The Internet of Things (IoT) has introduced to the world the power of connectivity and automation . Through the use of a smart device, a task as simple as turning on a light bulb can take place directly from a person’s mobile phone. Other, more powerful, devices have the ability to record their surroundings, listen to commands, and even guard and protect a house ! These are all commendable advancements, but what happens when one of these devices becomes compromised? An attacker could gain access to an internet -enabled device and become aware of private and sensitive information - useful for taking over other devices on the network , as well as harvesting data for their own malicious purposes. Within this report, common weaknesses and mitigation paths of IoT devices will be discussed, as well as methods and tools that hackers use to attack. Furthermore , an ethical hacking demonstration will be deployed against an internet -enabled security camera, Wyze Cam V2 . Through the use of a firmware attack , root access was gained , allowing the view of confidential folders , containing video and audio files . Certain security methods demand improvement within this device in order to keep its users sa fe, which will be discussed further in this report . Key Words: Penetration testing, firmware, vulnerabilities, smart devices , Kali Linux ii Acknowledgements Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude to wards my supervisor , Dr Daniele Scrimieri, for his constant guidance and patience towards my questions. His knowledge , feedback and advice were pivotal in helping towards this report and I am very thankful . I would also like to extend my sincere appreciation to my friends and family . The completion of my report would not have been possible without their never -ending support and encouragement . iii Table of Contents Abstract ________________________________ ________________________ i Acknowledgements ________________________________ _______________ ii Chapter 1. I ntroduction ________________________________ ___________ 1 1.1 Problem Definition ________________________________ _____________________ 1 1.2 Goal ________________________________ ________________________________ _ 1 1.3 Scope ________________________________ ________________________________ 1 1.4 Outline ________________________________ _______________________________ 2 Chapter 2. Literature Review ________________________________ _______ 3 2.1 Introduction to Internet of Things Devices, how they work and advantages of their use 3 2.2 Related Works ________________________________ _________________________ 4 2.3 Security Issues and Vulnerabilities ________________________________ _________ 5 2.3.1 Hardcoded and Default Credentials ________________________________ _____ 5 2.3.2 Large Attack Surface ________________________________ ________________ 5 2.3.3 Lack of Encryption ________________________________ __________________ 5 2.3.4 Lack of update patches ________________________________ _______________ 6 2.3.5 Use of software with known vulnerabilities _______________________________ 6 2.3.6 Injection Attacks ________________________________ ____________________ 6 2.4 Reasons for security issues ________________________________ _______________ 7 2.5 Consequences of Vulnerable Devices ________________________________ _______ 8 2.5.1 Medtronic Pacemaker Vulnerability ________________________________ _____ 8 2.5.2 Remote Jeep Cherokee Hack ________________________________ __________ 8 2.6 Mitigation of Security Issues ________________________________ ______________ 8 2.6.1 2 -Factor Authentication ________________________________ ______________ 8 2.6.2 Enabling secure communication protocols ________________________________ 9 2.6.3 Activating a next -generation firewall ________________________________ ____ 9 2.6.4 Rigorous penetration testing ________________________________ ___________ 9 2.6.5 Create a separate network for IoT devices ________________________________ 9 2.6.6 Use of a VPN ________________________________ ______________________ 9 2.6.7 Other common remediation methods ________________________________ ___ 10 2.6.8 Reflection ________________________________ ________________________ 10 2.7 Theoreti cal Background ________________________________ ________________ 10 2.7.1 Ethical Hacking ________________________________ ___________________ 10 2.7.2 Protocols ________________________________ _________________________ 10 2.7.3 Firmware ________________________________ _________________________ 11 Chapter 3. Internet of Things Attacks & Tools ________________________ 12 3.1 Methodology ________________________________ _________________________ 12 3.2 Common Attacks ________________________________ ______________________ 13 iv 3.2.1 Man -in-the-Middle Attacks ________________________________ __________ 13 3.2.2 Brute -force Attacks ________________________________ _________________ 13 3.2.3 Firmware Attacks ________________________________ __________________ 13 3.2.4 Malware Attacks ________________________________ ___________________ 14 3.2.5 Distributed Denial -of-Service Attacks/Botnets ___________________________ 14 3.3 Preventing Attacks ________________________________ ____________________ 15 3.3.1 Virtual Private Networks ________________________________ ____________ 15 3.3.2 Strong Wi -Fi