The dark web’s criminal minds see Internet of Things as next big hacking prize

Published

2 years ago

January 9, 2023

admin

Krisanapong Detraphiphat | Moment | Getty Images

John Hultquist, vice president of intelligence analysis at Google-owned cybersecurity firm Mandiant, likens his job to studying criminal minds through a soda straw. He monitors cyberthreat groups in real time on the dark web, watching what amounts to a free market of criminal innovation ebb and flow.

Groups buy and sell services, and one hot idea — a business model for a crime — can take off quickly when people realize that it works to do damage or to get people to pay. Last year, it was ransomware, as criminal hacking groups figured out how to shut down servers through what’s called directed denial of service attacks. But 2022, say experts, may have marked an inflection point due to the rapid proliferation of IoT (Internet of Things) devices.

Attacks are evolving from those that shut down computers or stole data, to include those that could more directly wreak havoc on everyday life. IoT devices can be the entry points for attacks on parts of countries’ critical infrastructure, like electrical grids or pipelines, or they can be the specific targets of criminals, as in the case of cars or medical devices that contain software.

“What I wish is that the vulnerabilities of cybersecurity could never negatively affect human life and infrastructure,” says Meredith Schnur, cyber brokerage leader for US & Canada at Marsh & McLennan, which insures large companies against cyberattacks. “Everything else is just business.”

For the past decade, manufacturers, software companies and consumers have been rushing to the promise of Internet of Things devices. Now there are an estimated 17 billion in the world, from printers to garage door openers, each one packed with software (some of it open-source software) that can be easily hacked. In a conversation Dec. 26 with The Financial Times, Mario Greco, the group CEO of giant insurer Zurich Insurance Group, said cyberattacks could pose a larger threat to insurers than pandemics and climate change, if hackers aim to disrupt lives, rather than merely spying or stealing data.

IoT devices are a key entry point for many attacks, according to Microsoft’s Digital Defense Report 2022. “While the security of IT hardware and software has strengthened in recent years, the security of Internet of Things (IoT) … has not kept pace,” according to the report.

A rash of attacks that reached the physical world through the cyber world in the past year show the rising stakes. Last February, Toyota stopped operations at one of its plants because of a cyberattack. In April, Ukraine’s power grid was targeted. In May, the Port of London was hit with a cyberattack. That followed up on a 2021 that included to major attacks on critical infrastructure in the U.S., taking down energy and food supply operations of Colonial Pipeline and the JBS meatpacking conglomerate.

What many experts are anticipating is the day enterprising criminals or hackers affiliated with a nation-state figure out an easy-to-replicate scheme using IoT devices at scale. A group of criminals, perhaps connected to a foreign government, could figure out how to take control of many things at once – like cars, or medical devices. “We have already seen large-scale attacks using IoT, in the form of IoT botnets. In that case, actors leveraging unpatched vulnerabilities in IoT devices used control of those devices to carry out denial of service attacks against many targets. Those vulnerabilities are found regularly in ubiquitous products that are rarely updated.”

In other words, the possibility already exists. It’s only a question of when a criminal or a nation decides to act in a way that targets the physical world at a large scale. “It’s not always the art of the possible. It’s a market-driven thing,” Hultquist said. “Somebody figures out a scheme that is successful at making money.”

Aside from responding rapidly to attacks, the only answer to the “cat-and-mouse game” is constant innovation, says Shlomo Kramer, an early investor in Palo Alto Networks and currently one of the top cyber security investors worldwide.

There are a handful of companies, new regulatory approaches, a growing focus on cars as a particularly important area, and a new movement within the software engineering world to do a better job of incorporating cybersecurity from the beginning.

Internet of Things has a big update problem

The cybersecurity industry is upping its game. Companies including ForeScout and Phosphorus focus on Internet of Things security, which has a heavy emphasis on constant inventory of “endpoints” – where new devices connect to a network.

But one of the key problems in Internet of Things security is that there isn’t a good process for updating devices with patches, as new vulnerabilities, hacks or attacks are discovered, says Greg Clark, former CEO of Symantec, currently the chairman of Forescout. Many users are accustomed to downloading updates and patches to computers and phones; and even in those cases, a significant number of users don’t bother to do the updates.

