The strategy towards more IT security in the “Internet of Things” is based a little more than entirely on misconceptions and ignorance. The policy makers simply reinforce each other’s “ideas” without any awareness of where the road they follow is leading.
As I listened on in the K-ITS 2014 conference, it became painfully obvious that most speakers should not be speaking at all. They should be listening. The conference is supposed to discuss the strategies towards more IT security in the future industry that will have both factories and cars connected to the Internet. That future isn’t bright, far from. We are fighting battles on the internet for the web servers, personal computers and mobile phones now. We will be fighting battles for refrigerators, nuclear power plants and medical implants in the near future. We definitely need to have some better ideas for those battle plans. Instead, we hear, if anything, the ideas on improving the attitudes of buyers, i.e. “how can we convince the customers that our security is okay and they should pay more?”
I detail here five different misconceptions that were very obvious and widespread in the conference. Even security management at the top level shares this, though they should know better. And the worst part is, they all seem to believe that it will be all right if they throw some important sounding names and acronyms at it.
Divide security into “levels”
A prominent theme is the division of the industrial landscape into various “areas” of differing security requirements. There is nothing wrong with the concept itself, of course, except that it is applied in a context where it will do more harm than good.
The policy makers seem to think that they can divide the industry into ‘critical infrastructure’, ‘things that need security’, and ‘things that do not need security’. Right, for the sake of an argument, assume we can. Then what? And then, they say, we will invest in security where it matters most. That, on the surface, looks like a sound plan.
The problems start when you try to apply the said concept to the software development. How do we distinguish between software written for ‘secure’ and ‘insecure’ applications? How do we make authors of libraries and tools to write their software to the highest standards to satisfy the ‘most secure’ part of the industry? What about the operating systems they use? What about people that wander from one company to another, bringing not only expertise but mistakes and security holes with them?
Once you start thinking about this approach in practical terms, it quickly becomes untenable.
The only way to improve the security of any software is to improve the security level of the whole software industry. The software not written specifically for a high security environment will end up there whether we want it or not. Developers not skilled and not trained for writing secure software will. It’s unavoidable.
But that is only one side of the problem. Why have the division in the first place? Yes, critical infrastructure is critical, but that stupid mirror with a network interface will also end up in a secure facility and how do we know what the next attack path will look like? The noncritical infrastructure will be used to attack critical infrastructure, isn’t it obvious? All infrastructure, all consumer devices need protection if we want to have a secure Internet of Things.
The software for all purposes is written by the same underpaid people that never had proper security education everywhere. The general tendency for software quality and security is, unfortunately, to get worse. As it gets worse everywhere it does, of course, get worse for the critical infrastructure as well as for consumer electronics.
Investment should be done into the state of software in general, not into the state of some particular software. Otherwise, it won’t work.
Security should not prevent innovation
Says who? Not that I am against innovation but security must sometimes prevent certain innovation, like tweaking of cryptographic algorithms that would break security. There is such thing as bad or ill-conceived innovation from the point of view of security (and, actually, from every other point of view, too). Wait, it gets worse.
‘Innovation’ has become the cornerstone of the industry, the false god that receives all our prayers. There is nothing wrong with innovation per se but it must not take over the industry. The innovation is there to serve us, not the other way around. We took it too far, we pray to innovation in places where it would not matter or be even harmful. Innovation by itself, without a purpose, is useless.
We know that this single-minded focus will result in security being ignored time and again. There is too much emphasis on short-term success and quick development resulting not only in low security but low quality overall.
Finding ways of doing things properly is the real innovation. Compare to civil engineering, building houses, bridges, nuclear power stations. What would happen if the construction industry was bent on innovation and innovation only, on delivering constructions now, without any regard to proper planning and execution? Well, examples are easy to find and the results are disastrous.
What makes the big difference? We can notice the bridge collapsing or a building falling down, we do not need to be experts in construction for that. Unfortunately, collapsing applications on the Internet are not that obvious. But they are there. We really need to slow down and finally put things in order. Or do we wait for things to collapse first?
Convince the customer
We are bent on convincing the customer that things are secure. Not making things secure but convincing everyone around that we are fine. Engaging in plays of smoke and mirrors that is. Instead of actually making things better we announce that pretending things are better will somehow make them better. And we try and succeed to convince ourselves that this is okay somehow.
Well, it is not okay. We all understand the desire of commercial companies to avoid security publicity. We know that eventually people do catch up anyway. There is such a rush to convince everyone and their grandma that things are going to be better precisely because people will be catching up on this foul play soon.
The market will shrink if people think that there are security problems but the market will crash when people find out they were lied to and your words are not worth the electrons they use to come across the internet. The deception of ourselves will lead to a disaster and we have no way of controlling that. This is simply a fast track to security by obscurity.
Secure components mean secure systems
There is a commonly shared misconception that using secure components will somehow automatically lead to secure systems. When confronted with this question directly, people usually quickly realise their folly and will likely fervently deny such thinking but it is sufficient to listen to a presentation to realise that that is exactly the assumption behind many plans.
Secure components are never secure unconditionally. They are what we call conditionally secure. They are secure as long as a certain set of assumptions remains valid. Once an assumption is broken, not met, the component is not any longer secure. Who checks for those assumptions? Who verifies whether the developers upheld all of the assumptions that the developers of underlying components specified? Who checks what assumptions remained undocumented?
When we combine the components together we create a new problem, the problem of composition. This is not an easy problem at all. By having two secure components put together, you don’t automatically obtain a secure system. It may well be. Or it may be not.
This problem of secure composition is well known to the developers and auditors of smart cards. And they do not claim to have a solution. And here we are, developers of systems orders of magnitude more complex, dismissing the problem out of our minds like if it’s not even worth our consideration. That’s a folly.
We need those things on the internet
Who said that factories need to be on the internet? Who said that every single small piece of electronics or an electric device really needs to be on the internet? Why do we think that having all of those things “talk” to each other would make us all suddenly happy?
The industry and the governments do not want to deal with any of the real problems plaguing the societies world over. Instead, they want to produce more and more useless stuff that allows them to appear like if they do something useful. They will earn lots of money and waste a lot more resources in the progress. Should they be worried?
Take “smart cars”, for example, cars that communicate to each other over some wireless protocol to tell about accidents, road condition, traffic jams. Think about it. A car cannot communicate very far away. On a highway, by the time you get news of a traffic jam from your neighbour cars, you will be standing in it. In the city, this information will be equally useless, because you will see the traffic jam and do what you always did: turn around and go look for another street around the block. What of accidents? Again, that information is not much use to you in the city, where you basically don’t need it. They say, cars will inform each other of the accidents but this information cannot be transmitted too far away. By the time your car has information about an accident on the highway ahead, displays it and you read it, you will be staring at it. The civil engineers are not that stupid, you know. They make highways so that you have enough time to see what is around the corner and react. Extra information would only distract the driver there. So this whole idea is completely useless from the point of view of driving but it will require enormous resources and some genius security solutions to artificially created problems.
And all of it is like that. We don’t need an “internet of things” in the first place. We should restrict what gets on the internet, not encourage the uncontrollable proliferation of devices arbitrarily connected to the network simply to show off. Yes, we can. But should we?