at HGI, led by Christof Paar—professor and chair for embedded security at the Institute—has been discovering and helping manufacturers patch security holes in Internet-of-Things devices like appliances, cars, and the wireless routers they connect with.

Paar, who is also adjunct professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, says there are good engineering, technological, and even cultural reasons why security of the Internet of Things is a very hard problem.

For starters, it’s hard enough to get people to update their laptops and smartphones with the latest security patches. Imagine, then, a world where everything from your garage door opener, your coffeemaker, your eyeglasses, and even your running shoes have possible vulnerabilities. And the onus is entirely on you to download and install firmware updates—if there are any.

Furthermore, most Internet-connected “things” are net-savvier iterations of designs that have long pre-Internet legacies—legacies in which digital security had previously never been a major concern. But, Paar says, security is not just another new feature to be added onto an Internet-connected device. Internet security requires designers and engineers embrace a different culture altogether.




“There’s essentially no tolerance for error in security engineering,” Paar says. “If you write software, and the software is not quite optimum, you might be ten percent slower. You’re ten percent worse, but you still have pretty decent results. If you make one little mistake in security engineering, and the attacker gets in, the whole system collapses immediately. That’s kind of unique to security and crypto-security in general.”
Paar’s research team, which published some of its latest findings in Internet-of-Things security this summer, spends a lot of time on physical and electrical engineering-based attacks on IoT devices, also called side-channel attacks.

For instance, in 2013 Paar and six colleagues discovered an exploit in an Internet-connected digital lock made by Simons Voss. It involved a predictable, non-random number the lock’s algorithm used when challenging a user for the passcode. And the flaws in the security algorithm were discoverable, they found, via the wireless link between the lock and its remote control.
The way they handled the discovery was how they handle all security exploit discoveries at the Institute, Paar says. They first revealed the weakness to the manufacturers and offered to help patch the error before they publicized the exploit.

“They fixed the system, and the new generation of their tokens is better,” he says. “They had homegrown crypto, which failed. And they had side-channel [security], which failed. So we had two or three vulnerabilities which we could exploit. And we could repair all of them."
Of the scores of papers and research reports the Embedded Security group publishes, Paar says one of the most often overlooked factors behind hacking is not technological vulnerabilities but economic ones.

“There’s a reason that a lot of this hacking happens in countries that are economically not that well off,” Paar says. “I think most people would way prefer having a good job in Silicon Valley or in a well-paying European company—rather than doing illegal stuff and trying to sell their services.”
But as long as there are hackers, whatever their circumstances and countries of origin, Paar says smart engineering and present-day technology can stop most of them in their tracks.
“Our premise is that it’s not that easy to do embedded security right, and that essentially has been confirmed,” he says. “There are very few systems we looked at that we couldn’t break. The shocking thing is the technology is there to get the security right. If you use state of the art technology, you can build systems that are very secure for practical applications.”

 

Wednesday, 5 November 2014

Internet of Things (IoT)


 

The Internet of Things (IoT) is a scenario in which objects, animals or people are provided with unique identifiers and the ability to transfer data over a network without requiring human-to-human or human-to-computer interaction. IoT has evolved from the convergence of wireless technologies, micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) and the Internet.

