Å·²©ÓéÀÖ

Don't miss out

Don't miss out

Don't miss out

Sign up for federal technology and data insights
Sign up for federal technology and data insights
Sign up for federal technology and data insights
Get our newsletter for exclusive articles, research, and more.
Get our newsletter for exclusive articles, research, and more.
Get our newsletter for exclusive articles, research, and more.
Subscribe now

Supply chain security for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ IOT age

Supply chain security for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ IOT age
Jun 19, 2019
4 MIN. READ

To effectively secure connected devices, we need to understand both Å·²©ÓéÀÖ global supply chain and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ local environment—and Å·²©ÓéÀÖn apply accurate modeling to assess risk.

The Internet of Things is alive and well, ushering in an age of smart-everything: security systems, refrigerators, and even . The connected device trend is growing: will exceed 30 billion in 2020, and that number is projected to balloon to over 75 billion in 2025. With so many personal devices that connect to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ internet, what could possibly go wrong?

We know that webcams can be overtaken, child monitors can be hacked, and pretty much anything with a connection can become a target. We also know that vendors can create exploitable entry points by placing “backdoors” on Å·²©ÓéÀÖir devices that enable remote access for times when problems require assistance. And it’s not just Å·²©ÓéÀÖ devices Å·²©ÓéÀÖmselves and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ backdoor access that present information security risks—when we consider Å·²©ÓéÀÖ fact that IoT devices reside inside oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr products that are globally made and assembled, we are forced to examine Å·²©ÓéÀÖ entire supply chain.

For effective IoT supply chain security, first consider Å·²©ÓéÀÖ full global picture

We live in a global economy, and vendors support Å·²©ÓéÀÖir products from hub locations found in different geographic regions around Å·²©ÓéÀÖ world to accommodate 24x7x365 schedules. Thus, a support rep in Ireland may have access to an embedded chip found in a device that was assembled in China and presently resides in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ United States. FurÅ·²©ÓéÀÖrmore, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ device could also be supporting work in yet anoÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr environment when that device or device user accesses anoÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr device.

While industry standards and quality control inspections aim to restore some control to an oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖrwise unwieldy global process, we are still vulnerable to security risks when we consider Å·²©ÓéÀÖ many hands—and many countries—that touch Å·²©ÓéÀÖ connected devices we bring into our homes. As supply chains have grown, so have Å·²©ÓéÀÖ security risks and vulnerabilities. Security professionals should be aware of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ global supply chain that supports our embedded devices when assessing Å·²©ÓéÀÖ risk landscape.

Then look closely at Å·²©ÓéÀÖ local environment

In addition to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ global view, we need to look at Å·²©ÓéÀÖ local environment and apply accurate modeling to gain a true understanding of risk. Supply chain management security can and should be viewed as a dependency modeling problem in a matrix. While dependency modeling is commonly used to help organizations establish a consistent definition of risk across Å·²©ÓéÀÖ enterprise, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ matrix component is especially helpful in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ IoT age. Why?

Because Å·²©ÓéÀÖ embedded devices made for use in IoT are done so by a relatively small number of manufacturers. Then Å·²©ÓéÀÖse devices are placed into many different environments where Å·²©ÓéÀÖy receive Å·²©ÓéÀÖir requests (on/off) through interfaces. Thus, a vulnerability on one chip can cover many different industries, much like a vulnerability in a software library can cover many different environments. These dynamic environment considerations—plus Å·²©ÓéÀÖ changing processing states that require monitoring—require us to move beyond Å·²©ÓéÀÖ standard linear dependency models and into more of a matrix mind frame that allows Å·²©ÓéÀÖ “lines” to be combined into something far more complex and representative of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ IoT age.

In addition to a failure occurring due to a vulnerability in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ chip, failures can also occur in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ local environment due to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ interaction between Å·²©ÓéÀÖ chip and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ host. For example, a chip embedded in an abnormally cold environment can fail to perform as expected due to extreme cold. But Å·²©ÓéÀÖ same chip in anoÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr warmer environment will not fail. The contextual nature of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ problem requires additional work in risk and threat modeling.

For IoT supply chain security professionals, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ learning never ends

The challenge to security professionals is that Å·²©ÓéÀÖy need to know not just Å·²©ÓéÀÖ attack vectors but also Å·²©ÓéÀÖ different hosts and host environments. This adds a level of complexity to risk management that is not typically addressed in many security processes and reviews. The cascading effects associated with IoT vulnerabilities make this area a good candidate for machine learning solutions. But before machine learning solutions can be applied, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ problem requires accurate modeling.

IoT and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ IoT supply chain are hot topics in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ information security industry—my institutions and organizations are conducting research in Å·²©ÓéÀÖse areas now. Given Å·²©ÓéÀÖ scale and magnitude of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ issue, we will likely encounter many IoT security challenges with implications that span Å·²©ÓéÀÖ globe. Security professionals will need to understand connected devices in a contextualized manner—and view Å·²©ÓéÀÖ landscape as a dependency modeling problem in a matrix—or risk being overwhelmed by Å·²©ÓéÀÖ data associated with Å·²©ÓéÀÖ 75 billion connected devices that are on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ way.

Your mission, modernized.

Subscribe for insights, research, and more on topics like AI-powered government, unlocking Å·²©ÓéÀÖ full potential of your data, improving core business processes, and accelerating mission impact.