Page 1,816«..1020..1,8151,8161,8171,818..1,8301,840..»

Bitcoiner Dan Held: Ethereum Merge Will ‘Add Pressure to Bitcoin’s Energy Consumption’ – Decrypt

Some Bitcoiners have been reluctant to say that the Ethereum merge will have any impact on their crypto asset of choice, but dont count Dan Held among them.

The head of growth marketing at Kraken and prominent Bitcoin influencer, who these days calls himself a Bitcoin "mostamalist" (rather than the fraught "maximalist"), said on the latest episode of Decrypt's gm podcast that the upcoming Ethereum merge will likely intensify attention from environmentalists who decry Bitcoins energy consumption.

"I do think it will add pressure to Bitcoin's energy consumption, because they'll point to Ethereum and say, 'Hey, this blockchain'I'm talking from a layperson's perspective here'this blockchain isn't using very much energy at all, and you're using a lot.' And that's it. They're not going to understand proof of stake versus proof of work, or anything else."

The merge will see the Ethereum network switch from a proof-of-work consensus model to proof of stake. Its expected to take place on or around September 15.

Switching to the new consensus model should cut the energy consumption of the Ethereum network by 99%, according to the Ethereum Foundation. But despite the added pressure that may bring upon Bitcoin from environmental critics, Held said he still hasnt heard a credible reason for Bitcoin to abandon proof of work.

For starters, he referenced some of the security concerns surrounding the merge. Many users have pointed out the dominance of a few key staking pools in securing the network, and the fact that government regulators could compel them to block transactions from sanctioned entities like Tornado Cashis a huge area of concern and questions the notion of Ethereum's decentralization.

If theres a catastrophic failure in the Ethereum protocol due to these trade-offs, well, yeah sure, you cut your energy consumption down by 99% but then the protocol failed," Held said. "Im not saying that it will, I'm saying that it opens up Ethereum to some technical attack vectors that the Bitcoin community does not want to take on. And thats why they're sticking with proof of work.

Held added that a political element he believes is working in Bitcoin's favor is the broader reevaluation of ESG policies (environmental, social, and governance). Its a catch-all term thats been applied to everything from investment products, government policies, and corporate values.

Some of that has surrounded the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissions attempts to define the term and regulate how its applied to investments. But even more pressing in the ESG upheaval has been uncertainty in Europe on whether the continent will have enough energy to get through the winter.

As of Monday afternoon, Russia, which provided 40% of Europes natural gas last year, has indefinitely cut off supplies to the continent in response to what it calls punitive economic sanctions, according to Russian-language outlet Interfax.

I do think were seeing kind of a global, anti-woke energy pushback, Held said. So it does come at a very, very good time for Bitcoin, when Europe is about to freeze due to its egregiously dumb ESG policies... I believe that, yes, global warming is caused by people, and global warming exists. I think that politically charged ESG requirements may or may not actually help to solve the problem."

Listen to thefull episodeof the gm podcast wherever you get your podcasts, and make sure tosubscribe.

Stay on top of crypto news, get daily updates in your inbox.

See more here:
Bitcoiner Dan Held: Ethereum Merge Will 'Add Pressure to Bitcoin's Energy Consumption' - Decrypt

Read More..

Here Are the Top 10 US States Most Interested in Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH): New CoinGecko Study – The Daily Hodl

A new study by cryptocurrency data aggregator CoinGecko is revealing the top 10 states in the US searching for Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH) the most on the website.

The study examines the two leading crypto assets web traffic on CoinGecko between May 2nd and August 21st and reveals that the highest interest in Bitcoin and Ethereum was in California followed by Illinois and New York in second and third positions, respectively.

According to the new study, California registered more than a third of all the Bitcoin and Ethereum web traffic on CoinGecko.

Surpassing all states, California makes up 43% of total Bitcoin and Ethereum web page traffic on CoinGecko, in the United States, signaling the highest interest in these cryptocurrencies.