A thing, in the Internet of Things, can be a person with a heart monitor implant, a farm animal with a biochip transponder, an automobile that has built-in sensors to alert the driver when tire pressure is low -- or any other natural or man-made object that can be assigned an IP address and provided with the ability to transfer data over a network. So far, the Internet of Things has been most closely associated with machine-to-machine (M2M) communication in manufacturing and power, oil and gas utilities. Products built with M2M communication capabilities are often referred to as being smart. (See: smart label, smart meter, smart grid sensor)
IPv6’s huge increase in address space is an important factor in the development of the Internet of Things. According to Steve Leibson, who identifies himself as “occasional docent at the Computer History Museum,” the address space expansion means that we could “assign an IPV6 address to every atom on the surface of the earth, and still have enough addresses left to do another 100+ earths.” In other words, humans could easily assign an IP address to every "thing" on the planet. An increase in the number of smart nodes, as well as the amount of upstream data the nodes generate, is expected to raise new concerns about data privacy, data sovereignty and security.
Although the concept wasn't named until 1999, the Internet of Things has been in development for decades. The first Internet appliance, for example, was a Coke machine at Carnegie Melon University in the early 1980s. The programmers could connect to the machine over the Internet, check the status of the machine and determine whether or not there would be a cold drink awaiting them, should they decide to make the trip down to the machine.
Kevin Ashton, cofounder and executive director of the Auto-ID Center at MIT, first mentioned the Internet of Things in a presentation he made to Procter & Gamble. Here’s how Ashton explains the potential of the Internet of Things:
“Today computers -- and, therefore, the Internet -- are almost wholly dependent on human beings for information. Nearly all of the roughly 50 petabytes (a petabyte is 1,024 terabytes) of data available on the Internet were first captured and created by human beings by typing, pressing a record button, taking a digital picture or scanning a bar code. 
The problem is, people have limited time, attention and accuracy -- all of which means they are not very good at capturing data about things in the real world. If we had computers that knew everything there was to know about things -- using data they gathered without any help from us -- we would be able to track and count everything and greatly reduce waste, loss and cost. We would know when things needed replacing, repairing or recalling and whether they were fresh or past their best.”

Dr. John Barrett explains the Internet of Things in his TED talk:

Have new technologies made cars less safe?

The Role of Electronics in Automotive Advancements

 

High-tech systems started appearing in cars in the 1980s, and today, auto electronic systems and engine computers do everything from regulating fuel to diagnosing problems. Most of today's cars have between 30 and 80 separate electronic controllers [source: Cavanaugh]. Some of these devices have an obvious effect on safety. Adaptive cruise control, which slows the vehicle down if another car is detected in front of it, or lane assist systems, which warn a driver if he or she is leaving the lane without signaling, are just two examples. Systems like these raise the logical questions of whether it's a good idea to turn driving over to a computer -- and whether people will become too dependent on automation. But most of these technologies are so new, it's still too soon to tell how they really affect safety.
Other systems aren't quite as dramatic in how they affect safety. In-car computers give drivers a way to control multiple devices from inside the car. For instance, the BMW iDrive includes a knob and screen that control much of the car's audio, navigation and HVAC systems [source: BMW]. It requires the driver to look away from the road for an extended period to operate it. It's now on most BMW cars, and carmakers like Audi and Mercedes-Benz use similar automotive electronics. On Germany's stretching autobahn, it may be OK to take your eyes off the road to operate a computer, but on more crowded U.S. roads, it could present a safety problem.
These days, automotive sensors are everywhere. A sensor with a simple job, like detecting the outdoor temperature so you can see it on a display, probably isn't going to do a lot of damage if it fails. But automotive sensors also perform critical tasks that directly affect safety on the road. A sensor might measure the angle of the car to keep it in the right gear while accelerating. Or, sensors might sense slipping wheels in bad weather, signaling the car to turn on electronic stability control.
Like a glitch in any computer system, it's possible, but unlikely, that something could go wrong with automotive sensors -- or the hardware and software connected to them -- and cause safety problems. However, so far, these systems seem to help rather than hurt. Stability control is so good at preventing rollovers, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says they can prevent single-vehicle fatal wrecks by up to 51 percent [source: IIHS]. In addition, if these auto electronic systems fail, many of them have mechanical systems to pick up the slack -- like the brakes, for example.
Because these systems are so central to safe driving, when they fail, they can make major headlines. However, it's important to note that most recalls reported by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) still relate to vehicles' physical components, like welds, insulators, tie rods and mounts, rather than to chips and software [source: NHTSA: Defects and Recalls].