Race report: Laguna Seca Raceway, 25 May 2021

Bruised and battered on a dark night in central California, car 59 refuses to give up and comes home P27. 

Race 4 got off to a cautious start as drivers were reminded by race officials to obey the white lines and know where to bail out when things go wrong. Laguna Seca Raceway, a circuit built around a dry lake bed and completed in 1957, contains one of the most demanding sequence of turns on the calendar. Known as ‘the corkscrew’, the challenging left, right, left chain of corners drops vehicles the equivalent of 10 stories over a track distance of just 450ft (137m) – a combination that has a cruel habit of spitting cars into the barriers. For drivers, add to this – the sand around the track which can spin a car with the slightest touch of a rear wheel and over 30 cars all fighting for position within a tight circuit which can be lapped in less than 85 seconds. 

Taking the plunge down the steep corkscrew

So, would the corkscrew throw drivers off course? You betcha! And if the track wasn’t already challenging enough, series organisers Apex Online Racing had decided to dial up the difficulty another notch by running the race under night conditions.   

A dark and difficult race

Navigating the track successfully under a pitch-black sky is helped by the powerful headlights on the GT3 cars. The same goes for drivers on normal roads finding their way on an otherwise unlit part of their journey. But what would happen if the headlights failed? It’s a scenario that we consider on our vehicle-hacking simulator, which demonstrates — in a safe and controlled environment — what it would be like to drive a car or truck that is experiencing a cyber-attack. We can tell you from experience that the lights going out unexpectedly, at speed, is a truly terrifying experience, even in a simulator. 

Threat modelling and cyber-security management 

Automotive cybersecurity standards and regulations such as ISO 21434 (Road vehicles – Cybersecurity engineering) and UN Regulation No. 155 (Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regards to cyber security and cyber security management system) provide frameworks for vehicle manufacturers to consider such threats.  

Browsing these documents, you’ll notice that one of the worked examples (in Annex G of ISO 21434) explores potential attack paths that could lead to a loss of road illumination during night driving and the vulnerability management employed to manage them. 

The Lamborghini headlights piercing the night

Thankfully, both headlights on the Copper Horse liveried Lamborghini Huracan were fully operational during race 4. In pre-race practice, a good setup of the car from its aerodynamics through to tyre pressures, showed that swift lap times could be achieved by Copper Horse Racing, with the car 6th fastest. The short and tight circuit meant that qualifying ‘flying laps’ were impacted by traffic and by the end of the 15 minute qualifying session Copper Horse’s Lamborghini was 22nd on the grid of 31 cars.  

In the race itself, not everything ran so smoothly as early collisions (with other cars and barriers) meant that car 59 had to make its way to the pits twice to repair mechanical damage costing precious time.  

Glowing brakes as Copper Horse Racing’s David Rogers rounds T11 into the home straight

It was a test of mental resilience to stay the course of the race, and given the hurdles, surviving the 60 minute race was somewhat bittersweet given what could have been. The championship points gained, although small, could prove important when the series concludes on 29th June at Silverstone. 

Fireworks mark the end of a tough race which could have been so different

Mid-season review 

With four races done, we’re now halfway through the series with Copper Horse lead driver David Rogers currently 31st out of 46 entrants in the Tier 10 overall standings. At the top of the table is UK racer Dave Bramhall, who bagged another P3 finish – his fourth in four races! Scott Ullmann is in second, finally making it onto the podium after getting close in each of the previous races. And in third spot is Justin Dawson whose points took a hit after placing P36 in race one, but he’s on a mission to make up for it – scoring three P1 finishes in a row. 

Porsches dominated at Laguna Seca; Justin Dawson in car 12 leads from Scott Ullman in 222

Drivers have a fortnight in which to recharge before the next race on 8 June 2021 at the Bathurst Mount Panorama circuit in Australia. The weather conditions are not looking good… 

We were able to successfully broadcast the race from Laguna Seca live, so will continue this for the next race. If you fancy watching then check out drogersuk on twitch from 19:30 UK time. See you then! 

About the author 

James Tyrrell is a Threat Modelling Analyst at Copper Horse. 

Race report: Donington Park, 11 May 2021

Copper Horse brings home its 2015 Lamborghini Huracan GT3 safely in one piece on a wet and wild evening at the Donington Park circuit. 