Following California, other contenders in the top 10 are Illinois, New York, Florida, Washington, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Georgia and Arizona.

In 20 states, Bitcoin was heavily dominant and recorded an average market share of 76%. Some of the states where Bitcoin had a market share of over 75% include California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Oregon, Utah, Maryland and Massachusetts.

Ethereum, however, had a larger market share than Bitcoin in Colorado, Wisconsin, New Jersey and Florida, according to the CoinGecko study.

Featured Image: Shutterstock/4K_HEAVEN/VECTORY_NT/Sensvector

See original here:
Here Are the Top 10 US States Most Interested in Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH): New CoinGecko Study - The Daily Hodl

Read More..

Grand Prairie Woman Indicted, Accused of Theft of $570,000 in Bitcoin – NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

A 38-year-old Grand Prairie woman is facing an indictment in Dallas County for theft of more than $300,000 worth of Bitcoin.

According to court documents obtained by NBC 5, Dallas Police said that in January 2021 Joann Vasquez was in possession of $570,000 worth of Bitcoin acquired through account passwords stolen from a home.

Police said they were called to a home on the 3800 block of Gaspar Drive in Dallas on Jan. 25 after a person housesitting at the residence reported finding a broken window and signs of a burglary.

Among the missing items was a safe containing Bitcoin account passwords. During a follow-up investigation with the homeowner, detectives learned the passwords had been used to access accounts and transfer $570,000 of Bitcoin.

Investigators said surveillance video recorded at the residence showed a man forcing the gate open and entering the backyard shortly before noon on Jan. 24. The man was seen on the video looking through a glass door before stepping out of view.

Police said the man reappeared about a half hour later exiting the home through the back door while carrying a Roomba, gun and an athletic bag that appeared to have a safe inside.

The man, later identified by police as Michael Jason Neria, was arrested on March 3, 2021, at the Winstar Casino in Thackerville, Oklahoma on outstanding burglary warrants out of Frisco, Irving and Dallas. Police said he was suspected of having taken part in nearly two dozen burglaries with several other known suspects.

The latest news from around North Texas.

In an interview with a detective, police said Neria waived his rights and provided details of burglaries. One of those burglaries was at the home on Gaspar Drive.

Police said Neria confessed that Vasquez had all but $100,000 of the Bitcoin funds and was in control of the account and passwords and knew that the funds came from the burglary.

In the arresting document, police said Vasquez was observed on video using her Texas driver's license to withdraw funds from a Bitcoin ATM after the burglary.

Joann Vasquez, booking photo, Sept. 6, 2022.

Police said while in custody Neria called Vasquez and requested money from the Bitcoin accounts be sent to his account and that a short time later the funds arrived. Officers said they were able to recover $100,000 from Neria leaving about $470,000 unaccounted for. Investigators said they believe Vasquez is in possession of the accounts that control the remainder of the Bitcoin.

Investigators said Vasquez withdrew nearly $9,400 from Bitcoin ATMs during four visits between Jan. 25, 2021, and Feb. 1, 2021.

Vasquez was booked into the Dallas County Jail on Tuesday. A bond amount has not yet been set and it's not clear if she's obtained an attorney.

Excerpt from:
Grand Prairie Woman Indicted, Accused of Theft of $570,000 in Bitcoin - NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

Read More..

Bitcoin Gives Power Back To The People – Bitcoin Magazine

This is an opinion editorial by Robert Hall, a content creator and small business owner.

Organized labor gave power to the people to fight big business and secure their workplace rights. Bitcoin gives power back to the people to protect these rights once and for all.

Labor Day is typically a time to relax with your friends and family, grill up some hot dogs and enjoy much-needed downtime before the holidays kick into overdrive. While this has come to represent the contemporary meaning of Labor Day, its origin stems back more than a century.