Encryption ________________________________ ____________ 15 3.3.3 Anti -Malware ________________________________ _____________________ 15 3.3.4 User Access Control ________________________________ ________________ 15 3.3.5 Reflection ________________________________ ________________________ 16 3.4 Commonly used Tools ________________________________ _________________ 16 3.4.1 Kali Linux ________________________________ ________________________ 16 3.4.2 Nmap ________________________________ ___________________________ 16 3.4.3 Wireshark ________________________________ ________________________ 17 3.4.4 Burp Suite ________________________________ ________________________ 17 3.4.5 John the Ripper ________________________________ ____________________ 17 Chapte r 4. Device under a Scope ________________________________ ___ 18 4.1 Wyze Cam V2 ________________________________ ________________________ 18 4.2 Physical Components ________________________________ __________________ 18 Chapter 5. Threat Modelling ________________________________ ______ 19 5.1 Identifying Assets ________________________________ _____________________ 19 5.2 Attack Vectors/Entry Points ________________________________ _____________ 19 5.3 Identifying Threats ________________________________ ____________________ 20 Chapter 6. Proof of Concept Exploit ________________________________ 22 6.1 Finding Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures _____________________________ 22 6.2 Method ________________________________ _____________________________ 22 6.2.1 Extracting the filesystems ________________________________ ____________ 23 6.2.2 Finding root password ________________________________ ______________ 23 6.2.3 Backdoor ________________________________ _________________________ 24 6.2.4 Creating Firmware Image ________________________________ ____________ 25 Chapter 7. Results & Discussion ________________________________ ___ 28 7.1 Results ________________________________ ______________________________ 28 7.2 Legal, Social, Ethical and Professional Issues _______________________________ 29 7.3 Future Work ________________________________ _________________________ 30 Chapter 8. Conclusion ________________________________ ___________ 31 Bibliography ________________________________ ___________________ 32 v List of Tables Table 1: Common methodology structures/phases ................................ ............................... 12 Table 2: Identifies the assets of the Wyze Cam V2 ................................ .............................. 19 Table 3: Possible attack surfaces for Wyze Cam V2 ................................ ............................ 20 Table 4: Threat #1 - Unauthorised access to user accou nts ................................ .................. 20 Table 5: Threat #2 - Access to critical files/recordings ................................ ........................ 20 Table 6: Threat #3 - Packet sniffing for user data ................................ ................................ 21 Table 7: Threat #4 - Creating/downloading malicious firmware ................................ .......... 21 List of Figures Figure 1: Physical Components of Wyze Cam V2 ................................ ............................... 18 Figure 2: Properties of the 4.9.5.36 firmware image ................................ ............................ 23 Figure 3: Root directory found in squashfs1 filesystem ................................ ....................... 23 Figure 4: John the Ripper tool used to crack the root password hash ................................ .... 24 Figure 5: Contents of rcS, a file containing boot scripts for Wyze Cam V2 .......................... 25 Figure 6: Creating the backdoor binary ................................ ................................ ................ 26 Figure 7: Creating the final firmware image ................................ ................................ ........ 26 Figure 8: Output of Nmap scan, showing that the telnet service is now active ..................... 26 Figure 9: Logging in as root user via telnet ................................ ................................ .......... 27 Figure 10: Private modules that can be accessed as the root user ................................ ......... 28 1 Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1 Problem Definition Internet of T hings devices have become increasingly prominent in modern times, with over 11.3 billion devices connected worldwide in 2021, and a further projected total of 29.4 billion by 2030 (Vailshery, 2022) . According to a report from Aviva, a n average of 10.3 internet - enabled devices exist within a regular UK household , with this figure increasing to 15.4 in a home with three children (Aviva , 2020) . While this progression is a sign of our technological era advancing , it also bring s with it some increasing security concerns . These concerns mainly come in the form of weak security frameworks implemented on smart device s, which can lead to vulnerabilities that could be exploited by an attacker. Many IoT developers may overlook the security aspect due to the associated costs , but in doing so, leave their devices open to attacks that could give a black hat hacker full control of the device , and potentially , the entire network . A black hat hacker is a person who