Speaking at a conference today, a security researcher has revealed a new exploit impacting the Windows IoT Core operating system that gives threat actors full control over vulnerable devices.
The vulnerability, discovered by Dor Azouri, a security researcher for SafeBreach, impacts the Sirep/WPCon communications protocol included with Windows IoT operating system.
Azouri said the vulnerability only impacts Windows IoT Core, the Windows IoT OS version for devices meant to run one single application, such as smart devices, control boards, hobbyist devices, and others.
The vulnerability does not impact Windows IoT Enterprise, the more advanced version of the Windows IoT operating system, the one that comes with support for a desktop functionality, and the one most likely to be found deployed in industrial robots, production lines, and other industrial environments.
The researcher said the security issue he discovered allows an attacker to run commands with SYSTEM privileges on Windows IoT Core devices.
“This exploit works on cable-connected Windows IoT Core devices, running Microsoft’s official stock image,” Azouri said in a research paper shared with ZDNet.
“The method described in this paper exploits the Sirep Test Service that’s built-in and running on the official images offered at Microsoft’s site,” the researcher said. “This service is the client part of the HLK setup one may build in order to perform driver/hardware tests on IoT devices. It serves the Sirep/WPCon protocol.”
Using the vulnerability in this testing service he discovered, the SafeBreach researcher said he was able to expose a remote command interface that attackers can weaponize to take control over smart devices running Microsoft’s Windows IoT Core OS.
During his tests, Azouri built such a tool, a remote access trojan (RAT) that he named SirepRAT, which he plans to open-source on GitHub.
The upside to Azouri’s SirepRAT is that it doesn’t work wirelessly, as the testing interface is only available via an Ethernet connection. This implies that the attacker needs to be physically present near a target, or compromise another device on a company’s internal network and use as a relay point for attacks on vulnerable devices.
ZDNet has reached out for comment to Microsoft, but we did not receive a response before this article’s publication.
Azouri has presented his research today at the WOPR Summit security conference in Atlantic City, NJ, USA. We’ll update this article in the coming days to include links to the SirepRAT GitHub repo and Azouri’s whitepaper.
The Windows IoT operating system is a free successor of the Windows Embedded project. According to SafeBreach, the OS has the second largest market share in the IoT devices market, with a 22.9 percent stake, behind Linux, which has a 71.8 percent market share.
Related cybersecurity news coverage:
Phish Fight: Securing Enterprise Communications
Yes, much of the world may have moved on from email to social media and culturally dubious TikTok dances, yet traditional electronic mail remains a foundation of business communication. And sadly, it remains a prime vector for malware, data leakage, and phishing attacks that can undermine enterprise protections. It doesn’t have to be that way.
In a just released report titled “GigaOm Radar for Phishing Prevention and Detection,” GigaOm Analyst Simon Gibson surveyed more than a dozen enterprise-focused email security solutions. He found a range of approaches to securing communications that often can be fitted together to provide critical, defense-in-depth protection against even determined attackers.
Figure 1. GigaOm Radar for Email Phishing Prevention and Detection
“When evaluating these vendors and their solutions, it is important to consider your own business and workflow,” Gibson writes in the report, stressing the need to deploy solutions that best address your organization’s business workflow and email traffic. “For some it may be preferable to settle on one comprehensive solution, while for others building a best-of-breed architecture from multiple vendors may be preferable.”
In a field of competent solutions, Gibson found that Forcepoint, purchased recently by Raytheon, stood apart thanks to the layered protections provided by its Advanced Classification Engine. Area 1 and Zimperium, meanwhile, are both leaders that exhibit significant momentum, with Area 1 boosted by its recent solution partnership with Virtru, and Zimperium excelling in its deep commitment to mobile message security.
A mobile focus is timely, Gibson says in a video interview for GigaOm. He says companies are “tuning the spigot on” and enabling unprecedented access and reliance on mobile devices, which is creating an urgent need to get ahead of threats.
Gibson’s conclusion in the report? He singles out three things: Defense in depth, awareness of existing patterns and infrastructure, and a healthy respect for the “human factor” that can make security so hard to lock down.
When Is a DevSecOps Vendor Not a DevSecOps Vendor?
DevOps’ general aim is to enable a more efficient process for producing software and technology solutions and bringing stakeholders together to speed up delivery. But we know from experience that this inherently creative, outcome-driven approach often forgets about one thing until too late in the process—security. Too often, security is brought into the timeline just before deployment, risking last minute headaches and major delays. The security team is pushed into being the Greek chorus of the process, “ruining everyone’s fun” by demanding changes and slowing things down.
But as we know, in the complex, multi-cloud and containerized environment we find ourselves in, security is becoming more important and challenging than ever. And the costs of security failure are not only measured in slower deployment, but in compliance breaches and reputational damage.
The term “DevSecOps” has been coined to characterize how security needs to be at the heart of the DevOps process. This is in part principle and part tools. As a principle, DevSecOps fits with the concept of “shifting left,” that is, ensuring that security is treated as early as possible in the development process. So far, so simple.
