Slashdot Mirror


Researchers Discover Critical Security Flaws Found In Nuke Plant Radiation Monitors (securityweek.com)

wiredmikey writes from a report via Security Week: Researchers have discovered multiple unpatched vulnerabilities in radiation monitoring devices that could be leveraged by attackers to reduce personnel safety, delay detection of radiation leaks, or help international smuggling of radioactive material. Ruben Santamarta, a security consultant at Seattle-based IOActive, at the Black Hat conference on Wednesday, saying that radiation monitors supplied by Ludlum, Mirion and Digi contain multiple vulnerabilities. There are many kinds of radiation monitors used in many different environments. IOActive concentrated its research on portal monitors, used at airports and seaports; and area monitors, used at Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs). However, little effort was required for the portal monitors: "the initial analysis revealed a complete lack of security in these devices, so further testing wasn't necessary to identify significant vulnerabilities," Santamarta explained in his report (PDF). In the Ludlum Model 53 personnel portal, IOActive found a backdoor password, which could be used to bypass authentication and take control of the device, preventing the triggering of proper alarms.

22 of 43 comments (clear)

  1. Re:The False Religion of Atheism by ArylAkamov · · Score: 3, Funny

    too long, didn't read

  2. No one cares about your bullshit post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You're a nutcase.

    A rubber-padded room is where you belong.

  3. Backdoors Never Accidental by rtb61 · · Score: 2

    Automated radiation detection equipment that basically measures how big fines companies will pay when managing nuclear materials, back doors and no security, now that shit never happens by accident. Only question needed to be asked, how much money can be saved by not alerting the authorities of mismanagement, of letting them know investigations and prosecutions should occur and of opening up a cheating company taking stupid short cuts to civil suits. This device and the company need a proper investigation as does every single place that has that device fitted for undisclosed radiation leaks. This should be a major red flag.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    1. Re:Backdoors Never Accidental by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

      You are right. It always comes down to money!! Their logic of spending is on the wrong things.

  4. Not at all suprising by ScienceBard · · Score: 5, Informative

    I work alongside a team that maintains and repairs these things, and they certainly aren't made for high levels of digital security. If you know the right place to stick a flash drive in a portal monitor sure you could do damage to it, I can attest it isn't fancy. But it doesn't have to be.

    For one, a portal monitor is a last line of defense against radioactive contamination being tracked around. We aren't talking about huge levels of radiation, the contamination is managed by good safety practices (work plans, electronic dosimeters, maps of potential loose contamination, etc.). But there is a responsibility to ensure that a worker doesn't accidentally drag anything home with them to the general public, no matter how insignificant. Which is really what the monitors are for.

    For two, there are usually multiples of these things in a row, inside a heavily fortified concrete area surrounded by unfriendly looking men with machine guns (at least at any nuclear facility, a school or small lab that has one would be different). Combine those two things, and an attempt to "hack" monitors would be about the most moronic waste of resources any government would ever spend. You couldn't do any real damage, you couldn't hurt anyone... at best you could get a radiation protection manager fired for allowing a small uncontrolled release of radioactivity, or a miscalculated dose rate to a worker.

    I'm all for security, but there needs to be a little perspective. Standalone portal monitors that are airgaped don't need to be a digital fort knox. The level of effort is extreme to screw with them, and the payback would be insignificant. The truth is most specialized lab/nuclear equipment isn't extremely secure unless it serves an actual security function (a CDA, critical digital asset, which are almost always network isolated and have more robust security). Quite the opposite, most of it is very simple and made to be maintained almost indefinitely by moderately skilled technicians. Cost, usability, and maintainability is more important.

    1. Re:Not at all suprising by Orgasmatron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have a drill coming up soon for my local reception center. I'll forward this to my EMS coordinator and make sure she updates the station briefing to include that the portals are never to be left unattended and that unauthorized personnel are not to mess with them. Not that anyone was going to leave them alone or let strangers tamper with them before...

      In the end, the most likely "patch" will be a locking cover.

      It remains unclear to me how one would hack a portal monitor to detect and respond to the check source, but not to actual contamination. The opposite would be easier, but we'd notice by the time a second clean body showed up for decontamination.

      The perimeter monitors are a much bigger problem. The men-with-guns are unlikely to allow physical tampering, and the men-in-tyvek will certainly notice that the detected radioactive cloud isn't real, but "no one will ever want to hack my industrial control communication" disease needs to die a horrible flaming death sooner rather than later. Digital sensors that do anything more than update a pretty graph need to be authenticated. In cases other than this one, they may need to be encrypted too. Analog sensors need 100% physical security from the power supply to the sensor to the receiver/monitor.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    2. Re:Not at all suprising by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 3, Informative

      Vaguely similar position, I've looked at the code running in some of these things. It's written by nuclear physicists who by the looks of the code are often self-taught programmers. It's not just a lack of security in there, it's a lack of any kind of sound programming practice. The physics part (meaning the algorithms and analysis portion) is just fine, but the code itself is ghastly, it's a wonder it works at all in some cases. If you move any part of it outside the parameters under which it was written, anything can happen, endless loops, processing invalid data, reading/writing arbitrary memory locations, you name it.

      It's known that these things have approximately zero security. They were accessed via VPN boxes that went back to a central, secure, location, and physical security around them was very, very heavy. If you know what you're dealing with, you can institute appropriate security measures to address it.

  5. I thought I was going to have a long read ahead of by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 2

    That was until I saw "Microsoft Windows" mentioned on page 10.