After our introduction to league sim racing last week in France at Circuit Paul Ricard, car number 59 – driven by Copper Horse’s David Rogers – was back on track for race 2 of AOR’s ACC league, season 7. Same car, same driver, but dramatically different driving conditions this time around as rain hammered down, threatening spins at every corner. 

Poor Networks and eSports 

Our initial qualification was marred by a network disconnection, forcing us to the back of the grid for the race. This is actually something that we’ve been highlighting as a strong use case and justification for high availability 5G network slices. A couple of weeks ago the BMW and Williams eSports driver Sami Matti-Trogen lost his internet connection during his driving stint of a 24 hour race at the Nürburgring, whilst in 2nd place. This incident dropped him down to 8th place. 

Luckily the BMW team fought back to 3rd place. We’ll see lots more of this in the future and it’s a timely reminder that resilience for future networks is critical – whether it be eSports or things that affect human safety. Another related requirement for esports is parity in upload and download speeds, i.e. similar download and upload bandwidths. This is something that future networks will bring – for 6G and beyond. We have been trying to stream our races and practice races so far but the load on the network (primarily due to poor upload speeds) has caused one drop-out mid-race during a practice. This means that for our next race we’ll have to stream the replay after the event rather than live during the actual race, rather than risk a disconnect – particularly during a 90 minute race. In the future we may try to do some ‘out-of-band’ streaming over 5G by using a 5G Wi-Fi module, so watch this space. 

The Race 

With so much water on track it was always going to be a challenge to stay between the white lines, especially coming out of the sweeping right, left sequence of Hollywood and Craner Curves, where cars pick up speed on the downhill before navigating a tight right-hander at the Old Hairpin.  

Side-by-side on a tight circuit

Other tricky turns included Coppice, which appears at the top of a climb and was starved of grip under the wet conditions. Touch one wheel on the grass and you’d soon be experiencing the motion of the sim rig as it replicates the loss of traction through a sliding mechanism under the driver’s seat. 

Rear view – the spray added to the difficulties faced by all the drivers in the wet

Realism is a big part of the Copper Horse simulator as it supports our goal of safely sharing the experience of what it’s like to drive a vehicle that is being hacked. The custom setup features a number of added automotive elements including a CAN bus – a vehicle network that we have been studying in detail together with our partners in the Secure-CAV consortium.  

CAN bus is popular not just in cars, but also in elevators and even coffee machines. And the hacking simulator provides a great tool for highlighting the security risks that developers should be aware of, as well as demonstrating the mitigations that can be applied to protect the network. 

On track, the biggest danger was cars facing the wrong direction. Battling not just the other drivers, but also the grisly weather, it was a good result to finish P29 after a grizzly first lap, turn 1 crash involving most of the field severely damaged the car. 

A double-slide in front of the Copper Horse car, narrowly avoided

Weighing up the competition  

Jahn Solo of Germany and Dave Bramhall of the UK appear strong contenders for the title with both taking podium spots at Paul Ricard and Donington. Fortunes can change fast, as fellow Tier 10 driver Justin Dawson of Canada demonstrates – improving from a P36 finish in race 1 to take the top spot a week later. 

Every driver faced a tough fight against the conditions and each other

Next up in the 8 race series is a 90 minute race tonight (18th of May 2021) at the Circuit de Barcelona Catalunya. This time the windscreen wipers can stay off as the weather will be dry and sunny – something that can be guaranteed in the sim world! 

Hopefully we’ll be able to stream live again in the next couple of weeks. We’ll advertise replay streams on the @copperhorseuk twitter account. 

About the author 

James Tyrrell is a Threat Modelling Analyst at Copper Horse. 

Combining Future Automotive Security with eSports

David Rogers explains the launch of something completely different for Copper Horse and why it isn’t.. well completely different.

During the 2020 lockdown, our company was busy in the early stages of an InnovateUK project called Secure-CAV, together with our partners from Siemens, the Universities of Coventry and Southampton. The project is looking at how to secure the Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CAVs) of the future, particularly at the lowest levels of the technology stack.

Using our experience in the mobile and IoT security space and particularly in hacking and securing hardware-level systems we have been working on a range of activities from real-world threat modelling through to dismantling and reverse engineering the hacking equipment used by criminals seeking to exploit vehicles in various different ways.