The first state to recognize Labor Day as a holiday was Oregon. The first bill was passed on February 21, 1887. By the end of 1894, 23 states adopted the holiday and Congress made it a federally recognized holiday during the same year.

Organized labor has been central to creating the work environments that we have today. Workers and workers' rights were not respected during the height of the industrial revolution. Life as a worker during this era was hell. How would you like to work 12-hour days, seven days a week and barely make it by? These are the conditions many of your ancestors worked in to provide for their families.

Children as young as five were forced to work to feed their families. Children working now is considered inhumane, but they just called that normal back then. In addition to working long hours, work conditions were dangerous and business owners could have cared less about your health and well-being.

Years of working like this left people tired, fed up and ready to revolt not too different from what we have today, right? Back then, workers took to the streets and sometimes got killed protesting for their rights as people not to be exploited by the monied elite.

"The Haymarket Affair" was an instance where people were killed. Seven policemen and four civilians were killed when police tried to break up a pro-labor rally in Chicago.

Blood was shed to give us what we take for granted. Do you like only working 8 hours a day? You have organized labor to thank for that. Do you enjoy relaxing on the weekend? You have unions to thank for that as well. Do you have health insurance through your employer? You can thank organized labor too.

We have to give credit where it is due. Without the labor movement's efforts, where would America be right now? Working our tails off with no chance of living a good life? I'll take a hard pass on that one. We are not meant to work ourselves to the bone and die. The credit-based monetary system and the incentive to exploit people created abysmal working conditions before organized labor took root.

Unions tend to get a bad rap because of partisan media and how they are portrayed to the broader public. It seems to be working as the number of union members has declined from its all-time high of 20 percent of the workforce (17 million people) to 14 million in 2021 (10.3).

Unions no longer have the power they once had to improve work environments and increase worker pay. This role has largely been shifted to state and local governments. With this shift came a shift in the concentration of union membership. Public sector employees have the highest unionization rates at 33.9 percent. This rate is five times higher than the rate of private sector workers, which stands at 6 percent.

Union departure from the private sector has left workers fending for themselves against rapacious corporate conglomerates that push their employees to the limit. Employee burnout is a genuine phenomenon, and workers are quitting in droves. The term great resignation didn't come from nowhere.

White-collar and blue-collar workers can't escape the crushing hamster wheel created by fiat money. The very people we depend on to care for us are under immense pressure. Fourteen percent of doctors reported doing drugs or drinking on the job to cope with burnout and PTSD from the pandemic. We are in serious trouble, folks.

The root of this problem is credit-based money and the need for central banks to inflate the currency. It is inflation that makes businesses and people run faster on the hamster wheel until we reach a breaking point. How can workers throw a wrench in the hamster wheel and make it stop once and for all?

Bitcoin is the best tool for economically empowering every worker in the United States and the world. Bitcoin gives back the energy the world's central banks stole from you. Bitcoin empowers you to make your own economic decision without interference from the state.

Bitcoin allows you to plan for the future without the fear that your hard-earned wealth will melt away because of the whims of some faceless banker in a smoke-filled room somewhere. Bitcoin takes away that power once and for all.

Unions on a Bitcoin standard would still be needed to ensure worker rights are fought for and protected. Unions would no longer have to negotiate pay as vigorously as they have in the past because inflation would no longer be the scourge eating up union member wages.

With deflationary money, goods and services will get cheaper, not more expensive. Quality of life would increase dramatically along with good benefits. Workers will demand to be paid in sats once the wider public recognizes this fundamental truth.

Help return the power to the people by adopting a Bitcoin standard in your life. Lead by example and watch as others follow your lead.

This is a guest post by Robert Hall. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc. or Bitcoin Magazine.

Read the original post:
Bitcoin Gives Power Back To The People - Bitcoin Magazine

Read More..

Trezor and Wasabi Join Forces To Make Bitcoin More Private – Decrypt

Trezor, the company behind one of the most popular crypto wallets, has teamed up with privacy project Wasabi to bring CoinJoin mixing to Bitcoin transactions on its hardware wallets.