The problem is much worse in the IoT: For instance, who bothers to update their garage-door opener? “Not many of the IoT devices have a system to update the code,” says Clark. “It becomes a serious problem to remediate the vulnerabilities in the IoT.”

He said one focus for cybersecurity companies has become putting controls around the devices so they can only do a specific set of things. That way, the devices can’t be weaponized to launch attacks on other networks. “There are a lot of hammers swinging,” Clark said, on products that make the IoT more secure).

Medical devices, which are seen as particularly important and particularly vulnerable, are one focus. Last month, Palo Alto Networks announced a new product aimed at medical device makers.

IoT device makers are not regulated enough

Because the challenges are new, and cut across industries, the U.S. guidelines and regulations remain patchwork. That has left a lot of IoT cybersecurity up to consumers and companies across sectors, rather than the many manufacturers making IoT devices.

“I’m hopeful there will be some new standards, and newer regulations that will force the vendors to do more,” says Randy Trzeciak, director of the science information and security policy & management program at Carnegie Mellon University. “There should be a national discussion around insuring device security, and where the manufacturer needs to take some ownership and responsibility.”

Clark said CISA and the National Institutes of Standards and Technology are working together, issuing guidelines for the thousands of manufacturers that make IoT devices covering such things as ensuring that IoT devices identify themselves to networks as they are added to them. In 2020, the U.S. Congress turned the guidelines into a law, but only for companies that supply the U.S. government with IoT devices. A spokesman for the National Institutes of Standards and Technology says this is the only national law the agency knows of. Some state-specific and industry-specific laws also exist: For instance, data in medical devices would be covered by HIPAA, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has some jurisdiction over cars.

Some investors and executives cautiously welcome the increasing involvement of regulators. “It’s simply too complex,” Kramer said. “There’s not enough qualified and experienced security people.”

How cars are being targeted

As more criminal hackers aim attacks at the physical sphere, cars are a target. That includes theft, with attackers exploiting the keyless entry systems, but also attacks on sensitive information now being stored in cars, such as maps and credit card data.

Led by the European Union, countries around the world are rapidly adopting cybersecurity regulations for cars, with the EU’s coming into effect in July of last year.

The transition to electric vehicles has created an opportunity for regulators to get ahead of the criminals. As the new technology lowered the barriers to entry, more car companies entered the market. In turn, that has created an opportunity for regulators to work with industry groups that want to protect their home-grown industries.

The concerns about cars are nothing new. In one landmark experiment in 2015, two hackers attacked a Jeep Cherokee. “They shut down the engine on the highway – the brakes didn’t respond. This is not a pleasant situation,” said David Barzilai, CEO of a six-year-old Israeli company called Karamba Security, which helps car companies make their IoT devices more secure.

Barzilai says that in the past 12 months, there were dozens of attacks, both by serious criminal gangs and teen-agers. “When we started six years ago, the attacks were by states, mostly China,” he says. “Within the last 12 months, there’s a democratization” in car attacks, he said, pointing to the case in January 2022 of the teen who figured out how to access the control systems of a few dozen Teslas at once, last January — have already done.

Connected cars usually have SIM cards, that hackers can attack via cellular networks, he said. “All cars of the same vehicle model use the same software,” he said. “Once hackers identify a vulnerability, and a way to exploit it remotely, they can replicate the attack on other vehicles.”

Cybersecurity grew as an industry mostly as an after-the-fact attempt to fix software and hardware that was long since on the market, as criminals and foreign governments discovered vulnerabilities in the systems that they could exploit. One study by IBM‘s System Science’s Institute found it costs six times more to fix a cybersecurity vulnerability while software is being implemented than when it is under development. The IoT is still relatively new as an industry, giving security-minded developers a chance to get ahead of the cat-and-mouse game, says Trzeciak, and there’s a growing movement of researchers and developers working on this, including Carnegie Mellon’s Software Engineering Institute’s DevSecOps initiative, which aims to add security into earlier phases of software development. That process-based innovation could make all kinds of software, including that in cars and medical devices, more secure — and therefore, the devices safer.