We had to adapt our ways of working such that we duplicated some of our equipment setups across the different partners and found new ways to collaborate. We also had access to some real vehicles which has helped us along the way.

One of the things that we wanted to do from early in the project was to be able to allow people to experience what it was like to be in a vehicle that was actively being hacked. Short of bringing people to test tracks and signing lots of insurance waivers, there aren’t many ways that this can be achieved. What we have done is to build a vehicle hacking simulator, which we’ve been able to feed telemetry from various simulators into to provide a ‘real’ physical experience. We’ll be talking a lot more about this in future blogs, but for now I want to tell you about something that came out of that work.

I have long been a big fan of different kinds of motor racing whether it be hill-climbing at Shelsley Walsh or Rallycross at Croft Circuit, so like many others during the various lockdowns, I decided to take up sim racing. This is a huge and passionate community and many of the real world racing teams are active in this esports world. Drivers including Rubens Barrichello, Jenson Button and George Russell are active sim racers. Whilst this is just the start of my journey, it is really enjoyable and it is nice to be able to compete in such a great community of people from around the world. There are some incredibly skilled drivers out there that would give some of the world’s best real-world drivers a run for their money.

With our Copper Horse Racing Team, I have begun competing in the Apex Online Racing Assetto Corsa Competizione GT3 Racing League, driving a Lamborghini Huracan GT3. We are competing in Tier 10 of the league – the Tier 1 and 2 races are broadcast each week online, with commentary.

Our car displays the logos of all our Secure-CAV project partners as well as You Gotta Hack That, not forgetting That Media Group for our fantastic vehicle livery.

Car Number 59 – the Copper Horse Racing Lamborghini Huracan GT3

For the simulator itself, we’re running a DoF Reality P3 motion rig, an entry-level setup of G29 wheel and pedals and triple 31″ screens supported by the lesser-spotted Nvidia GeForce 3070 video card. We’ll do a proper walkthrough of the rig in another blog as we have a very special and interesting setup.

Our first race took place last Tuesday (the 4th of May 2021). I have to be honest, it was pretty nerve racking. The lap times were fast and the action was hot at the Circuit Paul Ricard in France.

A close finish at Circuit Paul Ricard

I managed to drive a clean race without damage (despite there being absolute carnage at turns 1 and 2 which will surprise no-one in the sim racing community!) and finished 28th, which I’ll take for a first race on a track that the Lamborghini was never going to be a fan of.

Passing an injured Aston Martin at Circuit Paul Ricard

Race 2 will take place tonight (the 11th of May 2021) and is at a very wet and rainy Donington Park in the UK, for all the different drivers, ranking through Tiers 2-10. You can see last night’s elite Tier 1 race below:

Tier 1 Donington Park Race

Drivers are able to get practice sessions in to try the conditions as well as a couple of practice races. The conditions are tough for this race – 100% wet and a very tight circuit which means passing (and allowing cars through on blue flags) can be quite difficult. What I’ve been rapidly learning over the past week is that the right setups can drastrically improve laptimes. You can watch live on my Twitch stream here from 7.30pm BST: https://www.twitch.tv/drogersuk

The full race calendar can be found at: https://apexonline.racing/league/19#calendar

A hard fought evaluation race at Spa-Fracorchamps, Belgium

I’m looking forward to tonight’s race and the rest of the season, whatever happens! I hope you’ll join us on this journey over the next few months as we explain what we’re doing on future automotive security and take our car hacking rig on what should be an incredible journey!

Security by Design for Telecommunications Networks

David Rogers writes about future telecoms network security.

The UK5G Innovation Network recently published an article on the topic of Security by Design which I wrote a little while back, covering both IoT and managing risk in future networks. You can only fit so much into a couple of pages, so here’s a little bit more that I wrote on future telecommunications networks and the challenges of supply chain security.

An area that can’t have escaped anyone’s notice is the debate over what are now known as ‘High Risk Vendors’ in telecommunications networks. This mostly distils into a question over whether products and services are designed with security in mind. Risk can never be truly eliminated, but it can be reduced and managed. Equally, trust is something that needs to be gained and relied upon and is not simply about technology. Between businesses and governments, trust is about keeping promises and whether statements or actions are truthful and verifiable. Future networks in telecommunications both rely on secure technology and trust.

