Honeywell Home Controllers Open To Any Hacker Who Can Find Them Online

Trailrunner7 writes: Security issues continue to crop up within the so-called "smart home." A pair of vulnerabilities have been reported for the Tuxedo Touch controller made by Honeywell, a device that's designed to allow users to control home systems such as security, climate control, lighting, and others. The controller, of course, is accessible from the Internet. Researcher Maxim Rupp discovered that the vulnerabilities could allow an attacker to take arbitrary actions, including unlocking doors or modifying the climate controls in the house.

Comments

Why do you need this stuff on the internet at larg

[Anonymous Coward]

At home, sure, using a tablet to access and program the temperatures on your AC is fine.

But that is your intranet, and securing that should be an obvious practice.

And I can barely guess why you would want your locks handled that way, though in terms of security, a mechanical key is hardly inherently better than a digital one.

Welcome to the Internet of Things

[sinij]

In the IoT world, the Internet browses you!

Please upgrade

[penguinoid]

Please upgrade to my patented Honeypot Home Controllers.

Amateur level fail

[Nuitari The Wiz]

"The Honeywell Tuxedo Touch Controller web interface uses JavaScript to check for client authentication and redirect unauthorized users to a login page."

You'd think that a company like Honeywell would know better about security, especially as they have a whole cyber security division...
This is like the pages that had a crappy javascript password which you could read by seeing view source, if you knew the keyboard shortcut (right click would be blocked on javascript).

Mistakes an amateur would make.

Re:Amateur level fail

[SeaFox]

"The Honeywell Tuxedo Touch Controller web interface uses JavaScript to check for client authentication and redirect unauthorized users to a login page."

You'd think that a company like Honeywell would know better about security, especially as they have a whole cyber security division...

I'm sure they don't see any reason to expend such resources on the consumer space.
That expertise is reserved for getting government contracts.

Need to start including USB keys

[gurps_npc]

Every secure wireless device - such as a router or NEST etc, should come with a cheap USB drive - 1 GB drives go for less than $2 now, in quantity.

When you get the device, plug the USB into the device and press a button. It would randomly generate a key and save it to that USB drive.

Now to connect anything to that device you have to plug the USB drive into it, transferring the password key,

Re:Need to start including USB keys

[ArcadeMan]

How about adding a button on the device? To modify anything, you need to hold the button. And it's a momentary push button, not a switch, so the user can't leave it enabled.

Re:Need to start including USB keys

[Gaygirlie]

That would completely undermine the whole idea of it being remotely-controllable. OP's suggestion is much better.

Re:Need to start including USB keys

[bjwest]

And it's a momentary push button, not a switch, so the user can't leave it enabled.

Yeah, Scotch has a fix for that.

this Internet of Things is getting old

[turkeydance]

how about the Internet of We Will Not Pay for, and obviously, do not care to have Robust Security for our Systems.

New meaning

[ArcadeMan]

This brings a new meaning to "Honey, I'm home".

As in, the hacker is in your home via the Honeywell Home Contr... yeah ok never mind.

Re:New meaning

[someone1234]

Also a new meaning to Homeowners :D

IoT?

[ArcadeMan]

More like Internet of Trash.

We've now advanced enough to consider X10 to be better than the new technology.

Common problem across industry

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone "in charge" (Systems Architect) of how many of our product lines are secured on the network (obviously not Honeywell), most people in the field would not believe how much time I waste explaining to people over and over and over again that I will not "simplify" the authentication protocols by getting rid of (strong security practices) just because we use SSL. Its an ongoing fight to keep things strong against a thousand little pushbacks from developers, product management, marketing, sales, and legal. Posting anon as its still in progress, comes up at least once a week.

Re:Common problem across industry

[RobinH]

It's sad but I fight the same battle almost every day regarding safety systems in factory automation. There are specific regulations and best practices that we have to follow in order to determine that a machine is safe for an operator to use, and it falls under the heading of "big E" Engineering, as in the type you need to have a license to certify. We put a lot of effort into making the machine both provably safe, but we also have to make it recover nicely from an abrupt shutdown if someone opens a guard door, etc. Everyone from management, to the engineering staff, to the operators themselves who use the equipment constantly gripe about how much effort we have to put into the safety systems, even when it's their own life that's at risk. Almost every discussion involves someone saying, "why can't we just tell people not to stick their hand in the machine?" The answer, of course, is that the rules are different for a machine that starts and stops automatically, than it would be, e.g., for a table saw or a drill press with an on/off switch. The rules are different precisely because people do stick their hands into machines that are stopped. Engineers are professionals who accept people as they are, not as we wish they could be.

