Slashdot Mirror


Smart Grid Computers Susceptible To Worm Attack

narramissic writes "Researchers with security consultancy IOActive have created a worm that could quickly spread among Smart Grid devices, small computers connected to the power grid that give customers and power companies better control over the electricity they use. '[The worm] spread from one meter to another and then it changed the text in the LCD screen to say "pwned,"' said Travis Goodspeed, an independent security consultant who worked with the IOActive team. In the hands of a malicious hacker, this code could be used to cut power to Smart Grid devices that use a feature called 'remote disconnect,' which allows power companies to cut a customer's power via the network. The robustness of US power networks has been a hot-button issue after a technical glitch in 2003 caused a cascading power failure in the eastern United States and Canada that affected 55 million people."

15 of 98 comments (clear)

  1. lazy engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know about these.... they're running windows XP, and are on modems. They call in every now and then to get get updates from the main network.... its' the power grid from the future? More like 1990.

    1. Re:lazy engineering by mangu · · Score: 5, Interesting

      its' the power grid from the future? More like 1990.

      Actually, power systems is a mature technology. The "bible" that every power engineer has is this book, first published in 1955. Notice that the book on sale is the fourth edition, printed in 1982. Nothing is changing very fast in this field.

      The problem that could arise from a large number of Smart Grid computers being pwned is if a worm triggered them off at exactly the same time, this is called a "load rejection" event. It would cause oscillations in the power flow which could end in a blackout but, generally, load rejection is not as bad as generation rejection, which happens when a power plant is cut off.

      Another problem that would cause much more harm to the companies than to users is if the worm instructed power meters to register less power consumption. I see a large black-market arising, if someone figures out how to write this exploit.

    2. Re:lazy engineering by mangu · · Score: 4, Informative

      I miss the days when hackers were just doing things for lulz.

      Problem is old time hackers did things for money, too. Pricing details here:

      In 1971 Steve 'Woz' Wozniak designed a device called the 'Blue Box'. It allowed -- of course illegal -- phone
      calls free of charge by faking the signals used by the phone companies. His friend Steve Jobs instantly realized that there must be a huge market for something that useful. He bought the parts for $40, Woz built the boxes and Jobs sold them to his fellow students at the University of California in Berkeley for $150.

      This well known anecdote is what made me think of the market for an electricity meter hacking device. $150 in 1971 dollars would be about $800 today.

    3. Re:lazy engineering by freaklabs · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And of course you can buy the old Radio Shack auto-dialer and replace the crystal. That turns it into a red-box where you can emulate the DTMF tones that signal coins being dropped into the slot.

    4. Re:lazy engineering by reboot246 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Good luck finding a working payphone.

  2. Glitch? by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It wasn't a glitch, it was negligence! Cheap cost cutting measures, enabled by foolish deregulation: Trees were not trimmed around critical power lines, the lines were cut by falling branches, and then a cascading failure spread through the grid.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  3. Asinine by Samschnooks · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Should one of these security bugs be made public, it wouldn't just be dangerous, it would also be expensive, costing utility companies big money as they went back and retrofitted their buggy systems, Pennell said.

    Let me get this straight. Pennell wants the bug to kept undisclosed because it will be too expensive for the utilities to fix. Yet, someone whose clever, maybe those folks who hacked into the grids in other countries, may do it to the utilities here in the US; which will be vulnerable because the bug is "too expensive" to fix. Meaning, that the grid is vulnerable and subject to the damage that everyone is afraid might happen since the bugs exist. I guess if the bugs are kept secret, no one else is capable of discovering them because nobody is as smart as the researchers?

    OooooooKaaaaay. Riiiiiiight.

  4. This shows the weakness of anything centralized by cavehobbit · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This demonstrates the weakness of centralized power grids, like big hydro, big nukes, big coal, big solar arrays beaming power down to Earth, Big solar arrays covering the desert, or any other huge centralized 'answer' to our power generation problems. They are all vulnerable to DOS attacks or attacks on central points of weakness like power lines. It takes just one well crafted weapon, whether kinetic, EMP, radiological, chemical-explosive, cyber-viral-worm, etc., to plunge large populations into darkness and chaos.

