The term Internet of Things (IoT) has almost been beaten to death at this point, as more and more security integrators, manufacturers and customers take advantage of the ability to increase connectivity between devices (and therefore take on the dangers this introduces).

But the methods by which we interact with the IoT and protect its devices are still catching up, which means security manufacturers must take part in shifting their focus toward safeguarding data, engaging in vulnerability testing of products and incorporating stringent protections at every stage of the product development process. One small leak or breach on a single connected device can potentially cause significant damage across an organization

Who Is Responsible For IoT Security?

One small leak or breach on a single connected device can potentially cause significant damage across an organization, creating a disruption within a company, affecting its assets, employees and customers. The continued question seems to be: Who is ultimately responsible for the security of IoT devices?

In a recent survey from Radware, a provider of application delivery and cybersecurity solutions, there was no clear consensus among security executives when asked this question. Thirty-five percent of respondents placed responsibility on the organization managing the network, 34 percent said the manufacturer and 21 percent chose the consumers using the devices as being primarily responsible. 

Several schools of thought Exist For Each:

  • The Organization

It's not surprising that most people see the organization as the main stakeholder for IoT security responsibility; after all, if a company is managing a network, one would expect it to protect the network as well.
One way that the organization can embrace this responsibility is by adopting a user-centric design with scalability, tactical data storage and access with appropriate identification and security features (for example, the use of multilevel authentication through biometrics in access control).
Organizations must also use their IT team to strengthen the overall cybersecurity of the IoT by keeping up with the latest software updates, following proper data safety protocols and practicing vulnerability testing.

  • The Manufacturer

Manufacturers that provide IoT-enabled devices as part of a security system must be fully knowledgeable of the risks involved and effectively communicate them to the integrator or end user.
Providing the education necessary and dedication to protecting users of its equipment makes a manufacturer more trustworthy and understanding in the eyes of an end user. Ensuring encryption between devices is a key step that manufacturers can take to work toward achieving complete protection in the IoT.

  • The User

Despite the protection delivered by the organization and manufacturer, there's always the option for IoT security to be enhanced or possibly even diminished by the individual user. It's critical that best practices for data protection are in place every time an individual uses a device that is connected to the network.
These include disabling default credentials, proper password etiquette, safe sharing of sensitive information and the instinct to avoid any suspicious activity or requests. Manufacturers that provide IoT-enabled devices as part of a security system must be fully knowledgeable of the risks involved

The short answer to the responsibility question is this: everyone. Each sector has a responsibility to contribute to the protections needed for IoT-enabled devices.

However, as a manufacturer, it is imperative that our teams think about each level of protection when developing products for public consumption, including how the organization implements the technology and how the integrator engages in training with users. 

IoT issues caused by organisations
Organizations must also use their IT team to strengthen the overall cybersecurity of the IoT by keeping up with the latest software updates

Manufacturer Vulnerability Testing

One way that manufacturers can implement added protections against outside threats is by boosting their attention to security protocols in the product development stage. For some, this requires a different approach in the design and development of security systems. Identifying vulnerabilities is at the core of this.

A security vulnerability in a product is a pattern of conditions in the design of a system that is unable to prevent an attack, resulting in weaknesses of the system such as mishandling, deleting, altering or extracting data. Increased connectivity makes these vulnerabilities more of a liability, as IP-enabled (or networked) devices are more likely to be breached by outsiders looking to permeate an organization and collect valuable data. 

A security vulberability in a product is a pattern of conditions in the design of a system that is unable to prevent an attack, resulting in weaknesses of the systemWhile some of these hacks are a little more “simple” in nature — such as outsiders trying to guess a password using manufacturer-set passwords — others are more complex, such as a denial-of-service, where attackers attempt to overload the system by flooding the target with excessive demands and preventing legitimate requests from being carried out. This makes it virtually impossible to stop the attack by blocking a single source.  

As a result of these potential threats — and to help manufacturers deliver best-in-class products — it's imperative that vulnerability testing is done throughout a product's development, starting at phase one in the process.

This includes analysis of the type of cyberattacks that can potentially attach, breach and disable a system. Many manufacturers attempt to hack their own products from within the organization — or even go as far as hiring a third-party professional group to do it for them. 

Success In A Volatile Technology Landscape 

This kind of development puts a product through rigorous levels of testing, and once weaknesses are exposed, they can be patched up and the cycle of attack-and-defense can take place until the product is protected fully and ready for market.

Skipping this step in the development process can open manufacturers up to significant liability, so it's important for this testing to take place and corrective actions be taken to rectify gaps in security. The more extensive an organization's security testing approaches are, the better are its chances of succeeding in an increasingly volatile technology landscape. 

But the testing doesn't stop in the development stage. Attacks on a system continue long after the product has been introduced to market, requiring continued updates to be made available in an effort to protect customers. Manufacturers are tasked with implementing further firmware updates to keep a product in the field readily prepared to revoke the latest critical bugs that can affect the market. 

