As the industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) and operational technology (OT) continue to evolve and grow, so too, do the responsibilities of the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO). The CISO now needs to mitigate risks from cloud-connected machinery, warehouse systems, and smart devices scattered among hundreds of workstations. Managing those security risks includes the need to ensure safety in manufacturing, oil and gas facilities, public utilities, transportation, civic infrastructure, and more.
Analysts predict that we’ll have roughly 21.5 billion IoT devices connected worldwide in 2025, drastically increasing the surface area for attacks. Because embedded devices often go unpatched, CISO’s need new strategies to mitigate IIoT/OT risks that differ in crucial ways from those found in information technology (IT). The difference needs to be understood by your Board of Directors (BoD) and leadership team. Costly production outages, safety failures with injuries or loss of life, environmental damage leading to liability—all are potentially disastrous scenarios that have moved IIoT and OT to the center of cyber threat management.
Both IIoT and OT are considered cyber-physical systems (CPS); meaning, they encompass both the digital and physical worlds. This makes any CPS a desirable target for adversaries seeking to cause environmental contamination or operational disruption. As recent history shows, such attacks are already underway. Examples include the TRITON attack—intended to cause a serious safety incident—on a Middle East chemical facility and the Ukrainian electrical-grid attacks. In 2017, ransomware dubbed NotPetya paralyzed the mighty Maersk shipping line and nearly halted close to a fifth of the world’s shipping capacity. It also spread to pharma giant Merck, FedEx, and numerous European firms before boomeranging back to Russia to attack the state oil company, Rosneft.
In 2019, Microsoft observed a Russian state-sponsored attack using IoT smart devices—a VOIP phone, an office printer, and a video decoder—as entry points into corporate networks, from which they attempted to elevate privileges. Attackers have even compromised building access control systems to move into corporate networks using distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks; wherein, a computer system is overwhelmed and crashed with an onslaught of traffic.
Since the 1990’s, the Purdue Enterprise Reference Architecture (PERA), aka the Purdue Model, has been the standard model for organizing (and segregating) enterprise and industrial control system (ICS) network functions. PERA divides the enterprise into various “Levels,” with each representing a subset of systems. Security controls between each level are typified by a “demilitarized zone” (DMZ) and a firewall.
Conventional approaches restrict downward access to Level 3 from Levels 4, 5 (and the internet). Heading upward, only Layer 2 or 3 can communicate with Layers 4 and 5, and the lowest two Levels (machinery and process) must keep their data and communications within the organization’s OT.
But in our IIoT era, data no longer flows in a hierarchical fashion as prescribed by the Purdue Model. With the rise of edge computing, smart sensors, and controllers (Levels O, 1) now bypass firewalls and communicate directly with the cloud, creating new risks for system exposure.
Modernizing this model with Zero Trust principles at Levels 4 and 5 can help bring an organization’s IIoT/OT into full compliance for the cloud era.
Consequence-driven cyber-informed engineering (CCE) is a new methodology designed by Idaho National Labs (INL) to address the unique risks posed by IIoT/OT. Unlike conventual approaches to cybersecurity, CCE views consequence as the first aspect of risk management and proactively engineers for potential impacts. Based on CCE, there are four steps that your organization—public or private—should prioritize:
Your leadership and BoD have a vested interest in seeing a return on investment (ROI) for any new software or hardware. Usually, the type of ROI they want and expect is increased revenue. But returns on security software often can’t be seen in a quarterly statement. That means cybersecurity professionals have to present a solid case. Here are some straightforward benefits to investing in IIoT/OT cybersecurity software that you can take into the boardroom:
For today’s CISO, securing the digital estate now means being accountable for all digital security—IT, OT, IIoT, BMS, and more. This requires an integrated approach—embracing people, processes, and technology. A good checklist to start with includes:
With attackers now pivoting across both IT and OT environments, Microsoft developed Azure Defender for IoT to integrate seamlessly with Azure Sentinel and Azure Sphere—making it easy to track threats across your entire enterprise. Azure Defender for IoT utilizes:
Azure Defender for IoT makes it easier to see and mitigate risks and present those risks to your BoD. Microsoft invests more than USD1 billion annually on cybersecurity research, which is why Azure has more compliance certifications than any other cloud provider.
Plain language and concrete examples go far when making the case for IIoT/OT security software. Your organization should define what it will—and more importantly, will not—tolerate as operational risks. For example: “We tolerate no risk to human life or safety”; “no permanent damage to the ecosystem”; “no downtime that will cost jobs.” Given the potential for damages incurred from downtime, injuries, environmental liability, or tarnishing your brand, an investment in cybersecurity software for IIoT/OT makes both financial and ethical sense.
To learn more about Microsoft Security solutions, visit our website. Bookmark the Security blog to keep up with our expert coverage on security matters. Also, follow us at @MSFTSecurity for the latest news and updates on cybersecurity.
Since 2019, Forest Blizzard has used a custom post-compromise tool to exploit a vulnerability in the Windows Print Spooler service that allows elevated permissions. Microsoft has issued a security update addressing this vulnerability as CVE-2022-38028.
Microsoft has been tracking activity related to the financially motivated threat actor Octo Tempest, whose evolving campaigns represent a growing concern for many organizations across multiple industries.
A set of memory corruption vulnerabilities in the ncurses library could have allowed attackers to chain the vulnerabilities to elevate privileges and run code in the targeted program's context or perform other malicious actions.
In a recent investigation by Microsoft Incident Response of a BlackByte 2.0 ransomware attack, we found that the threat actor progressed through the full attack chain, from initial access to impact, in less than five days, causing significant business disruption for the victim organization.