    Monolithic thinking leads to monolithic engineering, (not to mention monolithic politics), that concentrate your vulnerabilities and limit your flexibility in responding to problems.

    Better to have many smaller, locally distributed sources. They make it far more difficult to attack them. Looks like Edison was right and Westinghouse was wrong. At least partially. Too bad we went with Westinghouse, at least so far as the centralized generator is concerned.

    This is a challenge that evolution, free markets and democracy all respond to with good answers. Authoritarian structures like organized religions, socialism/communism and autocracy in general all respond poorly to.

    This is also a vulnerability of the Internet, with its centralized DNS name servers. I wish I was knowledgeable enough to come up with a solution to that one.

    1. Re:This shows the weakness of anything centralized by doshell · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is also a vulnerability of the Internet, with its centralized DNS name servers. I wish I was knowledgeable enough to come up with a solution to that one.

      The DNS name servers are not centralized. Perhaps you are thinking of the root servers, but those hold only a few records for the TLDs; in order to resolve "slashdot.com", the root servers only know about the ".com" part. Besides, 99% of the queries you make do not ever reach a root server, because you are using your ISP's name server, which does caching. Precisely because it would be unworkable to make every query depend on the DNS servers "above".

      The current problem with the DNS is one of security, but that has nothing to do with it being centralized (indeed I would argue it is easier to secure a centralized system than a decentralized one...)

      --
      Score: i, Imaginary
    2. Re:This shows the weakness of anything centralized by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Informative

      One, we have roughly 10,000 power plants of all types in the US.

      Two, transmission losses are roughly 10% (up from 5% 40 years ago, largely due to a failure to improve the transmission grid on par with the increase in load).

      And three, I'm pretty sure the efficiencies being talked about earlier are related to economies of scale. That is, you can build a large power plant at a cost much cheaper per unit of capacity than a corresponding number of small plants.

    3. Re:This shows the weakness of anything centralized by dtmos · · Score: 4, Informative

      Decentralized power generation is a major part of the Smart Grid initiative. See, e.g., the Galvin Electricity Initiative.

      Since power generated in a grid cannot be effectively stored, it must be used when generated. This forces today's utilities into a large control problem, in which consumers' needs (in the form of measurements of line voltage and frequency, sampled throughout the network) are fed back to centralized control points and used to control the output of a relatively small number of generating plants (and current sent along individual transmission lines). Control of this system is moderately well understood, if one accepts that certain heuristics have to be used -- along with occasional human judgement. Considering its complexity, this is one of the great engineering achievements of the 20th Century.

      Decentralized power generation, however, is a completely different type of control problem. With millions of potential generators, the existing control algorithms fail completely; further, as part of the decentralized control algorithm the utility needs to communicate with each power meter (a.k.a. potential generator) in essentially real time, to control any power it may generate.

      Having a meter that bills the customer only for the net of power used and generated is termed "net metering." This exists today, but cannot achieve wide-spread use without better communication with the meters. Utilities like net metering, because they get additional generating capacity without paying for new power plants.

      The Smart Grid, with its communication to individual power meters, effectively enables net metering: Homeowners can generate their own power, use what they need locally, then sell any surplus to the utility for use by others. The meter can inform the utility how much power it is supplying at any time, a number used by the utility to maintain network stability. If the utility has no use for the power at that moment, it can refuse the offer, again by communicating with the meter.

  5. Nothing to see here, move along... by dtmos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is non-news.

    There is no single "Smart Grid" device technology. At present there are many proprietary solutions from many different vendors, each using different communication protocols, computer hardware and firmware, and security methods. Each one of these vendors has its products in a very, very small fraction of the utility meters in the nation, most of which, of course, have no Smart technology at all. So the fact that these guys found one architecture vulnerable to a particular stack-overflow attack is bad for the vendor(s) that use it, but not indicative of an approacing nationwide catastrophe.