What End Users Demand From Security

We're seeing a significant shift in the education and demand from a customer perspective. In the past, consumers took the advice of integrators and consultants as far as the “right” security systems to install for their needs. Today, the self-education of end users is on the rise as more and more IT departments become involved in the selection and investment of physical access control systems. We're seeing a significant shift in the education and demand from a customer perspective

A larger number of end users are demanding security products that meet IT standards of network protection, and they take these considerations into account when working with integrator partners on the selection of systems to meet their needs.

As a result, manufacturers are tasked with not only developing robust IoT-centric products, but also continuing to be involved on a regular basis in an effort to continuously keep organizations safe. 

A comprehensive security strategy from manufacturers must involve multiple levels of product selection, testing and integration — centered on the team-based approach to implementing training and protocols within an organization.

While manufacturers are stepping up their game in the development of robust products, this remains a team effort that must be addressed every week — not something you implement, then forget about. The safety of data — and the entire organization — depends on it.

Share with LinkedIn Share with Twitter Share with Facebook Share with Facebook
Download PDF version

Author profile

Kim Loy Director of Technology and Communications, Vanderbilt Industries

In case you missed it

COVID-19 Worries Boost Prospects Of Touchless Biometric Systems
COVID-19 Worries Boost Prospects Of Touchless Biometric Systems

Spread of the novel coronavirus has jolted awareness of hygiene as it relates to touching surfaces such as keypads. No longer in favor are contact-based modalities including use of personal identification numbers (PINs) and keypads, and the shift has been sudden and long-term. Both customers and manufacturers were taken by surprise by this aspect of the virus’s impact and are therefore scrambling for solutions. Immediate impact of the change includes suspension of time and attendance systems that are touch-based. Some two-factor authentication systems are being downgraded to RFID-only, abandoning the keypad and/or biometric components that contributed to higher security, but are now unacceptable because they involve touching. Touchless biometric systems in demand The trend has translated into a sharp decline in purchase of touch modality and a sharp increase in the demand for touchless systems, says Alex Zarrabi, President of Touchless Biometrics Systems (TBS). Biometrics solutions are being affected unequally, depending on whether they involve touch sensing, he says. Spread of the novel coronavirus has jolted awareness of hygiene as it relates to touching surfaces such as keypads “Users do not want to touch anything anymore,” says Zarrabi. “From our company’s experience, we see it as a huge catalyst for touchless suppliers. We have projects being accelerated for touchless demand and have closed a number of large contracts very fast. I’m sure it’s true for anyone who is supplying touchless solutions.” Biometric systems are also seeing the addition of thermal sensors to measure body temperature in addition to the other sensors driving the system. Fingerscans and hybrid face systems TBS offers 2D and 3D systems, including both fingerscans and hybrid face/iris systems to provide touchless identification at access control points. Contactless and hygienic, the 2D Eye system is a hybrid system that combines the convenience of facial technology with the higher security of iris recognition. The system recognises the face and then detects the iris from the face image and zeros in to scan the iris. The user experiences the system as any other face recognition system. The facial aspect quickens the process, and the iris scan heightens accuracy. TBS also offers the 2D Eye Thermo system that combines face, iris and temperature measurement using a thermal sensor module. TBS's 2D Eye Thermo system combines face, iris and temperature measurement using a thermal sensor module Another TBS system is a 3D Touchless Fingerscan system that provides accuracy and tolerance, anti-spoofing, and is resilient to water, oil, dust and dirt. The 2D+ Multispectral for fingerprints combines 2D sensing with “multispectral” subsurface identification, which is resilient to contaminants and can read fingerprints that are oily, wet, dry or damaged – or even through a latex glove. In addition, the 3D+ system by TBS provides frictionless, no-contact readings even for people going through the system in a queue. The system fills the market gap for consent-based true on-the-fly systems, says Zarrabi. The system captures properties of the hand and has applications in the COVID environment, he says. The higher accuracy and security ratings are suitable for critical infrastructure applications, and there is no contact; the system is fully hygienic. Integration with access control systems Integration of TBS biometrics with a variety of third-party access control systems is easy. A “middleware” subsystem is connected to the network. Readers are connected to the subsystem and also to the corporate access control system. An interface with the TBS subsystem coordinates with the access control system. For example, a thermal camera used as part of the biometric reader can override the green light of the access control system if a high temperature (suggesting COVID-19 infection, for example) is detected. The enrollment process is convenient and flexible and can occur at an enrollment station or at an administration desk. Remote enrollment can also be accomplished using images from a CCTV camera. All templates are encrypted. Remotely enrolled employees can have access to any location they need within minutes. The 3D+ system by TBS provides frictionless, no-contact readings even for people going through the system in a queue Although there are other touchless technologies available, they cannot effectively replace biometrics, says Zarrabi. For example, a centrally managed system that uses a Bluetooth signal from a smart phone could provide convenience, is “touchless,” and could suffice for some sites. However, the system only confirms the presence and “identity” of a smart phone – not the person who should be carrying it. “There has been a lot of curiosity about touchless, but this change is strong, and there is fear of a possible second wave of COVID-19 or a return in two or three years,” says Zarrabi. “We really are seeing customers seriously shifting to touchless.”