Food security could be significantly disrupted by attacks on connected agriculture

In general, it is often difficult to justify security measures to businesses as there is no obvious return on investment. Some companies have taken the attitude that they can weather any storm from a cyber attack because there is no real financial downside. This is beginning to change. Large businesses have been affected by ransomware attacks that have crippled their operations, in some cases taking them out of business, through to governments finally beginning to acknowledge and take cyber-crime seriously.

Increasing Resilience

As telecommunications networks have developed, we’ve slipped into a world where our reliance on them is such that we can’t afford for them to be disrupted.

The 5G vision is a collection of technologies, including different types of IoT radio and device types across multiple different sectors or ‘verticals’. This opens up a new set of issues around the ‘cyber-physical’ space – that is the attacks no longer just remain virtual. A cyber attack could potentially interact with a real-world object or system causing catastrophic consequences. In farming this could mean the loss of irrigation causing food security issues. In heavy industrial, this could mean the complete destruction of a blast furnace and in the automotive sector it could mean that cars could be stopped in the middle of the road, essentially halting the economy instantly.

Disruption to connected vehicles could cripple economies

Hostile nation states are already seeking to take advantage of the fact that the weakest links can be the most effective points of attack. Taking over a consumer or small business router can allow the attacker to create a bridgehead inside the UK, opening up all sorts of possibilities, including distribution of disinformation or ‘fake news’.

In addition, networks are shifting from a world where individual hardware boxes make up a network to one which those functions are ‘virtualised’; with all the functions now built into software. This means greater speed and reliability on the one hand, but also means that you’re really putting your eggs in one basket on the other.

Increasingly, there has been a drive to reduce costs and this has meant that in some cases security is at the end of a long list of requirements. This is where government has a role – to level the playing field such that everyone must provide an acceptable bar of security for entry into the market in the first place, thus affording every citizen in a country a certain guarantee of protection from the disruption of security compromise of a telecoms network or equipment vendor.

The supply chain that we’ve slipped into also means that companies are increasingly relying on open source software – that is, software that is developed by a community of individuals openly and collaboratively and released for anyone to use under a license. The challenge that has been faced for years is that companies are very happy to ‘take’ software for free, but rarely contribute back. This is a particular issue for security. While open source is openly visible for peer-review, attackers aren’t going to submit a fix for security flaws they find! This combined with many companies not keeping up-to-date with open source libraries in their products and services can be a real issue for security.

Addressing the Challenges of Supply Chain Security

These risks mean that extra attention has to be paid to the fundamentals of how networks are built from the ground up and how to make them more resilient. From a security design perspective, that means building defence-in-depth, mobile network operators not relying on single vendors in order to spread the risk more evenly, and validating that what is being built doesn’t contain known security vulnerabilities and flaws. It isn’t possible to create a flawless system and it isn’t possible to design software and hardware without the possibility of security vulnerabilities, however acknowledging this fact leads us to the necessity that companies need to stay on top of security research and have systems and processes in place to quickly deal with security vulnerabilities and exploitation as they arise. While the country-of-origin of a product or service is clearly a security consideration for both companies and governments, if it can be thoroughly validated and meets a good level of product security together with other cyber security measures, it matters much less. The overriding concern is that if a product or service supplied from anywhere in the world is fundamentally insecure, any country could theoretically attack it successfully; it doesn’t matter where the product originally came from.

There are many factors in the telecommunications supply chain to consider including hardware security, cryptographic key management, logistics, testing, auditing and working on security vulnerability management. From an industry perspective: for network operators – many of these are areas that have been opaque for some time, with vendors supplying products which have had little-to-no security and basic issues like default passwords. For vendors – operators have not been willing to pay more for security and have squeezed vendors for lower-priced products. They’re not really questioned when products are delivered with basic security flaws. For the entire world, there is a shortage of engineers who understand security; a failure by governments and the education system to understand that security must be a core component of modern engineering degrees and training. While some action has been taken, it cannot currently supply the demands needed now and in the future. Companies therefore need to step-up and ensure that as part of their efforts to increase security they must invest in their own existing staff to train them on product and cyber security.

