Discover how AI technology is revolutionizing the background screening industry, offering more efficient and cost-effective solutions than ever before.
DevOps Midwest 2023 brought together experts in scale, availability, and security best practices. Read some of the highlights from this DevSecOps-focused event.
As more personal information is being collected and analyzed by organizations, the need to protect an individual's privacy and prevent the misuse or unauthorized access of the personal data comes with it.
As the Internet of Things becomes a ubiquitous idea and a fact of life, what happens to all the aging and increasingly insecure Things? According to Wired's Robert Mcmillan, responding to a recent question on the security of IoT from Dan Geer, this may be a serious problem [1][2]. The solution, Mcmillan suggests, is to design these devices with an expiration date. In other words: they need to be programmed to die. The problem may not be too severe now, but the future of the Internet of Things will look different than it does now. Security will likely loosen, because software will be a part of everything, and it tends to be the case that things mass produced to that degree experience a bit of a drop in quality. That, Mcmillan argues, presents a problem: ...all code has bugs, and in the course of time, these bugs are going to be found and then exploited by a determined attacker. As we build more and more devices like thermostats and lightbulbs and smart trashcans that are expected to last much longer than a PC or a phone, maybe we need to design them to sign off at the point where they’re no longer supported with software patches. Otherwise, we’re in for a security nightmare. A similar argument came from Bruce Schneier's interview with Scott Berinato about how future bugs like Heartbleed could impact IoT [3]. Schneier's conclusion is that processes must be built into IoT devices and development to allow for regular patching and securing of embedded systems. How practical is that, though? Mcmillan points to some recent scenarios where these fears have already come true: the lack of support for Linksys routers infected with Moon Worm, for example. Long-term patching would solve these issues, but will the increasing number of organizations developing IoT products be forward-thinking enough to care? It's also not as if the problem will fade as the products become less popular, Mcmillan says: Researchers have studied the way that security vulnerabilities are discovered, and what they’ve found is that security bugs will keep cropping up, long after most software is released... in fact, they’ll only get worse. Open sourcing technology as it ages may also be a solution, Mcmillan says. However, even that is imperfect and requires a lot of cooperation from companies who may not be enthusiastic about such cooperation, as well as a base of developers interested enough in the technology to maintain it. So, creating devices with an expiration date may be one of the most practical solutions. Otherwise, what happens when IoT is everywhere? What happens when we stop taking care of the things that we build? [1] http://www.wired.com/2014/05/iot-death/ [2] http://geer.tinho.net/geer.secot.7v14.txt [3] https://dzone.com/articles/heartbleed-iot-how-much-worse
This article delves into different system components, from the client and DNS, to the load balancer server, firewall, service instances, and other core elements.
Kubernetes security is more important than ever and should be top-of-mind for most teams. Walk through the latest in k8s security solutions from KubeCon 2023.
Security in the Internet of Things is a fairly common concern these days - you know, Heartbleed, toasters, that kind of thing - but you may not even have considered the greatest threat to your connected devices: classic 1990s first person shooters. That's the scenario presented in this recent experiment from Context Information Security. By taking advantage of a web interface that require no user authentication, the Context team managed to get Doom up and running on a Canon Pixma printer. Obviously Doom is not the point in itself, so much as an illustration of the vulnerability, but it definitely gets the idea across. According to Michael Jordon at Context, the vulnerability was fairly serious: At first glance the functionality seems to be relatively benign, you could print out hundreds of test pages and use up all the ink and paper, so what? The issue is with the firmware update process. While you can trigger a firmware update you can also change the web proxy settings and the DNS server. If you can change these then you can redirect where the printer goes to check for a new firmware. So what protection does Canon use to prevent a malicious person from providing a malicious firmware? In a nutshell - nothing... Jordon's post goes into detail on how the encryption was broken. Canon was contacted and informed of the problem, and responded that it would be fixed, but Jordon warns that it's not a unique scenario. While this particular technique is not currently a common concern, it demonstrates the reality of security concerns when it comes to IoT devices. Once everything is connected, how many devices will be vulnerable? How confident can we be that the creators of these devices will be cognizant of these issues? As a potential catch-all solution, Context offers a strange bit of advice: Context recommends that you do not put your wireless printers on the Internet, or any other ‘Internet of Things’ device. So, there you go - one way to be sure. The Internet of Things can't help but be secure if you get rid of that whole "Internet" part.
This article discusses the importance of detecting threatening IP addresses in various forms and provides two API solutions to help detect those threats.
CORE
