Tag Archives: security

IoT slide deck 2024-09 Update

Posted on by
1

Here is the update of my IoT slide collection, which now approaches 400 slides that you are free to reuse. In this new edition, you will find technical elements on Meshtastic, Mioty, DePin, LoRa updates throughout, and a few introductory slides on blockchains. However, on this point, my new deck, published a few days ago, is more relevant.

As usual, to go further, you can find video content on my Youtube channel, like my new MooC about Block Chain and my IoT MooC (long version) posted this year.

Continue reading →

Understand IoT Security

Posted on by
Reply

Who doesn’t associate the word IoT with security issues in 2022? Apart from those who do the IoT maybe? Like all emerging domains, shortcuts are easy, because they are poorly understood. I will try to give you some elements on what cannot be denied: security, in the IoT, as in other technologies, is an essential element. I will especially take care to explain to you why it is very essential in IoT, why this subject is poorly understood and also, why many times we talk too much on this subject.

Continue reading →

Filter X-Forwarded-For Apache

Posted on by
Reply

The XFF HTTP field can be used to obtain the remote IP when a http server is located behind a reverse proxy. If the remote proxy does not clean the XFF field you can’t trust it. The worst is that this field can be used for injecting code in your website.

I’ve been a such issue in a security plugging logging and not filtering the remote IP field. As this one came from XFF, it was possible to inject javascript into the database remotely and execute that JS when displaying the dashboard of the “security” pluggin.

One of the option to solve this is to clean the XFF field (or reject the request when the XFF is not clean). This can be done with a simple configuration in the http config file (or htaccess)

RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP:X-Forwarded-For} !^$
RewriteCond %{HTTP:X-Forwarded-For} !^[0123456789.\ ,]{7,36}$
RewriteRule ^ - [L,R=404]

Here, empty XFF and XFF container anything else than numbers and some other char, lower than 7 char and higher the 36 chars will be rejected with a 404 as Last operation.

Secure your children Internet access

Posted on by
Reply

I’m a big fan of PiHole for my children but also for my IoT devices [not the one I build but the one I’m purchasing 🙂 ]. That said, there are two things missing in it:

  • The first one is that Pi-Hole is operating on DNS request so any malicious solution using its own DNS or direct IP will bypass Pi-Hole protection.
  • The second one is the lake of functionalities like stopping Internet for a certain group of user during certain period of time.

So, when a friend of me contacted me to share its work on a different solution using a proxy, I’ve been happy to let him make a blog post here to introduce his solution. And this solution can be used in complement of PiHole. So, let’s make some place here to Manu PILLANT

Continue reading →

IoT Decoded Podcast EP#1

Posted on by
Reply

First episode of my IoT podcast. This month is about IoT maket study and how numbers can be bullshit when comes from certain analyst. We also talk about the LoRaWan world distance record.

This first episode is a test, a poor and a bit dirty (or too long) episode for testing podcast concept on my blog. It is going to be a monthly rendez-vous on IoT and especially LPWAn news.

Stop telling me Sigfox is clear payload, for real you’re just lazy ;)

Posted on by
5

The usual attack on Sigfox network is related to the “security”. Behind this large concept, for real, the only point is related to the use of clear payload over the air. As a consequence some are extending this to the possible replay after 2048 frames so regarding a standard use of Sigfox is will be about 6 month later…

That said, for real, all of this is just ignorance from these pseudo “security” experts and developer laziness. Don’t beat me for saying that, I’m part of the lazy developer, the only difference is I’m not complaining and I’m aware the solution is in my own hands.

Because, for real, the payload encryption exists as documented in the post I’ve published on May 2017 and detailed on the Feb 2017 technical security paper published by Sigfox or like in this document.

So saying the Sigfox is not proposing payload encryption is wrong and this option is also fixing any 6 months later message replay. It’s like saying WiFi is  not secured because you can create an open-network.

So now, let’s see why encryption is not the default option, why a network encryption standard is not the best option and then see how to stop to be a lazy developer and make encryption working.

Continue reading →