none

ANATOMY OF AN ATTACK: HOW CYBER VULNERABILITIES ON A SIMPLE SENSOR CAN MEAN DISASTER

10-09-2018
by 
in 

We like to think that cyber attacks are all about getting lists of credit card numbers and that attackers know little about control systems. That’s just wishful thinking.

Let’s look at how a knowledgeable outsider can shut down a process using a published sensor vulnerability, in a way that will be very difficult for a company to figure out. So difficult, that the attacker may be able to do it multiple times.

In December 2015, ICS-CERT published vulnerability # ICSA-15-309-02 on Honeywell Midas ambient gas detectors. According to ICS-CERT, the vulnerability “could allow a remote attacker (with ‘low skill’) to gain unauthenticated access to the device, potentially allowing configuration changes, as well as the initiation of calibration or test processes.”

These devices detect ambient release of small amounts of toxic or flammable gas. It is common to locate many such detectors in a processing area, and to configure both alarms and automatic process shutdowns on multiple simultaneous detection signals.

Imagine yourself as the attacker. Having at least the ‘low skill’ mentioned by ICS-CERT, you have gained access and are looking at a dozen such devices. You can see their configuration, IDs, and detection ranges. You can alter these and even generate calibration or scale checks.

In other words, you can generate alarms at will. You don’t want to make them all alarm at once – instead you select four or five that seem associated by their names (West Side First Level, West Side Second Level), and initiate a 4-20mA scale check. Alarms will result. Note that several other options involving sensitivity and other settings can be used to create false alarms.

The operator sees these alarms. It looks like a serious leak. The response could vary, but a lowering of production rate, pressure, or even shutdown of that part of the process may be their quite reasonable response.

Evacuation of operations or maintenance personnel in that area will be ordered. Responders may have to suit up and verify the signals using handheld gas detectors. Of course, they will find nothing. But the physical process examination will be thorough and time consuming. After all, this was a simultaneous set of alarms from different detectors, not some single-sensor failure.

In the meantime, the hacker covers his tracks, restoring any detector to their prior values. By the time the investigation gets around to looking at the configuration of the detectors, there is nothing amiss.

After a thorough yet futile leak search, the process is restarted, but perhaps with additional personnel stationed with leak detectors, and likely with extra operator coverage at first – both expensive and disruptive.

But the hacker is patient. Two weeks later, the attack is repeated, choosing different sensors. The attacker might even be smart enough to coordinate the attack and the detectors chosen with wind direction – easy to determine from weatherzone.com.au – this time on the South side.

The response to a second such incident might involve a much more detailed plant inspection, involving hundreds of man-hours and a significant process outage – all to find a leak that isn’t there. This costs a lot of money, and even more in lost production.

How do you protect against an attack like this? The ICS-CERT advisory says that a patch via firmware upgrade to the device is needed to remediate the vulnerability. Do you monitor all such vulnerability notifications? Do you have an inventory of ICS-level devices (not just your level-2 ‘PC’ devices) to match them against? And hopefully an inventory that was created with automated means not involving hundreds of man-hours of manual effort?

Do you have an automated patch management and reporting system that keeps track of progress on all relevant vulnerabilities? Do you have saved configuration baselines against which your devices are periodically and automatically checked for unauthorised change?

If these questions make us uneasy, we are not alone. In our industry, the endpoints that really matter are the elements deep in our control systems, elements that are neither detected nor tracked in most cyber security solutions. They are the ones where unauthorised change can have the worst outcomes. A true ICS cyber security solution is one that has a deep understanding of the inner workings and configurations of the many different control systems we use.

Sleep well!

Bill Hollifield is Principal Consultant at PAS.

Related news & editorials

  1. 20.10.2020
    20.10.2020
    by      In , In
    In his Budget speech, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg announced that the federal government would introduce a new round of changes to the Research and Development Tax Incentive.
    Industry Update’s readers will know that I have long been concerned about a Morrison government bill aimed at cutting $1.8... Read More
  2. 11.09.2020
    11.09.2020
    by      In , In
    As we entered 2020, nothing could have prepared Australians that we were set to face economic turmoil not seen since the Great Depression, borne out of a global virus.
    While we don’t know the precise effects of this virus nor in turn the economic consequences, what we do know is that we are... Read More
  3. 10.09.2020
    10.09.2020
    by      In
    This article isn’t all about how to ensure your investment in automation is the best value for money today, but rather about ensuring your investment in technology is flexible enough to create viable options for your business well into the future.
    This will save costs for your company many times... Read More
  4. 09.09.2020
    09.09.2020
    by      In , In
    Manufacturing will be crucial to Australia’s recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.
    That has been acknowledged in the Morrison Government’s interventions to ensure that there is a stockpile of personal protective equipment for healthcare workers and ventilators for ICUs.
    But the Government also needs... Read More