Technology

How Elon Musk’s plan to slash government agencies and regulation may benefit his empire

Published

23 hours ago

November 22, 2024

admin

How Elon Musk’s plan to slash government agencies and regulation may benefit his empire

Elon Musk’s business empire is sprawling. It includes electric vehicle maker Tesla, social media company X, artificial intelligence startup xAI, computer interface company Neuralink, tunneling venture Boring Company and aerospace firm SpaceX.

Some of his ventures already benefit tremendously from federal contracts. SpaceX has received more than $19 billion from contracts with the federal government, according to research from FedScout. Under a second Trump presidency, more lucrative contracts could come its way. SpaceX is on track to take in billions of dollars annually from prime contracts with the federal government for years to come, according to FedScout CEO Geoff Orazem.

Musk, who has frequently blamed the government for stifling innovation, could also push for less regulation of his businesses. Earlier this month, Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy were tapped by Trump to lead a government efficiency group called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

In a recent commentary piece in the Wall Street Journal, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that DOGE will “pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings.” They went on to say that many existing federal regulations were never passed by Congress and should therefore be nullified, which President-elect Trump could accomplish through executive action. Musk and Ramaswamy also championed the large-scale auditing of agencies, calling out the Pentagon for failing its seventh consecutive audit.

“The number one way Elon Musk and his companies would benefit from a Trump administration is through deregulation and defanging, you know, giving fewer resources to federal agencies tasked with oversight of him and his businesses,” says CNBC technology reporter Lora Kolodny.

To learn how else Elon Musk and his companies may benefit from having the ear of the president-elect watch the video.

Technology

Why X’s new terms of service are driving some users to leave Elon Musk’s platform

Published

1 day ago

November 22, 2024

admin

Why X's new terms of service are driving some users to leave Elon Musk's platform

Elon Musk attends the America First Policy Institute gala at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, Nov. 14, 2024.

Carlos Barria | Reuters

X’s new terms of service, which took effect Nov. 15, are driving some users off Elon Musk’s microblogging platform.

The new terms include expansive permissions requiring users to allow the company to use their data to train X’s artificial intelligence models while also making users liable for as much as $15,000 in damages if they use the platform too much.

The terms are prompting some longtime users of the service, both celebrities and everyday people, to post that they are taking their content to other platforms.

“With the recent and upcoming changes to the terms of service — and the return of volatile figures — I find myself at a crossroads, facing a direction I can no longer fully support,” actress Gabrielle Union posted on X the same day the new terms took effect, while announcing she would be leaving the platform.

“I’m going to start winding down my Twitter account,” a user with the handle @mplsFietser said in a post. “The changes to the terms of service are the final nail in the coffin for me.”

It’s unclear just how many users have left X due specifically to the company’s new terms of service, but since the start of November, many social media users have flocked to Bluesky, a microblogging startup whose origins stem from Twitter, the former name for X. Some users with new Bluesky accounts have posted that they moved to the service due to Musk and his support for President-elect Donald Trump.

Bluesky’s U.S. mobile app downloads have skyrocketed 651% since the start of November, according to estimates from Sensor Tower. In the same period, X and Meta’s Threads are up 20% and 42%, respectively.

X and Threads have much larger monthly user bases. Although Musk said in May that X has 600 million monthly users, market intelligence firm Sensor Tower estimates X had 318 million monthly users as of October. That same month, Meta said Threads had nearly 275 million monthly users. Bluesky told CNBC on Thursday it had reached 21 million total users this week.

Here are some of the noteworthy changes in X’s new service terms and how they compare with those of rivals Bluesky and Threads.

Artificial intelligence training

X has come under heightened scrutiny because of its new terms, which say that any content on the service can be used royalty-free to train the company’s artificial intelligence large language models, including its Grok chatbot.

“You agree that this license includes the right for us to (i) provide, promote, and improve the Services, including, for example, for use with and training of our machine learning and artificial intelligence models, whether generative or another type,” X’s terms say.

Additionally, any “user interactions, inputs and results” shared with Grok can be used for what it calls “training and fine-tuning purposes,” according to the Grok section of the X app and website. This specific function, though, can be turned off manually.

X’s terms do not specify whether users’ private messages can be used to train its AI models, and the company did not respond to a request for comment.

“You should only provide Content that you are comfortable sharing with others,” read a portion of X’s terms of service agreement.

