Connect with us

Security

New study finds 5 of every 6 routers are inadequately updated for security flaws

Published

on


A new study by a US consumer nonprofit has found that five out of six home routers are inadequately updated for security flaws, leaving the devices, and indirectly their users, vulnerable to hacking.

Carried out by the American Consumer Institute (ACI), the study analyzed a sample of 186 SOHO (small office/home office) Wi-Fi routers from 14 different vendors with a presence on the US market.

ACI experts looked at the firmware version the routers were running and searched public vulnerabilities databases for known security flaws affecting each device’s firmware.

“In total, there was a staggering number of 32,003 known vulnerabilities found in the sample,” said ACI experts in the study published last week.

“Our analysis shows that of the 186 sampled routers, 155 (83 percent) were found to have vulnerabilities to potential cyberattacks, in the router firmware, with an average of 172 vulnerabilities per router, or 186 vulnerabilities per router for the identified 155 routers,” ACI experts said.

aci-report-router-flaws.pngaci-report-router-flaws.png

Image: ACI

Of the total 32,003 security flaws, more than a quarter were vulnerabilities that received the two highest severity ratings of “critical” and “high-risk” respectively.

“Our analysis shows that, on average, routers contained 12 critical vulnerabilities and 36 high-risk vulnerabilities, across the entire sample,” researchers said.

These are staggeringly large numbers.

ACI experts said the use of open-source libraries are one of the main reasons for the presence of security flaws in router firmware, as the firmware often inherits the vulnerabilities of its smaller components.

Furthermore, the lack of auto-update mechanisms keeps many of these devices in a vulnerable state, or until a user is reminded to update the firmware, usually after a major router hacking spree, such as the emergence of the Mirai and VPNFilter malware strains.

While some router vendors have started adding auto-update mechanisms to recent models, it will take years until these new versions replace older models, in which time, the older SOHO router models will continue to put users at risk, as well as all IoT devices connected to them.

“Keeping firmware patched for known online threats may be an expense for manufacturers, but not doing so leaves consumers to collectively bear the burden of potentially much higher costs from cybercrime,” ACI experts said.

Previous and related coverage:

What is malware? Everything you need to know

Cyber attacks and malware are one of the biggest threats on the internet. Learn about the different types of malware – and how to avoid falling victim to attacks.

Security 101: Here’s how to keep your data private, step by step

This simple advice will help to protect you against hackers and government surveillance.

VPN services 2018: The ultimate guide to protecting your data on the internet

Whether you’re in the office or on the road, a VPN is still one of the best ways to protect yourself on the big, bad internet.

FBI solves mystery surrounding 15-year-old Fruitfly Mac malware

Fruitfly malware author used port scanning with weak or no passwords to identify potential victims.

Meet Torii, a new IoT botnet far more sophisticated than Mirai variants

The evolving IoT botnet is able to compromise an impressive array of architectures.

Teenage Apple hacker avoids jail for ‘hacky hack hack’ attack

The self-proclaimed Apple fan stole roughly 90GB of confidential data from the iPad and iPhone maker.

Related stories:

Source link



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Security

Security Tools Help Bring Dev and Security Teams Together

Published

on

Software development teams are increasingly focused on identifying and mitigating any issues as quickly and completely as possible. This relates not only to software quality but also software security. Different organizations are at different levels when it comes to having their development teams and security teams working in concert, but the simple fact remains that there are far more developers out there than security engineers.

Those factors are leading organizations to consider security tooling and automation to proactively discover and resolve any software security issues throughout the development process. In the recent report, “GigaOm Radar for Developer Security Tools,” Shea Stewart examines a roundup of security tools aimed at software development teams.

Stewart identified three critical criteria to bear in mind when evaluating developer security tools. These include:

  • Vendors providing tools to improve application security can and should also enhance an organization’s overall security posture.
  • The prevailing “shift-left” mindset doesn’t necessarily mean the responsibility for reducing risk should shift to development, but instead focusing on security earlier in the process and continuing to do so throughout the development process will reduce risk and the need for extensive rework.
  • Security throughout the entire software development lifecycle (SDLC) is critical for any organization focused on reducing risk.

Figure 1. How Cybersecurity Applies Across Each Stage of the Software Development Lifecycle *Note: This report focuses only on the Developer Security Tooling area

Individual vendors have made varying levels of progress and innovation toward enhancing developer security. Following several acquisitions, Red Hat, Palo Alto Networks, and Rapid7 have all added tooling for developer security to their platforms. Stewart sees a couple of the smaller vendors like JFrog and Sonatype as continuing to innovate to remain ahead of the market.

Vendors delving into this category and moving deeper into “DevSecOps” all seem to be taking different approaches to their enhanced security tooling. While they are involving security in every aspect of the development process, some tend to be moving more quickly to match the pace of the SDLC. Others are trying to shore up existing platforms by adding functionality through acquisition. Both infrastructure and software developers are now sharing toolsets and processes, so these development security tools must account for the requirements of both groups.