Preventing Insecure Connected Products Being Sold

Work on improving security in the Internet of Things (IoT) continues apace! The UK government has reached another milestone in its mission to make the country one of the most secure places to do business and to live in, with the release of proposals for regulating the cyber security of smart products. They are well worth a read and provide a good steer as to what the future of insecure connected products will look like when we collectively say ‘Enough is enough’.

This Call for Views invites feedback until early September 2020 on a range of options as the government moves towards legislation based around the top 3 items in the UK’s Code of Practice for IoT Security:

1) To eliminate the problem of default passwords.
2) To ensure that companies in the IoT space have a way for security researchers to be able to contact them to report vulnerabilities in products.
3) To be transparent to consumers about how long software updates will be available.

These are anchored in the recently approved European standard for IoT security, ETSI EN 303 645 which has the support of industry and governments across the world, marking a significant harmonisation of views on how the problem should be approached.

The Call for Views outlines the aims of the government – to achieve an outcome where there are no products available on the UK market that are non-compliant with the above. In simple terms – you shouldn’t be able to buy a product that has not been designed securely.

This is of course just the start. The items above are fundamental, but there many different types of security that should be built into products, it’s just that some manufacturers of products and services choose not to do that. You wouldn’t allow a food manufacturer to supply to shops if they hadn’t taken basic sanitation measures so why should that be allowed in the smart product space?

Proposed Scope

The scope of products included is broader than IoT products and covers the scope of nearly all the connected products you could find in a home, including laptops and mobile phones. As PCs and mobile phones have been under attack for many years now, the product security in those industries is significantly mature and it really shouldn’t be an issue for those companies to conform to the basics because they’re already doing them.

The core scope is the connected products that everyone has concerns about – children’s toys, cameras, appliances such as fridges or washing machines, safety-relevant products such as connected door locks and so on as well as IoT ‘hubs’.

One area that has been a significant concern for many years is home routers. These rarely get updated and often stay in place in homes for many years without being touched. If they’re compromised, they can create a big issue to users because they’re the point of entry to the home and everything else that is connected, but equally, compromised routers and other equipment at scale can create harm to others across the world by being part of other types of attack.

The proposed scope also covers home workers by including things like printers and office equipment that you might find in both a home or office. This is particularly relevant as businesses have shifted their workforces to home during the Covid-19 crisis.

Things that are out-of-scope are because there is existing or forthcoming regulation in those domains – for example, smart Electric Vehicle (EV) Chargers, Smart Meters and medical devices.

Enforcement

The work laid out in the proposals sets out the obligations on Producers and Distributers, formalising the language that has been used thus far such that it forms the basis of a legislative and regulatory framework governing people who make products but also those that sell them into the UK. It also means that there must be a way to test and declare compliance of these products. This comes at a good time as the EU Cyber Security Act will also require such action to take place across lots of different types of networked products. The proposals also lay out when they expect companies to be compliant – it is proposed that everything must be in place by 9 months following Royal Assent of legislation. The implication is that companies have had long enough and enough warnings that these practices are simply not acceptable.

The list of proposed enforcement actions aligns with other existing ways of removing products from the market – i.e. issuing compliance notices, through to enforcement with real teeth: it is proposed that order breaches are contempt of court which carries a maximum penalty of a fine and two years’ imprisonment. Forfeiture and destruction of products are also on the table as well as financial penalties – the fine amounts are to be determined but a note states that other regulations consider fines of up to 4% of annual worldwide turnover (a clear reference to the EU data protection regulation GDPR). This alone shows that the intent is for the regulation to have real teeth and that the government means business. The ‘Avengers’ team of superheroes working on this project at DCMS and NCSC have done a fantastic job once again, supported by lots of other government departments. Especially now as well – ‘Quiet Batpeople’ is certainly not the right term, but these individuals have all also been volunteering to deal with various aspects of the Covid-19 response, so to deliver this work as well is a huge achievement!

Mapping the Global Direction and Understanding of IoT Security

Understanding where everyone stands on this from a technical perspective is a tough job. I am lucky to have a fantastic team who have been working on doing just that. We have continually been monitoring the progress of IoT security recommendations and standardisation and will continue to do so. Our work can be seen at https://iotsecuritymapping.uk. We recently added recommendations from Australia, Singapore, California’s new law on connected device security and the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)’s Device Cybersecurity Capability Core Baseline. There are more documents being mapped soon and we’re tracking work from Brazil, to India, to proposed legislation in the US State of Oregon.