uses their hacking skills for malicious purposes, as opposed to an ethical hacker , who uses their skills for good. Certain attacks they could execute include Man -in-the- Middle attacks, malware attacks, injection attacks, firmware attacks and many others to be discussed within the report. As a result, it is safe to conclude that the more Internet of Things devices within a household, the more at risk the household could be. 1.2 Goal The goal of this report is to analyse, evaluate and assess the security of Internet of Things devices by exploring commo n vulnerabilities and weaknesses. This will be achieved through various ethical hacking techniques, as well as using specific tools to assist. Additionally , possible remediation methods will be discussed throughout the report. Furthermore, a proof of concept exploit involving a Wyze Cam V2 security camera will be demonstrated via a firmware attack, in order to showcase the ease at which IoT devices can be compromised . This report aims to answer the following question: how secure are Internet of Things devices? Hopefully, as a result, information and awareness can be spread about the growing lack of safety in regards to internet -enabled devices. 1.3 Scope Throughout th e early sections of this report, common and generic Internet of Things devices will be explored, along with their weaknesses and certain mitigations to prevent these. However , during the later sections, the report aims to focus specifically on the penetration testing of a security camera, namely the Wyze Cam V2. In these sections, a demonstration of a proof of concept exploit will be shown . The following learning objectives will be referred to throughout: 2  Use of cyber security concepts and problems - including threat modelling and a study of various cyber -attacks and remediation methods  Conduct research into relevant books and essays to gain an understanding of real cyber -attacks and case studies  Explore the legal, social, ethical and profes sional issues of cyber security - including a look into the laws implemented and ways that they can be improved  Explore management of security and security tools used to address vulnerabilities - including Nmap, John the Ripper and Binwalk 1.4 Outline The report is divided into 8 chapters:  Chapter 1 is the current chapter that introduces the thesis and its aims and objectives .  Chapter 2 studies the work of other researchers and evaluates their methods and insights. This chapter also provides details on the background of Internet of Things devices, as well as common security vulnerabilities and methods of remediation. Furthermore, reasons as to why security issues exist and the ir consequences are explored , in addition to the theoretical backgro und of ethical hacking, security protocols and firmware .  Chapter 3 takes a look at penetration testing in more depth, introducing methodologies, common attacks , tools used by hackers , and methods of protection against attacks .  Chapter 4 introduces the smart camera that will be hacked as part of the project, namely the Wyze Cam V2 .  Chapter 5 provides a threat evaluation of the Wyze Cam V2, mentioning possible entry points and attack surfaces .  Chapter 6 demonstrates a proof of concept exploit for the Wyze Cam V2, showing how a potential attacker could gain root access .  Chapter 7 discusses the results of the attack, ways the security can be improved, legal, social, ethical and professional considerations , and suggestions for future work .  Chapter 8 concludes the thesis , summarizing what has been discussed throughout. 3 Chapter 2. Literature Review 2.1 Introduction to Internet of Things Devices , how they work and advantages of their use The term ‘Internet of Things’ was coined in 1999 by Kevin Ashton (Lueth, 2014) and is used to describe “pieces of hardware that […] can transmit data over the internet or other networks” (What are IOT devices | n.d.) . Although many people remain unaware , the Internet of Things is all around us : in our homes; our places of work; hospitals; supermarkets , and many more. Popular examples of such devices include:  Smart light bulbs  Smart plugs  Smart cameras  Remote patient monitoring  Heart rate monitors  Baby monitoring cameras  Amazon Alexa  Smart watches  And even smart fridges! All of these devices have the capability of communicating over the internet , which means they have the capability of being attacked. Internet -enabled devices contain many sensors and actuators , which send the data they collect to a cloud network. Once there, the data is processed and a certain action can be performed. Many common IoT devices are paired with a smartphone app lication that receives the data and can notify the user of any information that they may need , or even self -adjust based on the conditions set . For instance , if a smart thermometer has sensed that a room has reached a set temperature, it can automatically adjust itself to perform a new action. From my point of view, t he main advantage of IoT devices is the real-time information that they provide. With a few presses of a button, a person is quickly able to monitor a security camera , or measure their current heart rate. This goes a long way in ensuring that changing circumstances can be adapted to almost instantaneously. Their ease of access is also extremely helpful as