How To Use Threat Intelligence Data To Manage Security In The Age Of COVID-19
How To Use Threat Intelligence Data To Manage Security In The Age Of COVID-19

COVID-19 has already had a huge impact on the global economy. According to Statista, GDP growth globally will drop from around 3% to 2.4% - equivalent to a drop of around $35 trillion worldwide. In sectors like oil and gas, the impact is particularly acute: IHS Markit predicted that the reduction in oil consumption due to COVID-19 has led to a first-half surplus of 1.8 billion barrels of crude oil. The macroeconomic trends around these worldwide sectors point to harsher economic conditions and recession. For companies in the oil and gas sector running complex operations around the world, this will lead directly to tougher trading environments and a lot of necessary belt-tightening when it comes to costs around operations. Indirectly, the potential recession could cause more civil unrest and security threats for them as well. To cope with these potential challenges, companies will have to look at how they can maintain security for their operations and prevent risks as much as possible. Taking a contextual approach to physical security With these two goals in mind, looking at threat intelligence data should be considered. Threat intelligence refers to a set of data that can be used to judge current and future trends around risks, from everyday crime or political changes through to larger events like civil unrest, terrorism or the current pandemic. Based on data around these issues, companies can make better decisions on how they invest and manage their security posture in advance. Behind this overall approach, however, there are a significant number of moving parts that have to be considered. This includes where the data comes from, how it is used, and who is using the data. Companies can make better decisions on how they invest and manage their security posture The first consideration for threat intelligence is where data comes from. Typically, companies with large oilfields or refinery operations will have large investments in physical security to protect these environments, and part of this spend will include intelligence on local market, political and security conditions. Using this forecast data, your security leadership team can ensure that they have the right resources available in advance of any particular problem. This data can come from multiple sources, from social media data and crowdsourced information through to government, police and private company feeds. This mass of information can then be used to inform your planning and decision making around security, and how best to respond. However, one issue for oil and gas companies with distributed operations is how much data they have to manage over time. With so many potential sources of information all feeding back in real time, it’s hard to make sense of what comes in. Similarly, companies with international teams may have different sets and sources of data available to different parts of their organizations - while each team has its own view of what is going on, they may be missing out on contextual data from other sources held by neighbouring teams or by the central security department. Without a complete picture, it is easy to miss out on important information. Making threat intelligence smarter To solve this problem - and to reduce the costs around managing threat intelligence data - centralizing your approach can make it easier to provide that context to all your teams and stakeholders. Rather than letting each team set up and run their own threat intelligence approach, centralizing the data and letting each team use this can reduce costs. More importantly, it can improve the quality of your threat intelligence approach overall. By applying a combination of algorithms and security analysts to evaluate threat intelligence centrally, you can improve the quality of the data that you have coming into the organization in the first place. This approach provides higher quality data for decision making. However, a centralized approach is not enough on its own. Local knowledge and analysis is always useful. Consequently, alongside any centralization approach you have to have better filtering and search capabilities, otherwise you risk teams not being able to get the information that is particularly relevant and timely to them. This approach of bringing together centralized management of data feeds with more powerful tools for local teams to find what they want and get that access in real time represents the best of both worlds. Planning ahead Scenarios vary from a best case return to pre-crisis revenues of $50 to $60 per barrel by 2021 or 2022 According to consultancy firm McKinsey, the oil and gas sector faces an enormous challenge over the next few years. Scenarios vary from a best case return to pre-crisis revenues of $50 to $60 per barrel by 2021 or 2022, through to a worst case scenario where demand never returns and the industry has to undertake managed decline around some assets and look for new market opportunities in others. Whatever scenario plays out in the real world, security for existing assets will be a continued requirement. Planning ahead using threat intelligence data will be essential whatever happens. To help reduce costs and improve data quality, centralizing this approach will help. Without this mix of global oversight and local detail, companies will find their operations hampered and wrong decisions are made. It’s only by applying threat intelligence data in the right context that security teams will be able to keep up with the challenges of the future.

What Are the Security Challenges of the Oil and Gas Market?
What Are the Security Challenges of the Oil and Gas Market?

Protecting the oil and gas market is key to a thriving economy. The list of security challenges for oil and gas requires the best technology solutions our industry has to offer, from physical barriers to video systems to cybersecurity. We asked this week’s Expert Panel Roundtable: What are the security challenges of the oil and gas market?