We have noticed that there is defragmentation of ideas and recommendations happening across the world as there is a greater collective understanding of the problem domain and how to solve it. The mappings that we have recently created show strong alignment against the top 3 items listed above. We have also observed that whilst some countries are slightly less mature than the UK in tackling the issue, they can benefit from the international standardisation that has taken place and are starting to adopt and endorse this already. Truly we can adopt a global stance that it is unacceptable to provide connected products without even considering the basics of product security.

The Call for Views is open until the 6th of September 2020 and anyone can give feedback on the proposals to DCMS at: securebydesign@dcms.co.uk.

Here’s some more background material if you’re interested in further reading:

Legislating for Security in Consumer IoT

Copper Horse CEO, David Rogers discusses today’s UK government announcement on legislation for consumer IoT security.

Today marks another step along the road for IoT security – the teeth of legislation and regulation to deal with companies that do not implement security in their consumer IoT products. It is likely that the UK will become the first country in the world to legislate on IoT security.

In May 2019, the UK government launched a consultation into regulation for the security of consumer IoT. The consultation is now complete, with 49 responses and a decision to move ahead with legislating for the top 3 items from the Code of Practice for Consumer IoT Security and ETSI TS 103 645 (pdf). Work is ongoing to bring the ETSI TS to a full European Standard or EN – the draft EN is currently out for review (pdf) until the end of February with National Standards Organisations.

For everyone, the time to act is now

From a personal perspective, I really think this is a huge step. Over the past couple of years I’ve been privileged to work with a fantastic team at DCMS and the NCSC who have been really motivated to help people and understand the problem space. The consumer support for legislation is there and we know that security can be implemented by manufacturers because some companies are already doing it and the security technology is available to be used. We already knew what good looked like – we just wrote it down and prioritised it. What we’ve seen is support from a number of countries and organisations and a recognition that acting now to address the fundamental security concerns is the right way forward.

We also know to a certain extent what the real situation is like in the market. In 2018, we conducted research on behalf of the IoT Security Foundation which showed that fewer than 10% of the manufacturers we surveyed had any way for a security researcher to contact them. The results of our follow-up survey are out this quarter and will reflect a broadly similar situation. Security by design is a concept that some companies choose to ignore because they think that they can get away with it or it doesn’t matter. Well, if you want to ship products to the UK in the future, you had better get your act together pretty quickly.

Considerations

One of the things that I think we need to be aware of is the danger of penalising ‘good’ manufacturers, rather than the rogue ones. I’ve seen this before with work I’ve done against counterfeit and so-called ‘sub-standard’ electronic products. Some measures that are proposed against counterfeit only increase the cost for the ones who will abide by the rules anyway, while the rogue ones get away with continuing to do nothing. In this case, I think we have the balance right. The measures being put forward are a foundational baseline, these are things that are really fundamental, but if not implemented can cause huge consumer harm. Default passwords in consumer devices in this day and age are well, pretty stupid when there are better, safer alternatives for enrolling users to devices and for initiating products from factory defaults. What we’re also asking for is transparency:

  • in access – for security researchers who want to report vulnerabilities to manufacturers easily and;
  • about the minimum length of time that devices will get security updates.

Both of these areas will serve to demonstrate a responsible, public commitment by manufacturers to addressing and resolving discovered security issues. Primarily, manufacturers should be honest towards consumers.

Last year when we created our mapping website, https://iotsecuritymapping.uk , we set out to both help manufacturers to understand how the UK’s Code of Practice mapped to the existing body of work and guidance on IoT security and privacy but also to provide some reassurance that what we were saying was not unusual – in fact, there was a broad consensus on what we were recommending, the fragmentation was really just in the semantics of how documentation from across the world was written. We made that available as open data precisely to help in the process of defragmentation and facilitation of common understanding. The decision by DCMS to translate the Code of Practice into multiple languages reduced the barrier to entry and understanding and acknowledged the truly global nature of both the electronics and software supply chain as well as the designers, security experts and security researchers across the world.