From a tooling perspective, however, things get more complicated, not least because the market has seen a number of platforms marketing themselves as DevSecOps. As we have been writing our Key Criteria report on the subject, we have learned that not all DevSecOps vendors are necessarily DevSecOps vendors. Specifically, we have learned to distinguish capabilities that directly enable the goals of DevSecOps from a process perspective, from those designed to support DevSecOps practices. We could define them as: “Those that do, and those that help.”
This is how to tell the two types of vendor apart and how to use them.
Vendors Enabling DevSecOps: “Tools That Do”
A number of tools work to facilitate the DevSecOps process -– let’s bite the bullet and call them DevSecOps tools. They help teams set out each stage of software development, bringing siloed teams together behind a unified vision that allows fast, high-quality development, with security considerations at its core. DevSecOps tools work across the development process, for example:
- Create: Help to set and implement policy
- Develop: Apply guidance to the process and aid its implementation
- Test: Facilitate and guide security testing procedures
- Deploy: Provide reports to assure confidence to deploy the application
The key element that sets these tool sets apart is the ability to automate and reduce friction within the development process. They will prompt action, stop a team from moving from one stage to another if the process has not adequately addressed security concerns, and guide the roadmap for the development from start to finish.
Supporting DevSecOps: “Tools That Help”
In this category we place those tools which aid the execution, and monitoring, of good DevSecOps principles. Security scanning and application/infrastructure hardening tools are a key element of these processes: Software composition analysis (SCA) forms a part of the development stage, static/dynamic application security testing (SAST/DAST) is integral to the test stage and runtime app protection (RASP) is a key to the Deploy stage.
Tools like this are a vital part of the security layer of security tooling, especially just before deployment – and they often come with APIs so they can be plugged into the CI/CD process. However, while these capabilities are very important to DevSecOps, they can be seen in more of a supporting role, rather than being DevSecOps tools per se.
DevSecOps-washing is not a good idea for the enterprise
While one might argue that security should never have been shifted right, DevSecOps exists to ensure that security best practices take place across the development lifecycle. A corollary exists to the idea of “tools that help,” namely that organizations implementing these tools are not “doing DevSecOps,” any more than vendors providing these tools are DevSecOps vendors.
The only way to “do” DevSecOps is to fully embrace security at a process management and governance level: This means assessing risk, defining policy, setting review gates, and disallowing progress for insecure deliverables. Organizations that embrace DevSecOps can get help from what we are calling DevSecOps tools, as well as from scanning and hardening tools that help support its goals.
At the end of the day, all security and governance boils down to risk: If you buy a scanning tool so you can check a box that says “DevSecOps,” you are potentially adding to your risk posture, rather than mitigating it. So, get your DevSecOps strategy fixed first, then consider how you can add automation, visibility, and control using “tools that do,” as well as benefit from “tools that help.”
High Performance Application Security Testing
This free 1-hour webinar from GigaOm Research. It is hosted by an expert in Application and API testing, and GigaOm analyst, Jake Dolezal. His presentation will focus on the results of high performance testing we completed against two security mechanisms: ModSecurity on NGINX and NGINX App Protect. Additionally, we tested the AWS Web Application Firewall (WAF) as a fully managed security offering.
While performance is important, it is only one criterion for a Web Application Firewall selection. The results of the report are revealing about these platforms. The methodology will be shown with clarity and transparency on how you might replicate these tests to mimic your own workloads and requirements.
Register now to join GigaOm and sponsor NGINX for this free expert webinar.
iPhone 12 on DxOMark falls way behind its siblings
Apple’s new iPhones this year might have 5G support as their headlining feature but they might be better remembered for...
Galaxy Note 21 might still happen next year with a catch
Reports of the Galaxy Note line’s demise might be exaggerated or premature. Those reports were mostly based on rumors that...
Microsoft Project Latte rumored to bring Android apps to Windows
Like it or not, Microsoft Windows still has the majority of the computing market but not having all of that...
Apple M1 Mac running Windows 10 ARM is embarrassing for Surface Pro X
It seems that Apple’s M1 Silicon isn’t yet done amazing people, even those from outside of Apple’s circles. The processor’s...
US Army explores drone-like designs for quieter stealth helicopters
The US Army is has prioritized the development of a quieter helicopter design that will enable it to operate these...
Social10 months ago
CrashPlan for Small Business Review
Gadgets2 years ago
A fictional Facebook Portal videochat with Mark Zuckerberg – TechCrunch
Mobile2 years ago
Memory raises $5M to bring AI to time tracking – TechCrunch
Social2 years ago
iPhone XS priciest yet in South Korea
Cars2 years ago
What’s the best cloud storage for you?
Security2 years ago
Google latest cloud to be Australian government certified
Cars2 years ago
Some internet outages predicted for the coming month as ‘768k Day’ approaches
Social2 years ago
Apple’s new iPad Pro aims to keep enterprise momentum