The two projects confirmed the partnership via Twitter Monday. The idea is that users will be able to use CoinJoin on their Trezor devices for greater transaction privacy beginning next year.

CoinJoin is a coin mixer that groups Bitcoin transactions together to obscure their origins. Wasabi Wallet is a popular Bitcoin wallet made by software firm zkSNACKs that uses CoinJoin technology.

Trezor specializes in cold storagewallets that store cryptocurrency offline, the safest way to store digital assets.

Wasabi Wallet contributor Rafe told Decrypt that the goal is for Trezor Suite users to be able to send private coins directly from their hardware wallets.

"You will be able to join our zkSNACKs WabiSabi CoinJoin rounds with your hardware wallet in the Trezor Suite application," he said, explaining that WabiSabi is a new CoinJoin protocol.

"The reason why Trezor is integrating this is because this is the most advanced CoinJoin protocol out there by far," he said.

Karo Zagorus, who leads community and reputation management at zkSNACKs, added that the partnership was formed out of talks that began in 2019 and represented a phenomenal achievement.

zkSNACKs and those working on Wasabi Wallet say crypto privacy is more important than ever before. This is because, they claim, government surveillance is increasingand financial transactions eventually could be used to closely monitor what citizens do.

And they told Decrypt thats why they are working tirelessly on tools that make Bitcoin, the biggest digital asset, more private. Contrary to popular belief, Bitcoin is easily traceable and therefore not inherently anonymous.

Coin mixersand crypto privacy in generalhave been in the spotlight a lot since the U.S. government sanctioned Tornado Cash last month. The Treasury Department banned Americans from using the coin mixer, which allowed users to make private Ethereum transactions, because it claimed criminals had used it to launder dirty funds.

The crypto community erupted following the news, with Washington, D.C.-based crypto advocacy group Coin Center threatening to challenge the ban in court.

Stay on top of crypto news, get daily updates in your inbox.

See the article here:
Trezor and Wasabi Join Forces To Make Bitcoin More Private - Decrypt

Read More..

Can the government track Bitcoin? – Cointelegraph

Apart from data analysis done alone or in cooperation with private companies, authorities may request information from centralized exchanges. Due to regulation, centralized exchanges may also be obligated to share such information. However, not all cryptocurrency exchanges collaborate with authorities.

A centralized exchange is a cryptocurrency exchange that is run by a single entity, such as Coinbase. To become a licensed operator in a certain country or territory, centralized exchanges need to comply with regulations.

For instance, to decrease cryptocurrency anonymity and the illicit use of cryptocurrencies, most centralized exchanges have incorporated Know Your Customer (KYC) checks. KYC is meant to verify customers’ identities alongside helping authorities to analyze activity on the blockchain. In practice, individuals need to submit a range of documents and their data before they are allowed to trade, invest and transact.

After KYC has been conducted, exchanges may be requested or may be obligated to share that data with law enforcement agencies. Since the exchange has individuals’ personal data and transaction data, so may the government. By using information obtained from centralized exchanges, the IRS can identify unknown Bitcoin wallets using KYC checks and corresponding personal information. 

Nonetheless, not all exchanges use KYC. For example, it is difficult to make decentralized exchanges (DEXs) comply with regulations because they lack a headquarter and are not run by a centralized company or a small group of individuals.

Here is the original post:
Can the government track Bitcoin? - Cointelegraph

Read More..

Another 5000 Bitcoin Sourced From Mt Gox Wake up After Close to 9 Years of Dormancy Bitcoin News – Bitcoin News

Last week Bitcoin.com News reported on two old bitcoin addresses created in 2013 sending 10,001 bitcoin to a myriad of wallets. Heuristics and clustering techniques indicate that the bitcoins were associated with Mt Gox, roughly around the same time the exchange was hacked in June 2011. Five days later, 5,000 bitcoins were transferred from a wallet created on the same day in 2013, and the stash of coins were also connected to Mt Gox in some type of fashion.

