- Home >
- Services >
- Access to Knowledge >
- Trend Monitor >
- Source of threat >
- Trend snippet: IoT security challenge: lack of standardization
Trends in Security Information
The HSD Trendmonitor is designed to provide access to relevant content on various subjects in the safety and security domain, to identify relevant developments and to connect knowledge and organisations. The safety and security domain encompasses a vast number of subjects. Four relevant taxonomies (type of threat or opportunity, victim, source of threat and domain of application) have been constructed in order to visualize all of these subjects. The taxonomies and related category descriptions have been carefully composed according to other taxonomies, European and international standards and our own expertise.
In order to identify safety and security related trends, relevant reports and HSD news articles are continuously scanned, analysed and classified by hand according to the four taxonomies. This results in a wide array of observations, which we call ‘Trend Snippets’. Multiple Trend Snippets combined can provide insights into safety and security trends. The size of the circles shows the relative weight of the topic, the filters can be used to further select the most relevant content for you. If you have an addition, question or remark, drop us a line at info@securitydelta.nl.
visible on larger screens only
Please expand your browser window.
Or enjoy this interactive application on your desktop or laptop.
IoT security challenge: lack of standardization
5.2 IOT SECURITY STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
While numerous standards exist in the IoT space, IoT security has not been standardised significantly until now; a recent ETSI standard is one of the first efforts to standardise IoT security. While numerous sets of IoT security recommendations exist, it is important to harmonise and align these for global acceptance and adoption as a precursor to developing evaluation and certification schemes.
5.2.1 Current Landscape and Recent Developments
Standards development organisations (SDOs) such as ITU109, NIST110, ETSI111, IETF112, and ISO113 have all undertaken IoT-specific efforts. Gartner’s Hype Cycle for IoT Standards and Protocols114 profiles as many as 30 IoT standards, 15 of which have been marked to deliver “high business benefit.” Six of those are expected to become mainstream in the next five years, including the below networking standards. – 6LoWPAN: IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks is an IETF standard to deliver IPv6 connectivity over non-IP networking technologies such as NFC and LoRa using extremely low power, such that compliant devices can potentially run for years on battery power. – OneM2M: a machine-to-machine service layer that can be embedded in hardware and software to connect devices. – Random Phase Multiple Access (RPMA): a proprietary standard for connecting IoT objects. – Sigfox: a proprietary low-power, low-throughput technology for IoT and machine-to-machine (M2M) communications.
While many of the above standards include a security component, this section focuses on recommendations that deal with IoT security in general. Technical networking standards (including security aspects) are discussed in the section on Secure Communications and Infrastructure. The UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS), the EU Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA), the Alliance for IoT Innovation (AIOTI), and GSMA115 have released recommendations, guidelines or good practices specifically for IoT security. We briefly discuss these below. UK Code of Practice DCMS UK has proposed a Code of Practice116 for the security of consumer IoT products and associated services. The Code identifies that many severe security issues stem from poor security design and bad practice in products sold to consumers. The guidance is listed in order of importance and, according to DCMS, the top three should be addressed as a matter of priority.
1. No default passwords,
2. Implement a vulnerability disclosure policy,
3. Keep software updated,
4. Securely store credentials and security-sensitive data,
5. Communicate securely,
6. Minimise exposed attack surfaces,
7. Ensure software integrity,
8. Ensure that personal data is protected,
9. Make systems resilient to outages,
10. Monitor system telemetry data,
11. Make it easy for consumers to delete personal data,
12. Make installation and maintenance of devices easy,
13. Validate input data.
The Code of Practice is based on IoT security recommendations from the PETRAS IoT Hub117. In February 2019, the European Standards Organisation ETSI launched a globally-applicable industry standard for IoT devices based on the Code of Practice.118 It is expected that CEN/ CENELEC will also be involved in the further development and dissemination of this standard (see https://www.cencenelec.eu/standards/Sectorsold/DefenceSecurityPrivacy/Security/Pages/Cybersecurity.aspx).