Next steps

The next few months are going to be hard work. My own anxiety is that there will also always be edge cases – those points at which adjustments need to be made or possibly where we haven’t considered certain use cases. I’m certain that the team working on it are conscientious and will work to understand manufacturer concerns and the feedback from the public consultation. Ultimately in all of this, we have had a choice – sit on our hands and wait for things to get worse or get on do something and make the world a safer place. We chose action over procrastination.

More reading on this topic:

Copper Horse CEO David Rogers Receives MBE from the Queen at Windsor Castle

Mr. David Rogers is made an MBE (Member of the Order of the British Empire) by Queen Elizabeth II at Windsor Castle. This picture is not for use after 25 December 2019, without Buckingham Palace approval. PA Photo. Picture date: Friday October 25, 2019. See PA story ROYAL Investitures. Photo credit should read: Jonathan Brady/PA Wire

David Rogers, Copper Horse’s CEO was made a Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) for services to Cyber Security by Her Majesty the Queen on Friday the 25th of October 2019. The investiture took place at Windsor Castle.

After the ceremony, David said “It was a delight and honour to meet Her Majesty the Queen. I have accepted this award on behalf of everyone involved with securing connected products in the ‘Internet of Things’ and working to protecting people from online harms. This includes the security research and hacking community, government departments and academia. There is some truly great work going on and there are some fantastic, passionate individuals working on this all across the world.”

More details on David’s work can be found here. Copper Horse provides IoT security consultancy and engineering expertise worldwide from its home in Windsor, UK.

Mapping New IoT Security Recommendations

In late 2018, to coincide with the launch of the UK’s Code of Practice for Consumer IoT Security we launched a website: iotsecuritymapping.uk which mapped IoT recommendations and standards from around the world. Our previous blog explains more of the detail. Earlier this year, we updated the site to include the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) Technical Specification, TS 103 645 (pdf) which originated from the Code of Practice.

Today we have launched an updated version of the mapping site which stretches the landscape further with a number of new recommendations from around the world. These have either been sent to us as a result of people hearing about the original mapping work or work that we’ve seen launched since then.

The Windsor landscape towards the Copper Horse

The following additional recommendations are added, from all over the globe including Japan, South Korea and the USA:

Some recommendations we looked at had been updated, but these were either minor editorial changes or had changes not relevant to mapping against the Code of Practice, in these cases, the mapping was not updated.

Updating the External References

One useful thing we created last time was a mapping of external references from the recommendations – it is quite useful to understand where things are happening, which bodies are at least judged to be the most relevant. We’ve further updated this and it is no surprise that organisations like the IETF with massive contribution from industry are the most referenced and essentially used while other organisations like the ITU who try and lay claim to IoT are hardly referenced. We believe this work is the first time that any organisation has attempted to lay out these relationships, to break open the marketing hyperbole with real, factual data.

What are we observing and what does it mean?

There is a broad consensus on what needs to be done in IoT security, which is quite nice to see. Pretty much everyone who is looking at the problem is saying the same thing in different ways. The consumer space seems to be a common starting point because that is where the problem is most visible, but clearly the majority of this work provides a common foundation which is applicable across all IoT ‘verticals’ from industrial IoT, to connected cars.

There are differences in the level of abstraction in recommendations – some are very detailed, others at a high level. This is not a massive problem, it is just that more detailed and specific recommendations can be a real barrier to adoption. It can also affect innovation because detailed specifications tend to deal with the status quo of what exists now. They fail to consider or accommodate the possibility that someone could create something securely without doing exactly what has been put into a bit-level recommendation or standard. It can also affect organisations implementing security in the first place because detailed specifications look daunting. A high level recommendation is easier to access and implement (within the spirit of what is being asked), however it suffers from the fact that people could pay lip service to it or that more detail may be necessary to stop people doing something insecure. We need to find a happy medium between the two approaches for real security success in such a varied market as IoT.

The gaps between the specifications are going to get interesting – where is there divergence and why is that? This looks to be a key piece of work for the future and we may explore that in the coming year.

Keeping the site updated

We’ll keep updating the mapping site until there is a natural end. There is work ongoing which will rationalise these efforts at an international standards level. Once that has happened and there is consensus, we’ll have hopefully achieved what we set out to do – unification and defragmentation of IoT security; at least for the fundamental foundations. We hope you find the latest update useful and do please keep sending your feedback to us.