Another 5,000 so-called sleeping bitcoins, from a wallet created on December 19, 2013, were transferred on September 4, 2022. The action, caught by Btcparser.com, took place five days after 10,001 bitcoin (BTC) moved from two bitcoin addresses created close to nine years ago on the same day in 2013. The 5,000 BTC sent on Sunday, September 4, 2022, have a mysterious history as they are associated with the now-defunct Mt Gox bitcoin exchange right around the same time the exchange was hacked in June 2011.

When our newsdesk reported on the 10,001 BTC associated with Mt Gox, there wasnt much fanfare about the coins moving. Coindesk columnist Jocelyn Yang, however, discussed the situation with a data engineer at Coin Metrics. The engineer said the bitcoins from 2013 may have been associated with an old Kraken cold storage address, a Kraken OTC (over the counter) deal, [or] a Kraken user. Then on September 3, 2022, the OXT researcher Ergobtc published a Twitter Thread that cites our report quoting OXT user Taisia, the admin of the GFISchannel Telegram group.

By referring to the work of a well-informed OXT user, bitcoin.com [is] much closer to the mark than Coindesk, Ergobtc said. Despite a Kraken deposit, these coins are not sourced from Kraken. They are however sourced from Mt Gox and possibly controlled by Jeb McCaleb.

Ergobtc further discussed the two addresses (1,& 2) and explained how OXT can backtrack the source of the coins. Doing so leads to a large cluster with a user annotation, Ergobtc details. The user annotation to this cluster links to a blog post by @wizsecurity blog. Wizsec is the Mt Gox saga expert. The blog post references an address belonging to Jeb McCaleb and wrongfully claimed by CSW.

The Twitter thread further explains that the second transaction for 5,000 BTC was clearly made to Coinbase. The OXT researcher added:

Evidenced by the telltale denomination splitting with secondary splits down to 10 BTC. Splits are co-spent with Coinbase clustered addresses. These coins are sourced from the Gox saga, and possibly controlled by Jeb McCaleb. Two txs for 5K BTC were sent to Kraken and Coinbase.

At block height 752,637, on September 4, 2022, 5,000 BTC was sent from 18xGH and the address was created on the same day (December 19, 2013) as the two addresses that sent 10,001 BTC on Sunday, August 28, and Monday, August 29, 2022. Moreover, by backtracking the transactions, the 5,000 BTC are also connected to the Mt Gox saga and the address 1McUC. At the time of writing, the address bc1qp held 4,929.43 BTC that stemmed from the 5,000 sent on Sunday. By Monday morning, 8:00 a.m. (ET), the coins were dispersed to a myriad of multi-signature bitcoin addresses. Bitcoin.com News spoke with the admin of the GFISchannel Telegram group Taisia about the latest movement.

The situation is quite strange, Taisia told Bitcoin.com News. The dev of oxt.me confirmed to us that in his opinion, the bitcoins are indeed connected with Mt Gox, and possibly belong to Jed McCaleb. The GFISchannel administrator also said she spoke with the former Mt Gox CEO Mark Karpeles who did not directly confirm this information, although he did not rule out that it was close to the truth.

If these are really McCalebs bitcoins, why wont he make a statement to stop speculation on this topic? Taisia asked during her conversation with Bitcoin.com News. And, returning to the original question, why are all these movements going on right now? In the midst of the FUD with trustee payments and Vinnicks recent extradition to the United States.

Once again a blockchain parser, onchain analysis, and heuristics discovered thousands of bitcoins with an interesting past. These ancient bitcoins that sat idle for close to nine years only to wake up when BTC is trading for $19.9K. It should be noted that these coins have absolutely nothing to do with the bitcoin payments associated with the Mt Gox trustee, except for mere coincidental timing with the trustees latest update. Presently, Mt Gox creditors have not seen a hard date set for payment distribution, despite rumors and inaccurate reports last week saying this was the case.

