Latest news with #digitalbreach
Digital Trends
3 days ago
- Digital Trends
It's possible to hack a smart home, but you probably have nothing to worry about
Scopophobia is a fear of security cameras — the concern that behind their small, beady lenses, someone is watching you. If that concerns you, you aren't alone; according to surveys, as many as one in three people worry that their smart home might fall victim to malicious hackers. That particular fear has been a subject of discussion since the earliest days of the smart home, and for good reason. Bad actors have taken advantage of smart home systems in the past. In 2021, South Korea experienced one of the most audacious smart home hacks in history, with more than 700 apartments being digitally breached. In 2023, a Ring camera was hacked and used to make inappropriate comments toward the homeowner. Recommended Videos Incidents like the latter occurred more frequently in the early days of smart home technology. In the intervening years, companies like Google, Ring, and others have made security a central focus for new products. While that hacking scene from 2022's Scream is technically possible, it's also unlikely. But with that in mind, a new potential avenue for risk has emerged in the form of artificial intelligence. Last week, a new report demonstrated how researchers used Google Gemini to take control of connected smart home devices through malicious code hidden in a Google Calendar invite. The event marked one of the only times (and potentially the first time) that this technique was used in a real-world attack. Dubbed 'promptware,' the attack method has raised concerns over the use of artificial intelligence in relation with smart home technology. However, many of those concerns are taken out of context and proportion. Is it a risk? Absolutely. Is it likely to happen to you? We'll put it like this: If it does, you should buy a lottery ticket. What is 'promptware?' This specific hack was performed through a 'prompt-injection attack.' The attack hid instructions inside a Google Calendar alert masked as a run-of-the-mill invitation. Its intention was to lie dormant until a user asked Gemini to summarize their schedule for the day, and then trigger based on a common, mundane response like 'thanks' or 'sure.' Once activated, the instructions would set off different devices within the home. It was a proof of concept; an actual attack would likely be less visible but could grant access to interior devices like cameras and speakers, or could open a backdoor to access information stored on the devices. What makes promptware a greater threat is that traditional firewalls, antivirus software, and other tried-and-true methods offer no protection against it. Typically security software isn't designed to protect against this unique blend of automation and social engineering. Social engineering itself has become a much larger threat in recent years. For those unfamiliar with the term, social engineering is the use of deception to manipulate someone into revealing private and/or personal information. Have you ever received a friend request on Facebook from an obviously false profile? That's a common first step. By creating a sense of trust through a familiar face and using the disconnected nature of the internet as a go-between, bad actors can prey on vulnerable targets. While using Gemini to control your smart home is convenient, you can improve your overall smart home security by restricting what Gemini and other AI agents have access to. The researchers behind the promptware study specifically suggest limiting access to smart home controls and personal calendars. What are the actual chances of a smart home being hacked? Here's the thing: most 'hacking' attempts aren't hacking at all. They're phishing or another lower-level form of violation. Having your password stolen and used against you isn't a hack in the true sense of the word, and something like the prompt-injection attack used by researchers requires a lot of effort. The majority of bad actors want to gain access to steal personal information that can be used for identity theft or to make a few credit card purchases. Sometimes that information is gathered and then sold to third parties. Hacking a smart home takes a lot of effort, especially as device security improves. Taking control of devices to turn lights on and off has more in common with juvenile pranks than it does with a coordinated effort to steal something. And unlocking someone's front door through a smart device, while a potential way to gain access to a home, is not a threat for the average person. If you're wealthy and live in a large house, there could be a higher chance of being targeted for theft — but a lot of break-ins (around 41%) are crimes of opportunity, and most burglars live relatively nearby the homes they break into. Unless you have wealth on display, most passers-by won't specifically aim for your home. That means keeping things subtle; no large TV boxes at the curb, no posting about new acquisitions on social media, etc. If you have a smart home, then you likely have a security system too. Good news on that front: when questioned, roughly 50% of burglars said a security system would deter them from a home. The truth is that nothing will stop a determined burglar, especially when the easiest method of entry is to kick down a door or break a window. But with most thieves targeting low-hanging fruit, a security system and smart home tech can actually serve as a deterrence. Your smart home is more likely to keep your home safe than it is to make it a threat. If you want to take steps to protect your smart home, we have numerous guides on how to do exactly that.