  6. Re: I thought I was going to have a long read ahea by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 2

    No wait, it's page 8 in the PDF. My bad.

  7. Those thing are not supposed to be secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We do not need to have every detector and monitor out there to be secure. That would detract to their strength namely monitoring, would add another point of failure namely that the security of those would need to be updated periodically. Why spend a lot of money which could be done better spent by having better detector ? No. The problem is if the monitor are left as-is naked to the internet. But so is also the problem with any devices for which the primary usage is industrial environment intranet and not being open to the wide wild internet. What you should always do, is put those behind firewall and secure shells, in their own intranet. That way the monitor and detector can do the best job : detecting, while the firewall and secure shell can do their best job : namely protecting the detector. And those security can be updated against vulnerability. A all-in-one device sometimes is not the best idea.

    1. Re:Those thing are not supposed to be secure by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't think any medical device will be secure as we want them to be as long as they keep using Windows and Ethernet cables/Wifi for everything. Most offices in general don't even use USB cables for anything anymore, arguing that it is faster. Maybe, but when things break, now you got to hunt through a network to figure it out, risking breaking more things. Hope this posts; using w3m this time .

  8. Re:The False Religion of Atheism by sysrammer · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but the mangled characters make it look like Welsh. It's a lot funnier when you read it in a Welsh accent.

    --
    His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  9. Air gapped by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

    Those systems are largely air gapped in a physically secure environment. What I'd be more concerned about is that when I was working with the International Atomic Energy Authority (UN) about 4 years ago the entire outfit was still being run off an old IBM Series 360 Mainframe. I hadn't seen one of those since the mid 90's

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    1. Re:Air gapped by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      What I'd be more concerned about is that when I was working with the International Atomic Energy Authority (UN) about 4 years ago the entire outfit was still being run off an old IBM Series 360 Mainframe.

      I don't know about the International Atomic Energy Authority, but the International Atomic Energy Agency isn't run off an IBM Series 360 Mainframe, or any kind of mainframe at all. Where was this "Authority" of yours located? A disused factory in Moldova?

    2. Re:Air gapped by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Vienna

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    3. Re:Air gapped by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      And where in the VIC is this magical IBM 360 located?

      (This should be good).

    4. Re:Air gapped by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      To be honest I don't know I never actually saw it. I was delivering training to a group of IAEA technicians & Devs who had been trying to migrate off this beast for years. The training had nothing to do with either the source or the target platform it was mostly theoretical (at the IAEA's request) on performance testing software solutions.

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    5. Re:Air gapped by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sorry, guess I was being a bit harsh. There was an IBM mainframe that was commissioned some time in the 1970s to run the ubiquitous FORTRAN physics software, it replaced the CDC hardware they used before then, but it would have been relegated to dusty-deck status 15-20 years ago, if not longer. All the day-to-day stuff has been Wintel for years, with a bit of Linux on Intel in server rooms.

  10. Re:In other Nuclear News by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure what you think I'm supposed to take away from this. The is a discussion of nuclear power plant security and the Fukushima site seems pretty secure right now. They have no sign of uncontrolled release of radiation,

    What? That is the exact opposite of what is happening. There is seawater exchange in and out of the location where they found the melted fuel. Remember when they were denying that there was even a meltdown? Evey time Tepco communicates, they lie. It's the most reliable force in the universe.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. Re:In other Nuclear News by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

    Evey time Tepco communicates, they lie. It's the most reliable force in the universe.

    So Kellyanne Conway is working for Tepco now?

  12. Radiation "Safe" levels. by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

    Am I wrong? Didn't they just recently raise the amount of "safe" radiation levels? The rise in bone cancer Sarcoma - is this a coincidence?

  13. Re:In other Nuclear News by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    So, you are saying the decommissioning process is going well?

    No, I'm saying you attempt to falsify reality in pursuit of your idealogy.

    I'm saying TEPCO are clearly not capable, willfully and criminally negligent. I'm saying the sooner this is resolved with an international effort the lower the overall impact will be.

    They have no sign of uncontrolled release of radiation, and the exploratory robots are working well. I didn't look at all the photos in detail, is there a North Korean spy that was caught in one of the frames or something?

    Everytime you tout your zealotry more of the truth you seek to conceal emerges. Everytime you boast of your ignorance, more fact emerges for everyone else to see. Everytime you fail to acknowledge the situation, more consequences are revealed. Over eight hundred thousand tons of highly radio active water in uncontrolled releases *so far*.

    I'm not sure what you think I'm supposed to take away from this.

    It's clear you see this as a political issue and not a radiological issue that will affect the genome of every species on the planet for the forseeable future. It's clear you are not stupid but willfully ignorant and actively deny fact placed before you. Your comments are so dogmatically skeptical the only logical conclusion to draw is that you are either a paid troll with an adgenda or a useful idiot prepared to pathologize your own perception of reality in pursuit of your idealogy.

    Take away that your trolling is so obviously professional it's unlikeley I'm the only one who can see through the bullshit of your agenda.

    I am ignorant because I am an idealogue. I am an idealogue because I am ignorant.

    You are an enemy of freedom because you are an enemy of truth. You are an enemy of truth because you are an enemy of freedom.

    I meant to point that out to you last time we conversed however something more important came up. I appreciate you delivering an opportunity to excoriate you and once again be entertained by your display of mental gymnastics around the facts.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.