While none of the 12 vendors evaluated in this report can provide comprehensive security throughout the entire SDLC, they all have their particular strengths and areas of focus. It is therefore incumbent upon the organization to fully and accurately assess its SDLC, involve the development and security teams, and match the unique requirements with the functionality provided by these tools. Even if it involves using more than one at different points throughout the process, focus on striking a balance between stringent security and simplifying the development process.

Read more: Key Criteria for Evaluating Developer Security Tools, and the Gigaom Radar for Developer Security Tool Companies.

The post Security Tools Help Bring Dev and Security Teams Together appeared first on Gigaom.

Continue Reading

Security

Key Criteria for Evaluating User and Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA)

Published

on

Cybersecurity is a multidisciplinary practice that not only grows in complexity annually but evolves nearly as quickly. A survey of the security landscape today would reveal concerns ranging from the classic compromised servers to the relatively new DevSecOps practices aimed at securing the rapid deployment of new code and infrastructure. However, some things remain constant no matter how much change is introduced. While technology evolves and complexity varies, there is almost always a human component in
risks presented to an organization.

User Behavior Analysis (UBA) was designed to analyze the actions of users in an organization and attempt to identify normal and abnormal behaviors. From this analysis, malicious or risky behaviors can be detected. UBA solutions identify events that are not detectable using other methods because, unlike classic security tools (an IDS or SIEM for example), UBA does not simply pattern match or apply rule sets to data to identify security events. Instead, it looks for any and all deviations from baseline user activity.

As technology advanced and evolved, and the scope of what is connected to the network grew, the need to analyze entities other than users emerged. In response, entity analysis has been added to UBA to create UEBA or User and Entity Behavior Analysis. The strategy remains the same, but the scope of analysis has expanded to include entities involving things like daemons, processes, infrastructure, and so on.

How to Read this Report

This GigaOm report is one of a series of documents that helps IT organizations assess competing solutions in the context of well-defined features and criteria. For a fuller understanding consider reviewing the following reports:

Key Criteria report: A detailed market sector analysis that assesses the impact that key product features and criteria have on top-line solution characteristics—such as scalability, performance, and TCO—that drive purchase decisions.

GigaOm Radar report: A forward-looking analysis that plots the relative value and progression of vendor solutions along multiple axes based on strategy and execution. The Radar report includes a breakdown of each vendor’s offering in the sector.

Solution Profile: An in-depth vendor analysis that builds on the framework developed in the Key Criteria and Radar reports to assess a company’s engagement within a technology sector. This analysis includes forward-looking guidance around both strategy and product.

The post Key Criteria for Evaluating User and Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) appeared first on Gigaom.

Continue Reading

Security

GigaOm Radar for Developer Security Tools

Published

on

As we learned in the associated GigaOm report, “Key Criteria for Evaluating Developer Security Tools,” the most cost-effective method for reducing risk in software development is to identify and fix issues as close to the developer as possible. As the number of software developers continues to vastly outnumber the number of security professionals allocated to any software project, organizations need to invest in security tooling and automation that can help software developers consider and mitigate security risks in a proactive manner.

Add to this situation an appreciation for how the role of the developer has changed vastly over the last few years: Developers aren’t just responsible for software components; they can write infrastructure components, security controls, automations/integrations, and so forth. This has blended the worlds of the traditional software developers and the infrastructure and operations teams responsible for the environments that software components are deployed to. A much wider range of job titles can be incorporated into the developer role now, which requires the same security tooling and process oversight as does traditional software development.

As we consider how to evaluate vendors for developer security tools, we need to take these points into account:

  • All vendors involved in improving application security can contribute to an organization’s overall enhanced security posture.
  • “Shift-left” mindsets do not imply that the work of reducing risk is simply shifted to the developer, but rather that adding a focus on security early in the process will reduce risk and rework as software moves through the delivery pipeline.
  • Security throughout the entire software development lifecycle (SDLC) is key for any organization that is focused on reducing risk.

In this report we have identified a number of vendors that address the specific need to catch and remediate security issues earlier in the software development lifecycle, which we articulate in the report as table stakes, key criteria, and evaluation metrics. While we review 12 vendor solutions here, we ruled out many more, including several offering capabilities focused on runtime protection, which merit review in upcoming GigaOm Key Criteria and Radar Reports.

How to Read this Report

This GigaOm report is one of a series of documents that helps IT organizations assess competing solutions in the context of well-defined features and criteria. For a fuller understanding consider reviewing the following reports:

Key Criteria report: A detailed market sector analysis that assesses the impact that key product features and criteria have on top-line solution characteristics—such as scalability, performance, and TCO—that drive purchase decisions.

GigaOm Radar report: A forward-looking analysis that plots the relative value and progression of vendor solutions along multiple axes based on strategy and execution. The Radar report includes a breakdown of each vendor’s offering in the sector.

Solution Profile: An in-depth vendor analysis that builds on the framework developed in the Key Criteria and Radar reports to assess a company’s engagement within a technology sector. This analysis includes forward-looking guidance around both strategy and product.

The post GigaOm Radar for Developer Security Tools appeared first on Gigaom.

Continue Reading

Trending