it could allow a person to, for instance, immediately turn on a smart plug whenever they need, as long as they have a proficient interne t connection. Internet of Things devices can also increase production through the automation of tasks. For example, if a smart printer detects that an ink cartridge is low, it can automatically notify the user , or even place an online order , based on its settings. Rather than having to manually monitor the ink usage, this system will allow the user to be more productive without wasting time. As reported by the International Data Corporation, it is estimated that, by 2025, there will be almost 80 zettabytes (equivalent to 80 billion terabytes ) of data produced from IoT devices (Hojlo, 2021) . With the increasing rate of Internet of Things devices being used, in my 4 opinion, the number of cyber -attacks will also inevitably grow , mainly due to the challenges further discussed in section 2.3 . 2.2 Related Works The study and related works of other researchers have helped contribute to this report, and serve as a basis for which I hope to expand upon. The work undertaken by Fredrik Radholm and Niklas Abefelt (2020) into “A Survey on Security of a Smart Refrigerator” introduces the concepts of ethically hacking a Samsung refrigerator using its underlying Operating System. In this thesis, several cases of threat modelling are used in order to evaluate how secure the machine is, which resulted in no exploitable vulnerabilities being found. The use of threat modelling allowed for a more dynamic view of the machine, which was used to illustrate the potential methods an attacker could use to gain access. In the report, investigations into firmware are limited but ha ve the potential to be scrutinized further. Ivan Gudymenko thoroughly explained the security weaknesses of Internet of Things devices, mainly in re gards to wireless communications, such as RFID and Wireless Personal Networks. His essay, titled “Security in the Internet of Things” (Gudymenko, 2011), opens a discussion into the privacy aspects of internet -enabled devices and the challenges they present . In a blog post titled “Hacking Reolink cameras for fun and profit”, author George Hilliard (2020) hacks into a security camera by modifying and reverse engineering the firmware. These modifications allowed the camera to run telnet from boot, which could be used to connect and gain root access. The work of a security researcher, with the YouTube screen name of Stacksmashing, explains the uses of the Squashfs and JFFS2 filesystems that are used in firmware images. His online video details the steps taken to inject modified firmware into a smart device in order to take control of it (Stacksmashing, 2020). A lecture given at a Sydney -based University by Jason Ford (2020), goes into detail about security vulnerabilities of Internet of Things devices, as well as a demonstration of how to hack a security camera. This is done through code injection and brute -forcing the admin password. A report by Xin Liu (2021), titled “Ethical Hacking of a Smart Video Doorbell”, expands upon the use of penetration testing tools t o explore vulnerabilities within a smart doorbell. Using attacks such as Man -in-the-Middle, SQL Injection , and more, the security of the device was assessed, and suggestions were made for improvement. All of these research pieces present interesting and un ique ideas . One of special interest to me was George Hilliard’s blog post, in which he used Wireshark to sniff the data traffic between a security camera and its PC client, as part of his enumeration of the device. From my experience, this is a resourceful method that can be used to gain sensitive information about a device and the servers it communicates with, as well as leading down other useful paths. 5 As well as this, Gudymenko’s thorough explanation of the security issues in IoT devices that use wireles s communications was highly informative. The use of wireless networks to hack a device revealed to me the increasingly large dangers of IoT devices. Although they were all very educative and enlightening, one area that I found limited in the reports I read would be the use of case studies and examples. Delving in to more relevant details of real life events would provide extra context to the reader and ensure that they are following along. Hopefully, this can be developed further within this report. 2.3 Security Issues and Vulnerabilities With all of the advantages that Internet of Things devices bring, they also have some disadvantages. Some developers of IoT devices may not implement strong security functions within the device, which can lead to vulnerabilities that an attacker could exploit . These include: 2.3.1 Hardcoded and Default Credentials When an IoT device is manufactured, it may come with default credentials, such as admin:admin or admin:password. These are basic login credentials that are very simple and easy to remember (which are the characteristics of a weak password !), with the expectation being that the consumer changes these to their own unique, secure password. Many users , however, may not know how to change the ir credentials or may be ignorant of the fact that they can even be changed , causing them to keep the weak default credentials ! By keeping the default credentials, an attacker could brute -force the details within seconds, or could even do a quick Google search for the device name and password. This is one of the easiest ways that an attacker could enter a device and it remains so because users do not make their details unique and difficult to guess. 