What do you think about the whale that moved 15,001 bitcoin this week and the association with Mt Gox? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comments section below.

Jamie Redman is the News Lead at Bitcoin.com News and a financial tech journalist living in Florida. Redman has been an active member of the cryptocurrency community since 2011. He has a passion for Bitcoin, open-source code, and decentralized applications. Since September 2015, Redman has written more than 5,700 articles for Bitcoin.com News about the disruptive protocols emerging today.

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons, GFISchannel, OXT

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.

Here is the original post:
Another 5000 Bitcoin Sourced From Mt Gox Wake up After Close to 9 Years of Dormancy Bitcoin News - Bitcoin News

Read More..

Here’s How Many Times Bitcoin was Declared ‘Dead’ Since its Inception – Watcher Guru

Bitcoin was launched in 2009 by Satoshi Nakamoto and was worth under $0.01 during inception. Only a handful of people invested in BTC as the crypto was deemed risky, compared to traditional investments. The ones who invested back then turned millionaires as Bitcoin skyrocketed in price every year reaching new milestones.

However, BTC is known for extreme volatility with price swings that can give investors the jitters. Hence, several mainstream media outlets have declared Bitcoin dead multiple times during price correction. This article will list the number of times the media has declared Bitcoin dead in the last 14 years.

Also Read: Australian Police roll out Bitcoin, Crypto-Crime unit

Data from 99Bitcoins show that leading mainstream media outlets have declared Bitcoin dead 461 times between 2009 to 2022. On average, outlets have declared BTC a dead coin approximately 36 times every year.

Also, now that the crypto markets are in bearish grips, Bitcoins obituary was declared 21 times in 2022 alone. The data was taken from January to September 6, 2022. Even during the bull run last year where Bitcoin reached an all-time high of $69,044, its obituary was published 47 times in 2021 alone.

Bitcoin being declared dead has occurred both during the bull run and the bear markets. Data from Twitter handle Jackis showcase that each time Bitcoins obituary is written, the crypto has briefly spiked in price.

Also Read: Investors reap 22% gains as Bitcoin tumbles: Heres how

Google searches for Will Bitcoin crash to $0 spiked in May 2022 after TerraUST and Luna plummeted to $0. Read here to know more if Bitcoin can fall to $0 in our lifetime.

At press time, Bitcoin was trading at $19,970 and is up 1% in the 24 hours day trade. The king crypto is down 71.1% from its all-time high of $69,044, which it reached in November last year.

Read the rest here:
Here's How Many Times Bitcoin was Declared 'Dead' Since its Inception - Watcher Guru

Read More..

Macro Guru Lyn Alden Says Bitcoin Is the Worlds Best Ledger, Calls BTC a Marvelous Tech Revolution ?… – The Daily Hodl

Macro strategist Lyn Alden says that in a global economy underpinned by an inflationary system, Bitcoin (BTC) stands as worlds best ledger.

In a new interview with Bitcoin proponent Peter McCormack, Alden says BTC is the ideal solution for the problems of the current monetary system.

One problem is that we have an inflationary system. Thats problematic enough in developed countries. In smaller and developing countries, they have much higher inflation levels on average, and usually within a lifetime they experience hyperinflation. They just lose their savings if they were holding that currency

Number two is the fact that its all mostly permissioned. You need permission from your bank to do things. In some countries, thats pretty benign. In other countries that are more authoritarian, and according to estimates from Freedom House the way they depict it about half the world lives under something thats classified as authoritarian or semi-authoritarian. So permission systems are obviously a big problem in that regard.

So the combination of not having developed savings and payments technology thats pretty open and having inflationary currencies is really bad for a lot of people around the world.

According to Alden, money is simply a ledger and Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto designed the worlds best ledger due to BTCs portability, verifiability and transparent scarcity.

