My god the conclusion here. “What can we do about it? Nothing. Keep buying internet-connected garbage, and just be sure to hire more IT personnel to keep patching it.” Come onnnnnnnnnn ugh.
A weakness in the report is that it is sparse on details. A Darktrace spokesman explained that this is due to customer usage. How each customer uses its technology is different and Darktrace itself isn’t privy to that information. It examines network behavior, but not traffic content. The result is that the information provided gives examples of incidents detected by Darktrace, but little technical detail on the incident itself.
Darktrace quickly detected “anomalous data transfers from the fish tank to a rare external destination.” In fact, 10GB of data was transferred outside of the network, via the fish tank. What isn’t specified, however, is what the data comprised, where on the network it came from, how it was moved to the fish tank for exfiltration, nor whether the malware methodology used to acquire the data before exfiltration was also discovered.
I don’t know how “10 GB of unknown data” became the “high-roller database”, though. 🤷
There’s no real meat here. The article doesn’t say which brand and model of device was compromised nor does it describe how.
My god the conclusion here. “What can we do about it? Nothing. Keep buying internet-connected garbage, and just be sure to hire more IT personnel to keep patching it.” Come onnnnnnnnnn ugh.
I found several news articles that reported on this, but most of them aren’t from technical publications. A 2017 SecurityWeek news article “Hacked Smart Fish Tank Exfiltrated Data to ‘Rare External Destination’” was more rigorous, though:
I don’t know how “10 GB of unknown data” became the “high-roller database”, though. 🤷