Yahoo
20-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
OPINION: Convergence in the modern incident management family
In the early years of enterprise computing, a digital breach or system failure was an internal affair. The affected organization responded as best it could. Processes, if they existed at all, were fragmented. Coordination lacked structure. Lessons, when learned, rarely extended beyond the IT department. With tears and sweat, many of us fought at the forefront of this uphill battle over the past 25 years. Fast forward to the present. A modern cyber incident typically triggers a network of stakeholders. A cyber insurance policy (a relatively recent addition of the last 15 years) may be activated. A breach coach (a role that did not exist a decade ago) can step in to manage legal positioning and privacy obligations. A forensic firm may be engaged to determine the root cause. External counsel advises on liability and auditors examine control effectiveness, process adequacy and regulatory exposure. For many organizations, some or even most of these roles are outsourced. IT operations, cybersecurity monitoring, legal counsel, forensic analysis and public communications are often handled by external providers. This introduces another layer of complexity. Organizations must coordinate a constellation of third parties, each with its own mandate, service level and toolset. This situation calls for a shared approach; one that enables participants to contribute meaningfully; one that supports collaborative documentation of facts and clearly defined roles, real-time coordination, post-event accountability and structured, accessible reporting. Easier said than done; but this is precisely what distinguishes incident management from incident response. Incident response remains essential. It focuses on identifying malicious activity, improving defensive controls, and restoring systems. Its scope is technical and tactical. But in today's regulated, data-centric corporate world, and with threats evolving in sophistication every day, deeper and broader business coordination is required. Incident management represents a broader model. It integrates legal, operational, reputational, regulatory and insurance considerations, among other business functions. It aligns leadership, ensures continuity and provides unified direction. Where response teams expertly isolate malware, identify critical vulnerabilities, deploy corrective security controls and rebuild the services, management teams shape the timeline, set priorities, assign authority, coordinate stakeholders and preserve strategic coherence across the entire event lifecycle. When response efforts are fragmented and confusion sets in, costs escalate rapidly. According to the U.S. National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), the United States accounted for 59 per cent of the $16.66 billion in global cyber insurance premiums written in 2023. These figures speak clearly of the value at stake and they continue to rise year after year. In our experience, a significant portion of this underwriting has rested on unstable ground. Risk assessments were often declarative, with limited opportunities for independent verification. Control maturity was assumed rather than demonstrated. Beyond producing an incident response plan, few organizations could show how they would actually coordinate decisions, preserve evidence or communicate effectively across internal and external teams during a live event. This lack of structured readiness has led to prolonged investigations, delayed reporting, strained collaboration and higher payouts when risks materialized. Insurers, in turn, have responded by shifting more of the burden onto clients through narrower coverage terms and rising premiums. Another often overlooked consequence of difficult incident response cases is the human toll. Employee morale, burnout and turnover (especially within IT, legal and communications teams) can degrade internal cohesion long after the crisis is over. These indirect impacts are frequently underestimated, yet they affect organizational health in very direct and lasting ways. The World Economic Forum, in its Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2024, reports that 72 per cent of business leaders observed a rise in cyber threats over the past year. These include ransomware attacks, supply chain compromises and financially motivated extortion. The scope of cybercrime continues to expand. It affects not just digital infrastructure, but also trust, compliance, revenue and public confidence. Some estimates cited by the WEF place the global cost of cybercrime above $10 trillion annually by 2025. The precise figure matters less than the trend. These numbers exceed the GDP of most countries. Cyber events are no longer isolated technical failures. They are systemic risks to business and governance. Crisis coordination cannot be invented in the moment. It must be designed in advance and tested under realistic conditions. Crisis simulations and tabletop exercises should mirror the workflows used in live events. Preparation must go beyond checklists. It should reflect how teams document facts, assign responsibility, communicate in real time and make defensible decisions under pressure. Well-rehearsed structures build clarity and confidence. They also reveal weak points in communication, authority and coordination long before those weaknesses are exposed by a real incident. The current landscape demands purposeful and repeatable coordination. The complexity of today's incidents has exposed the limits of disconnected efforts and loosely aligned teams. Without a shared and structured framework that empowers stakeholders across the response ecosystem, the legacy wounds of past incidents will remain unhealed. These include technically isolated actions, fragmented collaboration, unclear priorities, slow recovery and inconsistent reporting. Convergence is the necessary cure. It reduces friction, aligns decision-makers, and brings operational threads into focus. When implemented with care, it turns incident management into a discipline that is effective, efficient, cost-aware and strategically valuable. Convergence requires both human commitment and enabling structure. First, it depends on critical human factors. Goodwill, communication and organizational empathy are absolutely foundational. Each participant brings valid goals and constraints. Understanding and respecting those differences is what makes collaboration functional. Now in smaller incidents, this alone may be sufficient. But at scale, good intentions will not be enough. When coordination must stretch across departments, vendors, time zones and regulators, structure becomes essential. Common and relevant office tools such as emails, online chats and tracking spreadsheets go a long way, but lack the flexibility, precision and visibility required for serious incident management. They offer no version control, no shared source of truth and no reliable audit trail. Under pressure, they generate confusion instead of control. What is needed is a common digital environment tailored to incident management. It must be trusted, structured and available to all relevant participants. It should support live coordination, reliable documentation, distributed decision-making, convenient reporting and traceability from beginning to end. When that foundation is in place, teams stay aligned, records stay intact, cases progress quickly and decisions hold up under scrutiny. And when your organization reaches the point where such a toolset becomes necessary, you will find people ready to help. They will bring the experience, discipline and commitment required to make that convergence real and to make it work with you. Jean-Simon Gervais is the owner of Fullblown Security Consulting and creator of Breach Commander | Unified Incident Management. This section is powered by Revenue Dynamix. Revenue Dynamix provides innovative marketing solutions designed to help IT professionals and businesses thrive in the Canadian market, offering insights and strategies that drive growth and success across the enterprise IT spectrum. Sign in to access your portfolio