I think the best way to describe money is either the most salable good, which is the more commodity-oriented view of money. I think thats accurate. Another way to describe it is that its ledgers. Usually, ledgers correspond to commodity moneys in history, but they dont have to, obviously in the current era. In that sense, the best ledger the one that you cant fudge the numbers, is not opaque the combination of the best ledger with a hard unit of account in that ledger system is a pretty marvelous revolution.

[Bitcoin] is basically faster than gold but more auditable and harder than fiat. It acts as its own decentralized transfer agent and registrar. Its a marvelous technology.

At time of writing, Bitcoin is swapping hands for $19,950, flat on the day.

I

Featured Image: Sutterstock/Kit8.net

Here is the original post:
Macro Guru Lyn Alden Says Bitcoin Is the Worlds Best Ledger, Calls BTC a Marvelous Tech Revolution ?... - The Daily Hodl

Read More..

Why is the Internet of Things So Hard to Secure? – Security Boulevard

Contact Sales[emailprotected]+1-216-931-0465

Access to real-time data has immense value for business intelligence. Imagine if a robotic arm on an assembly line could tell you how much energy its using, how long it takes to do its job, or when it will need maintenance.

From pacemakers to self-driving cars, devices that were previously siloed are getting connected to the internet. This offers a great deal of value to users and can even save lives in the case of medical devices. But with the added value of interconnectivity comes much greater risk.

Theoretically, the Internet of Things (IoT) infrastructure can be even more secure than that of servers and workstations, as manual processes are often the most vulnerable part of a cloud-based infrastructure.

But as a new technology facing explosive growth, IoT device security can be a moving target as new technologies, regulations, use cases, and threats emerge. And the stakes are high, as the potential fallout of a data breach in which medical devices, military equipment, personal vehicles, or major public utilities are compromised could be life-threatening.

The Internet of Things is a new world for traditional IT and cybersecurity folks. There are plenty of ways their current expertise can apply to this new IoT revolution, but theyll have to face some new challenges, as well.

Manufacturing machinery often has to produce hundreds of thousands of units per week, each one with its own certificate and identity. Certs have to be issued as fast as units come off the assembly line.

Simply maintaining the inventory of all the issued certs, let alone monitoring and updating them, is a major undertaking, especially for certificates with short lifecycles.

Forty-two percent of enterprises still use spreadsheets to track digital certs manually, and 57% dont have an accurate inventory of their SSH keys. Consequently, up to 40% of machine identities arent being tracked.

Automotive electronic control units (ECUs), which control in-vehicle safety, drive train, and infotainment systems, are manufactured in a sprawling supply chain with several points of entry that could be exploited by a threat actor.

And the products of this supply chain are deployed into unknown environments that might employ decades-old security controls. Manufacturers cant let their products security depend on the end user, as a data breach tied to the product can potentially damage the reputation of the manufacturer, even if the breach is ultimately the users fault.

IoT technology must take a Zero Trust approach to security for both human and machine identities. This approach, in which rejecting access is the default and access is only granted based on strict criteria, doesnt just bolt on security as a featureit bakes it in as a design element throughout the product lifecycle.

Additionally, the device has to integrate with a wide range of adjacent systems, some of which might not adhere to the same rigorous security standards. Regulations and industry standards are still taking shape in the IoT space, so manufacturers face the challenge of tool disparity among these systems. Protecting your products while also making them interoperable can be a tall order.

Security is hardly ever a selling point for an IoT device. What matters in the market is how well the product works, how energy efficient it is, cost, etc. IoT product sellers cant charge customers more for a product by using security as a value proposition. Consequently, manufacturers must take care that security measures dont adversely impact usability and efficiency.

Security considerations must be interwoven throughout the product development and manufacturing process so that they dont become clunky add-ons. If security is part of the workflow from the beginning, i.e., Security by Design, it will create less friction in the product release cycle and eat into profit margins less.