    Smart Grid system standards are under development, however, and those doing the development are exceedingly aware of the need for high security. The IEEE, for example, recently started a Smart Grid standardization effort, P2030, and the IEEE 802.15.4g Smart Utility Neighborhood Task Group effort is already underway. Since the utilities lose revenue -- potentially all revenue, plus destruction of capital assets -- if their equipment is cracked, they are very much a part of these standard development activities, and security is of constant concern. (There will undoubtedly be an industry consortium tasked with reviewing implementations of these standards.)

  6. This won't affect the smart grid... by freaklabs · · Score: 5, Informative

    The attack in question is a side-channel attack that is limited to using a microcontroller with an external 802.15.4 radio that includes an encryption engine. The actual AES-128 algorithm wasn't broken. Instead the vulnerability is that the AES keys are sniffed on the exposed bus when you load the keys into the radio's registers. Contrary to popular belief, you can't take over the nation's smart grid from this attack, and it would be difficult to even take over your neighbor's meter unless you broke into his house. I have more info on my site where I respond to the hack from Travis Goodspeed. The blog post is at http://freaklabs.org/index.php/Blog/Misc/Clearing-the-Air-About-Hacking-Into-The-Smart-Grid.html

    Akiba
    FreakLabs Open Source Zigbee Project
    http://www.freaklabs.org/

  7. "Remote disconnect" - implications by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I hadn't been aware that "remote disconnect" was being incorporated into electric meters. Read this industry analysis of remote disconnect" for background. The "risk items" list doesn't even consider the implications of hostile attack.

    The purpose of "remote disconnect" is to get more control over customers. Utilities are considering using this to enforce collection, and even for prepaid electric service. It's another way to tighten the screws on poor people, like prepaid cellular and paycheck loans.

    There's another feature, current limiting - draw too much current and the power cuts off. The current limit can be set remotely. When someone gets behind on their bill, the power they can use is limited to survival levels until they pay up.

    Vulnerabilities in the remote management system could be a serious problem. Will the keys be kept in a Microsoft system? If you thought it was bad when credit card numbers were stolen, what happens when someone steals the meter key database? The meters have to be physically visited, one at a time, to reset the keys. And who would do that? The meter readers get laid off when this goes in.

  8. Who is really at fault by Orne · · Score: 3, Informative

    Dammit, I'm getting sick and tired of this. Since I was involved in the 2003 blackout investigation for an outside utility company, here's what happened:

    • First Energy (OH) had some lines trip. Because of a race condition in their EMS (Electric Management System), the program never recognized that the lines tripped. Their State Estimator locked up, giving the dispatchers false information. Their redundant backup had the same code, used the same inputs, and got in the same race condition, and there was no watchdog system like Tivoli to measure that the systems were not outputting data.
    • Outside companies who observed odd flows on their systems tried to commuinicate with FE regarding the trippings, but FE said that the trippings were a data error (not recognizing they were real)
    • An hour and a half later, the grid split due to additional overload trippings in FE, and it all went to hell
    • FE executives begin spinning the story so fast you could have generated electricity if you stuck magnets on them
    • In the investigation, they found that too many companies were not adequately protecting their SCADA systems (it was so convenient to put the controls on VPN so you can work on an issue remotely), despite this was not one of the root causes.
    • Six months later, the government issued a report saying every utility was at fault, gave FERC the ability to set industry standards, and gave NERC the ability to fine companies a $1 mil/day for violating those standards.
    • 5+ years later, we're all reacting to these CIP (Critical Infrastructure Protection) standards, which are all poorly defined, everyone's paranoid they may be violating something (which = fine), and so they're all overreacting by clamping down on anything that looks like a SCADA violation.

    I'm tired of all this editorializing that thinks that this stuff is related, but it's not. The root cause was incompetence at FE -- cutting budgets so hard they got rid of tree trimming, failure to communicate properly in emergency situations, and lack of situational awareness -- combined with an over-reaching government that thinks the underlying communcations networks are unsecured. The "technical glitch" was an AIX UNIX machine with poor ICCP error handling, a message queue that failed to empty, and dispatchers that weren't trained how to handle the lack of data. DHS runs one test (Aurora) where they pretend to take over a generator with SCADA, then over-excite it for like an hour before they got it to spark, then suddenly they think the whole grid's at risk so they can get more government funding to justify their existence.