Though X’s new terms may be expansive, Meta’s policies aren’t that different.

The maker of Threads uses “information shared on Meta’s Products and services” to get its training data, according to the company’s Privacy Center. This includes “posts or photos and their captions.” There is also no direct way for users outside of the European Union to opt out of Meta’s AI training. Meta keeps training data “for as long as we need it on a case-by-case basis to ensure an AI model is operating appropriately, safely and efficiently,” according to its Privacy Center.

Under Meta’s policy, private messages with friends or family aren’t used to train AI unless one of the users in a chat chooses to share it with the models, which can include Meta AI and AI Studio.

Bluesky, which has seen a user growth surge since Election Day, doesn’t do any generative AI training.

“We do not use any of your content to train generative AI, and have no intention of doing so,” Bluesky said in a post on its platform Friday, confirming the same to CNBC as well.

Liquidated damages

Another unusual aspect of X’s new terms is its “liquidated damages” clause. The terms state that if users request, view or access more than 1 million posts – including replies, videos, images and others – in any 24-hour period they are liable for damages of $15,000.

While most individual users won’t easily approach that threshold, the clause is concerning for some, including digital researchers. They rely on the analysis of larger numbers of public posts from services like X to do their work.

X’s new terms of service are a “disturbing move that the company should reverse,” said Alex Abdo, litigation director for the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, in an October statement.

“The public relies on journalists and researchers to understand whether and how the platforms are shaping public discourse, affecting our elections, and warping our relationships,” Abdo wrote. “One effect of X Corp.’s new terms of service will be to stifle that research when we need it most.”

Neither Threads nor Bluesky have anything similar to X’s liquidated damages clause.

Meta and X did not respond to requests for comment.

WATCH: Bluesky CEO: Our platform is ‘radically different’ from anything else in social media

Technology

The Pentagon’s battle inside the U.S. for control of a new Cyber Force

Published

1 day ago

November 22, 2024

admin

The Pentagon's battle inside the U.S. for control of a new Cyber Force

A recent Chinese cyber-espionage attack inside the nation’s major telecom networks that may have reached as high as the communications of President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance was designated this week by one U.S. senator as “far and away the most serious telecom hack in our history.”

The U.S. has yet to figure out the full scope of what China accomplished, and whether or not its spies are still inside U.S. communication networks.

“The barn door is still wide open, or mostly open,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told the New York Times on Thursday.

The revelations highlight the rising cyberthreats tied to geopolitics and nation-state actor rivals of the U.S., but inside the federal government, there’s disagreement on how to fight back, with some advocates calling for the creation of an independent federal U.S. Cyber Force. In September, the Department of Defense formally appealed to Congress, urging lawmakers to reject that approach.

Among one of the most prominent voices advocating for the new branch is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a national security think tank, but the issue extends far beyond any single group. In June, defense committees in both the House and Senate approved measures calling for independent evaluations of the feasibility to create a separate cyber branch, as part of the annual defense policy deliberations.

Drawing on insights from more than 75 active-duty and retired military officers experienced in cyber operations, the FDD’s 40-page report highlights what it says are chronic structural issues within the U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), including fragmented recruitment and training practices across the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.

“America’s cyber force generation system is clearly broken,” the FDD wrote, citing comments made in 2023 by then-leader of U.S. Cyber Command, Army General Paul Nakasone, who took over the role in 2018 and described current U.S. military cyber organization as unsustainable: “All options are on the table, except the status quo,” Nakasone had said.

Concern with Congress and a changing White House

The FDD analysis points to “deep concerns” that have existed within Congress for a decade — among members of both parties — about the military being able to staff up to successfully defend cyberspace. Talent shortages, inconsistent training, and misaligned missions, are undermining CYBERCOM’s capacity to respond effectively to complex cyber threats, it says. Creating a dedicated branch, proponents argue, would better position the U.S. in cyberspace. The Pentagon, however, warns that such a move could disrupt coordination, increase fragmentation, and ultimately weaken U.S. cyber readiness.

As the Pentagon doubles down on its resistance to establishment of a separate U.S. Cyber Force, the incoming Trump administration could play a significant role in shaping whether America leans toward a centralized cyber strategy or reinforces the current integrated framework that emphasizes cross-branch coordination.