ENISA Security Recommendations
The Baseline Security Recommendations for IoT from ENISA119 include a number of policy, organisational and technical measures. Technical measures include the use of a hardware-based immutable root of trust, and security features such as specialised security chips / coprocessors that integrate security at the transistor level providing trusted storage of device identity, protecting keys at rest and in use, and preventing unprivileged access to security sensitive code. The overwhelming breadth and depth of coverage make this inventory impressive, but at the same time possibly challenging to implement in practice.
AIOTI Recommendations for Standards
AIOTI has done considerable work in this area, as referenced by the activity underway within the AIOTI Standards Working Group120 (WG03). According to AIOTI, basic requirements for IoT devices include121: – Testing and Certifying Security – Using existing, proven certifications recognised as state-of-the-art based on assessed risk level; additional introduction of a classification system to certify devices for particular use-case scenarios depending on the level of risk. – Security Labels – Proven labels such as an ‘Energy efficiency label’ of appliances in order to classify the IoT device. – Preset Certified Security Structures – Encryption requirement for identities, access, communication channels and secure storage of keys and to store data at rest – also for secure boot process. – Security Rationale – Explanation of implemented security measures related to well understood hazards in order to define acceptable level security risks from any designer of IoT device, auditable by independent third party. – Information exchange – Sharing information about incidents/potential vulnerabilities between manufacturers. – Defined functions – IoT devices should only be able to perform documented functions, making sense for device/service. – Standardisation – Interoperability of components and communication protocols.
NIST IoT Cybersecurity Program
NIST’s Cybersecurity for the Internet of Things (IoT) Program122 is undertaking efforts to identify a core set of cybersecurity capabilities to form a baseline for IoT devices. In September 2018, NIST released a publication entitled “Considerations for Managing Internet of Things (IoT) Cybersecurity and Privacy Risks” in order to help federal agencies and other organisations better understand and manage the cybersecurity and privacy risks associated with their IoT devices throughout device lifecycles123. This publication is intended to be an introductory foundation for a planned series of publications on more specific aspects of this topic. As of mid-2019, NIST is focusing on engaging with stakeholders124 via workshops, seminars and a draft discussion paper125 in order to gather feedback for a Core IoT Cybersecurity Capabilities Baseline.
Industrial Internet of Things Security Framework
Early IoT applications included industrial control systems, or Operational Technology (OT), that converged with IT to create an Industrial IoT. Such an IoT system connects and integrates industrial control systems with enterprise software and business processes and analytics to improve decision-making, operations and collaboration among a large number of increasingly autonomous control systems. The Industrial Internet Consortium’s IIoT Security Framework approaches IoT in a generic and detailed manner, and provides concrete recommendations for endpoint security, communications security, and data protection, making this report highly relevant for IoT device manufacturers.
GSMA IoT Security Guidelines
The telecommunications industry, which the GSMA represents, has a history of providing secure products and services to their customers at a very large scale. According to the GSMA, the provision of secure products and services is as much a process as it is a goal. Vigilance, innovation, responsiveness and continuous improvement are required to ensure that the solutions address the threats. To help ensure that the new IoT services coming to market are secure, the GSMA has created a comprehensive set of security guidelines128 for the benefit of service providers who are looking to develop new IoT services. Taking this a step further is GSMA’s assessment checklist129, which enables the suppliers of IoT products, services and components to self-assess the conformance of their products, services and components to the GSMA IoT Security Guidelines. Completing a GSMA IoT Security Assessment Checklist allows an entity to demonstrate the security measures they have taken to protect their products, services and components from cybersecurity risks. Assessment declarations can be made by submitting a completed declaration to the GSMA.
5.2.2 Key Findings
– Security standards and guidelines are required for development and operations to stimulate the adoption of secure IoT devices.
– A number of IoT security good practices, guidelines and recommendations exist, but efforts from established standards development organisations such as ETSI and NIST are very recent.
– Manufacturers may not have the expertise to make use of the available guidelines and recommendation. Usability of security guidelines is a challenge and requires more research.
– Harmonisation of IoT security guidelines and recommendations is required to stimulate adoption. Harmonisation should be supported by global cybersecurity research initiatives.
– It is important for standardisation processes to stay aligned with technological developments without stifling innovation.