2.3.2 Large Attack Surface During development, some common services that the developers may use include SSH, Telnet and certain debug interfaces , which may have ports that are left open at the time of sale. While these may be critical for the developers, they are not as useful to the average consumer and could instead provide a path for attackers to exploit . The more internet -connected services that are open on the device, the more potential gateways an attacker has to attack . From there, the attacker could gain access to the device in question or they coul d pivot and attack another device on the network (Langkemper | n.d.) . Closing unnecessary ports is paramount in reducing the size of the attack surface and helping secure the device , as it means that the attacker has less pathways to enumerate the device and execute an attack. 2.3.3 Lack of Encryption When devices communicate with each other in plain -text, their messages can easily be read by someone with malicious intentions . This is where encryption comes into use. Encryption transforms readable, plain -text data into an unreadable format, with the help of cryptographic algorithms. This ensures that any information cannot be interpreted by an attacker. 6 One common problem in this area is using an insecure protocol, such as HTTP or FTP , rather than the encrypted version of the respective protocol, HTTPS or FTPS . For devices that communicate in plain -text, an attacker could execute a Man -in-the-Middle attack where t he attacker sits between two communicating devices and intercepts their data, unknown to the devices . This can lead to sensitive data exposure if any personal information is transmitted whilst the attacker is listening. 2.3.4 Lack of update patches Devices with vulnerabilities require a software patch to alleviate the issue. If a developer neglects the release of patches to vulnerabilities in their device, their entire customer base could be at risk of exposure to an attack , which is why it is important for software to have an update functionality so that developers are able to push patches at any time , in the case of a system weakness (Guest, 2022) . After a software update is released, the update should be pushed onto new devices at the time of sale so that new users are not at risk of using outdated software, with the vulnerability still hiding within. 2.3.5 Use o f software with known vulnerabilities Rather than reinventing the wheel each time a new IoT device is made, many manufacturers resort to using open source software to create their product. This could include libraries or other popular frameworks that may be used in hundreds of other devices. While this may help them to release their product faster, the software could have many vulnerabilities hidden within, and if an attacker were to find just one vulnerability, it could bring down all of the devices that use that same software (Cloudflare, 2020 ). An example of this happening is the 2021 Log4j attacks that left millio ns of devices exposed around the world. This was due to all of the devices using the same Java -based logging and monitoring tool, where a single security weakness lead to a remote control execution exploit being available within a few days. Many attacks we re issued due to the sheer amount of devices that used Log4j. 2.3.6 Injection Attacks One of the easiest and most common attacks that can impact the Internet of Things is an injection attack. This is where an attacker exploits a user input field (such as a username or password field) and enters malicious code that is processed and sent to the back end of the device, where it is executed; essentially giving the attacker ‘control’ of the device. It can also be used to reveal private and sensitive information, that may be stored in a database, and return these to the attacker. By sanitizing the user input, i.e. preventing unsafe characters from being entered, this type of vulnerability can be avoided . In addition to this, validation requires that the user input be entered in the correct format that is expected, and as such, any code that is entered will be ignored (Cloudflare, 2020 ). 7 2.4 Reasons for security issues In my opinion, one of the main reasons for weak IoT devices is: because of the increased cost of production, many IoT developers tend to overlook the security aspect of their device s. IoT devices are produced on a mass scale , and an average manufacturer could produce hundreds of thousands of the same product per week. Many of th ese developers may add a simple security function, but ultimately a well -implemented security framework will increase the company’s costs and time spent per product, eating into their profit margins. As a result, developers would rather spend their time working on the functionality of the product, rather than its security. Similarly, having more than basic security is not much of a selling point for internet -enabled devices. Many consumers care more about h ow the product works and the various different features it has , compared to evaluating the security