Known for his assertive national security measures, Trump’s 2018 National Cyber Strategy emphasized embedding cyber capabilities across all elements of national power and focusing on cross-departmental coordination and public-private partnerships rather than creating a standalone cyber entity. At that time, the Trump’s administration emphasized centralizing civilian cybersecurity efforts under the Department of Homeland Security while tasking the Department of Defense with addressing more complex, defense-specific cyber threats. Trump’s pick for Secretary of Homeland Security, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, has talked up her, and her state’s, focus on cybersecurity.

Former Trump officials believe that a second Trump administration will take an aggressive stance on national security, fill gaps at the Energy Department, and reduce regulatory burdens on the private sector. They anticipate a stronger focus on offensive cyber operations, tailored threat vulnerability protection, and greater coordination between state and local governments. Changes will be coming at the top of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which was created during Trump’s first term and where current director Jen Easterly has announced she will leave once Trump is inaugurated.

Cyber Command 2.0 and the U.S. military

John Cohen, executive director of the Program for Countering Hybrid Threats at the Center for Internet Security, is among those who share the Pentagon’s concerns. “We can no longer afford to operate in stovepipes,” Cohen said, warning that a separate cyber branch could worsen existing silos and further isolate cyber operations from other critical military efforts.

Cohen emphasized that adversaries like China and Russia employ cyber tactics as part of broader, integrated strategies that include economic, physical, and psychological components. To counter such threats, he argued, the U.S. needs a cohesive approach across its military branches. “Confronting that requires our military to adapt to the changing battlespace in a consistent way,” he said.

In 2018, CYBERCOM certified its Cyber Mission Force teams as fully staffed, but concerns have been expressed by the FDD and others that personnel were shifted between teams to meet staffing goals — a move they say masked deeper structural problems. Nakasone has called for a CYBERCOM 2.0, saying in comments early this year “How do we think about training differently? How do we think about personnel differently?” and adding that a major issue has been the approach to military staffing within the command.

Austin Berglas, a former head of the FBI’s cyber program in New York who worked on consolidation efforts inside the Bureau, believes a separate cyber force could enhance U.S. capabilities by centralizing resources and priorities. “When I first took over the [FBI] cyber program … the assets were scattered,” said Berglas, who is now the global head of professional services at supply chain cyber defense company BlueVoyant. Centralization brought focus and efficiency to the FBI’s cyber efforts, he said, and it’s a model he believes would benefit the military’s cyber efforts as well. “Cyber is a different beast,” Berglas said, emphasizing the need for specialized training, advancement, and resource allocation that isn’t diluted by competing military priorities.

Berglas also pointed to the ongoing “cyber arms race” with adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. He warned that without a dedicated force, the U.S. risks falling behind as these nations expand their offensive cyber capabilities and exploit vulnerabilities across critical infrastructure.

Nakasone said in his comments earlier this year that a lot has changed since 2013 when U.S. Cyber Command began building out its Cyber Mission Force to combat issues like counterterrorism and financial cybercrime coming from Iran. “Completely different world in which we live in today,” he said, citing the threats from China and Russia.

Brandon Wales, a former executive director of the CISA, said there is the need to bolster U.S. cyber capabilities, but he cautions against major structural changes during a period of heightened global threats.

“A reorganization of this scale is obviously going to be disruptive and will take time,” said Wales, who is now vice president of cybersecurity strategy at SentinelOne.

He cited China’s preparations for a potential conflict over Taiwan as a reason the U.S. military needs to maintain readiness. Rather than creating a new branch, Wales supports initiatives like Cyber Command 2.0 and its aim to enhance coordination and capabilities within the existing structure. “Large reorganizations should always be the last resort because of how disruptive they are,” he said.

Wales says it’s important to ensure any structural changes do not undermine integration across military branches and recognize that coordination across existing branches is critical to addressing the complex, multidomain threats posed by U.S. adversaries. “You should not always assume that centralization solves all of your problems,” he said. “We need to enhance our capabilities, both defensively and offensively. This isn’t about one solution; it’s about ensuring we can quickly see, stop, disrupt, and prevent threats from hitting our critical infrastructure and systems,” he added.