Really we could solve the security problems in "IoT" devices by applying the same strict Engineering principles that we do to safety systems in factory automation. You would do this by functionally separating the part of the system responsible for security from the rest of the system, having certified parts that you can purchase that are rated to various industry best practice security standards, and then having a licensed professional engineer review and sign off on the design. Guess what though... it would cost more money. However, I believe there are certain products, where there's a risk to the public, that should be legislated to require this kind of certification.

BSG had it right: Safe Network = No Network

[millertym]

I have a hard time thinking of anything more obvious than the fact that "smart " are technology security disasters waiting to happen. With the current architecture of the internet and networking from the top down there is nothing truly safe. Especially consumer grade at home tech built with technology plebeians in mind.

Call me old fashioned but I see enough at work and stories online every day to commit to keeping my home, appliances, vehicles, and anything else possible off the internet.

No shit ...

[gstoddart]

Wow, you mean commercial products designed to connect to the internet have absolutely crap security?

Well, color me fucking surprised and shocked.

No, wait, the other one .. where I point out these companies are either incompetent or indifferent to security, have no penalties or liability, and have products rushed out the door by asshole CEOs and marketing people who don't give a damn about security.

This is precisely why I look at pretty much every damned product which wants to connect to the internet, or has an app for your smartphone and think "oh hell no".

Trusting this shit is idiotic, and quite frankly, I'm beyond the point of sympathy for people who buy this shit. It's insecure so that it can be convenient. Pretty much at least weekly we see an entire class of products has pretty much zero security. And we're a long way away from being able to trust them.

Just stop buying this crap.

Hack or feature?

[guruevi]

The thing has an entire API unauthenticated to whoever is able to connect to it (https:///system_http_api/).

It's well documented that the point is not to have these things port-forwarded on your router but to be controlled through their proprietary gateway which comes with a monthly fee. Sure you can surf to it on your local network but that's more of a convenience and a lot of features the API exposes are not in the GUI.

Re:Why do you need this stuff on the internet at l

[MrL0G1C]

No, but it adds an considerable element of security. If you disagree with me then feel free to attack my PC via the internet, it's IP address is 192.168.1.60

Re:Why do you need this stuff on the internet at l

[bjwest]

No, but it adds an considerable element of security. If you disagree with me then feel free to attack my PC via the internet, it's IP address is 192.168.1.60

Hey! How dare you use my printer as your PC. No wonder it takes forever to process and print a PDF file.

Re:Why do you need this stuff on the internet at l

[Rob Lister]

First: What is not noted in the OP is the statement at the end of the article that [this] vulnerability has been fixed. This article interested me in that I recently installed one of their fancy wifi-enabled thermostats, the VisionPRO 8000. I was a little disappointed that I had to access it through their site rather than locally but it is nice to be able to control it from my office computer. I can't imagine I'll ever have the need to access it when away from home. I don't see much risk inasmuch as the worst that can happen is a hacker might make me a bit too chilly. Of course, I don't know that for sure. Perhaps there is some deeper hack that can gain access to my network as a whole through that interface. Then again, there are probably so many holes in my system now that a hacker would just take a more obvious route through one of the garage-door-sized holes.

Re:Why do you need this stuff on the internet at l

[CreatureComfort]

I'm at work. The plumber shows up at my house at 10 a.m. I verify his identity and arrival with my front of house cameras. I talk to him remotely via the door intercom, disable the security alarm, and unlock the front door for him. I monitor his work and actions with my internal cameras and watch him leave. I remotely lock the door behind him and re-arm the security system. All the video is watched in a small window in the corner of one of my monitors, while I still get real work done. All without having to take time off from work.

Doesn't everybody do this kind of thing? Or do you still actually wait for the Comcast guy between the hours 8 and 2?

BTW, the reported vulnerability has already been fixed.