functions of it. As well as this, having strong security features could run the risk of limiting the usability of the device . For example, having to enter a password upon every use could annoy the user, making it less desirable . From a business perspective, since security is not driving sales, it makes more sense to focus on the functionality of the device. C onsequently , security is more of an afterthought rather than a need. Furthermore, some developers believe that basic security (i.e. default credentials) is enough for the product - instead , shifting the responsibility of security onto the consumer. Whil e I believe that it is correct that consumers should take action to increase their kn owledge about attacks and to protect themselves, developers must also ensure that they have done as much as they can to secure their device s. For instance , having default credentials is a form of security, but it is too simple , and not every user can be expected to know that they must change their login details. Instead, this can be improved upon by supplying users with unique tokens to access their admin portal. Shifting responsibility onto consumers should not excuse developers from applying more effort to secure the device . One of the areas I believe that security could be improved in is the implementation of more protective laws and legislations. There is currently not much regulation regarding the security of Internet of Things devices, with the exception of a new law, proposed by the UK government in April 2021. This particular law ensures that “virtually all smart devices meet new requirements:  Customers must be informed at the point of sale the duration of time for which a smart device will receive security software updates  A ban on manufacturers using universal default passwords, such as ‘password’ or ‘admin’, that are often preset in a device’s factory settings and are easily guessable  Manu facturers will be required to provide a public point of contact to make it simpler for anyone to report a vulnerability.” (Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport 2021) Since “ only 12 per cent of organisations review the cyber security risks coming from their immediate suppliers ” (Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport, 2022) , this law was eventually implemented in order to provide regulation for the manufacturers of IoT devices. This is a big step forward as it eliminates the default credent ials issue and makes it easier for vulnerabilities to be reported, which can then be patched. 8 2.5 Consequences of Vulnerable Devices While all vulnerable devices have the potential to cause damage, some devices tend to have more severe consequences than others. This is certainly true for internet -enabled machines such as vehicles, smart fire alarms, heart rate monitors , and other medical sensors. If these were to become compromised, private information could be stolen, certain protective settings could be changed, or even worse ; lives could be lost! Weaknesses in these device s lend themselves easily to cyber -attacks. “A cyber -attack is any attempt to gain unauthorized access to a computer, computing system or computer network with the intent to cause damag e” (Pratt, 2022). 2.5.1 Medtronic Pacemaker Vulnerability At an annual black hat event in Las Vegas, hosted in 2018, security researchers, Billy Rios and Jonathon Butts demonstrated a vulnerability in a Medtronic pacemaker that could leave thousands of patients at risk. The vulnerability would allow attackers to control the rate at which electronic impulses are sent to the heart, essentially altering the way the heart beats! The researchers discovered that the radio -frequency protocol, called Conexus, lacks any form of authentication, meaning that, if they were w ithin a 20 feet radius of the pacemaker, an attacker could simply connect and “inject, replay, modify, and intercept the telemetry data.” (Tung, 2019). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning against the use of these pacemakers, and while n o lives were lost, the consequences of this vulnerability remain strikingly severe. 2.5.2 Remote Jeep Cherokee Hack In July 2015, a team of researchers were able to expose weaknesses in a Jeep Cherokee vehicle, allowing them to remotely take control of var ious modules in the car. The researchers, Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek, were able to send messages to the vehicle’s Control Area Network (CAN) to control functions of the car, including altering the speed, the steering wheel , and even the emergency bra ke. This prompted them to demonstrate these vulnerabilities by hacking one of their own Jeep vehicles, driving onto a highway , and performing an emergency stop at speed (Brewster, 2016) ! The pair of researchers reported the bugs to Fiat Chrysler, but it j ust shows the ease at which even vehicles can be taken over. While Miller and Valasek rightfully didn’t share these vulnerabilities publicly, it is frightening to think of what would happen if they ended up in the wrong hands . 2.6 Mitigation of Security Issues As mentioned previously, i ssues in security can lead to distributed denial -of-service attacks , private information being intercepted and stolen , or even a device being controlled by a black hat hacker ! For these reasons , both the users and manufacturers should follow certain best practices to ensure that their device is not compromised. 