David Rogers awarded MBE in the Queen’s Birthday Honours list 2019 for services to cyber security

London – Saturday 8th June 2019: Copper Horse, a mobile and IoT security company, today announced that its CEO David Rogers, has been awarded an MBE in recognition of his services to cyber security, in The Queen’s Birthday Honours List 2019.

David is the author of the UK’s Code of Practice for Consumer IoT Security. Published in October 2018 it provides invaluable guidance, for all parties involved in the development, manufacturing and retail of consumer Internet of Things (IoT). The Code was developed as part of the Secure by Design initiative, which was developed in response to the increasing importance of cyber security in the home brought about by the exponential growth of technologies related to the IoT.

David has worked closely with UK Government departments including the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) and the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), as well as leading manufacturers, industry associations and the security research community to create the Code.

In addition to his work on the Code of Practice for Consumer IoT Security, David chairs the mobile industry’s GSMA Fraud and Security Group and sits on the Executive Board of the IoT Security Foundation. He teaches part-time at two universities, lecturing on Mobile System Security at the University of Oxford and as a Visiting Professor in Cyber Security and Digital Forensics at York St John University.

Over the course of his career David has been central to the development and execution of industry-level efforts to reduce handset theft, pioneered hardware security recommendations for mobile devices and software update security, as well as introducing vulnerability disclosure to the mobile and IoT industries.

David Rogers, CEO at Copper Horse explained: “There are many talented and passionate individuals involved in cyber security around the globe. From the security researcher community – the hackers of the world – to those in government departments, academia and my own company, Copper Horse. Much of this work goes unsung, yet it doesn’t go unnoticed. All these people are collectively working to highlight insecurity and trying to improve technology around IoT. By helping to secure future products and services, they are protecting the wider public, allowing consumers to reap all the benefits the Internet of Things can bring to their daily lives.

“My role in securing technology is only a tiny part of that overall effort. I am delighted and honoured to be awarded this MBE for services to cyber security.”

For further information, please contact Simpatico PR:

Niki Hutchinson, Director B2B Technology

Tel: +44 (0)7790 776128

Email: niki.hutchinson@simpaticopr.co.uk

About Copper Horse

Copper Horse is based in Windsor, UK and was established in 2011 by mobile security expert David Rogers. The company primarily focuses on mobile and IoT security topics. With a range of world-renowned experts on hand, Copper Horse works on interesting and challenging security and software projects. The company provides consultancy, development and training for subjects ranging from mobile devices and networks, to the connected home. More information can be found at: https://www.copperhorse.co.uk

ETSI publishes European Standard on Consumer IoT Security


David Rogers writes about the launch of the specification: ‘Cyber Security for Consumer Internet of Things’ from ETSI’s TC Cyber group.

Today the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) announced the publication of their ETSI Technical Specification, TS 103 645 (pdf).

This work builds on the UK Code of Practice for IoT Security and has had input from experts around the world. It is great that this work has been elevated up to European level and published as a standard. This means a much wider technical audience and crucially, official endorsement at European level by companies and governments.

The discussions during the specification development were very rational and it also meant that some of the supporting text were promoted into provisions within the specification, making the overall work stronger. For example, wording that could be considered ambiguous from a technical standpoint has been clarified and considered at length by me and others. This means that whilst we still see this as a high level specification, we’ve also tried to further pin down what we’re trying to say, all whilst trying to ensure that we avoid unintended consequences and companies deliberately trying to avoid putting security into their products via loopholes.

These efforts will continue. During the specification process, there were some really good proposals brought forward on some deep technical aspects about IoT security and privacy that we see as being potential spin-off work items in ETSI – I’m keeping track of what those topics were. There are also things that some of us would like to bring into the Code of Practice for future revisions, such as consideration by manufacturers of issues such as coercive or controlling behaviour which can be compounded by IoT in the home. All these things are for the future, but the great thing is the enthusiasm is there from some brilliant minds both in government and industry, so watch this space!

The IoT Security Mapping site has also been updated to reflect how the ETSI specification maps to the UK Code of Practice in order to help implementers understand how it all fits together, including against other recommendations and specifications from around the world.