2.6.1 2-Factor Authentication One of the easiest ways for users to keep their device secure is by using 2 -Factor Authentication where pos sible. This is a system that not only requires the user’s account 9 details to login, but also asks for the user to input a special code sent to another linked application, which could include email or text messages. If a remote attacker manages to brute -force their way into a user’s account, it is unlikely that they will also have the user’s email or phone number to hand, making this method very effective. 2.6.2 Enabling secure communication protocols A fundamental method of improving IoT privacy is through the use of secure communication protocols . Manufacturers can employ the use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) in order to encrypt the data sent back and forth from the device to the server . Once the data is sent and encrypted, it is signed with a Message Authentication Code (MAC). Through this code, t he server is then able to verify that the data has not been tampered with . If the data has been tampered with, the server knows not to trust the message (Das & Samdaria, 2014) . Many brows ers are now phasing out the use of HTTP in favour of HTTPS. This is because HTTPS offers the same services but has more advanced security protocols in place to keep data safe. 2.6.3 Activat ing a next -generation firewall A firewall is like a security guard; it controls what enters a network . The majority of routers have a n active firewall, but these tend to be limited in their features. Next -generation firewalls are part of the third generation of firewalls and offer a range of advanced features such as malw are protection; intrusion protection systems (IPS) ; content filtering; virtual private networks (VPN) and more. As a means to filter out attackers, malware , and viruses , firewalls are essential to users (Goodreau | n.d.) . 2.6.4 Rigorous penetration testing Before an Internet -enabled device is released for sale, the manufacturers should ensure that it has passed many in -depth penetration tests. These are done by a team of cyber security analysts to find any possible vulnerabilities in a device in order to as sess where they lead and the consequences that may ensue by exploiting them. The tester then informs the ‘Blue’ team of any issues that they caught so that they can be patched whilst still in production. A thorough test will lead to the elimination of any flaws so that they are not sent out to customers . 2.6.5 Create a separate network for IoT devices A way for users to keep themselves, their personal data and their network secure is by creating a new network specifically for their Internet of Things devices. This method of security ensures that if an attacker is successful in compromising a device, the only other path they can pivot to is to attack other IoT devices, rather than personal devices. It is uncommon to enter sensitive information in a smar t plug or a smart lightbulb, so if these are compromised, their specific network can be shut down as a last resort, without any additional harm being done to the main network and the equipment connected to it. 2.6.6 Use of a VPN A VPN is a virtual private network that provides the user with a form of online anonymity by disguising their IP address. These attributes help mitigate vulnerabilities as a user’s network traffic is sent to a server provided by the VPN, where the data is encrypted in the process. This will ensure that an attacker will not be able to view any private information this way and hides the user’s network traffic. 10 2.6.7 Other common remediation methods While the above -mentioned practices can help lower the risk of security issues, there are still many other techniques that users and manufacturers can use to keep their device s and networks secure:  Ensure that all passwords are kept strong and difficult to guess  Ensure vulnerabilities are patched as soon as possible  Correctly configure the router  Use encryption wherever possible  Reduce the attack surface by closing unnecessary ports 2.6.8 Reflection I believe that, for manufacturers of an IoT device, an extremely attentive and thorough penetration test would be the best course of action before selling their products. This is because any vulnerabilities that exist can be hand tested in great detail, to explore the different avenues that an exploit would l ead to. Whilst still in production , any errors can be resolved without risk of damage or data loss from an attacker. On the other hand, for the users of an IoT device, I would recommend strengthening the rules of their firewall as a method of protection for their network. A strong firewall is one that not only filters malicious software from being downloaded, but also prevents malicious attackers or unwanted data connections from reaching the user’s device. The majority of the latest computers, laptops and routers come wit h a dedicated firewall settings menu, where certain rules and adjustments can be made, allowing for more personalized and specific control. In other words, the firewall can be tailored to block specific objects, or allow them based on the rules the user ha s set. The user could easily make changes according to their p