Security is not usually Job #1 in the design process for manufacturing equipment. Clients mainly care about how well the product works, whether it has all of the capabilities they need, and how much it costs. Giving business leaders the ability to oversee operations across the internet is a huge value driver, but everything a device connects to presents a new risk. Balancing security and interconnectivity has to be on a product designers mind to prevent the damage to a companys reputation a potential data breach could cause.

This balancing act can be difficult, especially if the design phase leans toward an Agile or DevOps model. Designers thrive on change and innovation, while security folks find stability in stasis and predictability. Designers may not want another cook in the kitchen, and security leaders may not be flexible enough to compromise.

IoT will see tons of evolution in the next few years. New use cases, technologies, and threats will spur new regulations. But if security isnt a top priority for IoT developers, then compliance will always be a struggle.

Currently, the regulatory environment around IoT security is disjointed. NIST informs regulations in the U.S., but other countries have their own sanctioning bodies and standards. Electric vehicle regulation covers PKI, but those regulations differ from one region to the next. Standards like IEC 62443 are often discussed in comparison to other security standards. Californias SB: 327 law was the first IoT-specific law in the U.S.

An enterprise releasing a product globally must manufacture that product with security that complies across several regulatory landscapes (e.g., GDPR in Europe, PIPL in China, LGPD in Brazil). These privacy regulations are being expanded to include IoT devices, and some organizations may benefit from specialized consultants who are familiar with all the standards.

For most IoT manufacturers, security is not the primary value, but buyers assume that products are secure, and a breach at the device level can diminish customer confidence in a brand and lead to high-profile reputational damage. An aquarium thermometer in a casino allowed a hacker to export 10 GB of undisclosed data out of the country. Breached security cameras gave hackers access to video feeds in Tesla factories as well as jails, police departments, and hospitals.

On a grander scale, the Stuxnet virus altered the speeds of Irans nuclear centrifuges so imperceptibly that humans could not detect the change, bringing the Iranian nuclear program to its knees.

But its not just governments and corporations that can be impacted: from vehicles getting hacked while driving down the highway to home security cameras being compromised to vulnerabilities in IoT pacemakers, cyberattacks on some IoT devices can be directly life-threatening and create fear on the part of consumers.

Because of this, unsecured devices can result in hefty fines and penalties by government regulators. In 2015, the HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR) announced its first settlement involving a data breach through medical devices in a hospital setting. 600 records were exposed, and Lahey Hospital & Medical Center settled for $850,000. The argument could be made that the OCR is sending a message about bringing devices and systems under the HIPAA compliance umbrella.

The IoT industry is set to explode across several verticals. According to IoT Analytics, the Global IoT market grew over 22% in 2021, and it is projected to keep increasing at that same compound annual growth rate through 2027.

There are a lot of growing pains in this relatively new industry, and companies arent sure whos in charge of what when it comes to security. The best security posture will be achieved when design, operations, and security leaders recognize that they all have a stake in IoT device security. The best IoT products will be built by manufacturers that incorporate security and compliance considerations into device design from the beginning.

If you want to dive deeper into the principles of how to secure the Internet of Things, check out our whitepaper Five Guiding Tenets for IoT Security.

Access to real-time data has immense value for business intelligence. Imagine if a robotic arm on an assembly line could tell you how much energy its using, how long it takes to do its job, or when it will need maintenance.

From pacemakers to self-driving cars, devices that were previously siloed are getting connected to the internet. This offers a great deal of value to users and can even save lives in the case of medical devices. But with the added value of interconnectivity comes much greater risk.

Theoretically, the Internet of Things (IoT) infrastructure can be even more secure than that of servers and workstations, as manual processes are often the most vulnerable part of a cloud-based infrastructure.

But as a new technology facing explosive growth, IoT device security can be a moving target as new technologies, regulations, use cases, and threats emerge. And the stakes are high, as the potential fallout of a data breach in which medical devices, military equipment, personal vehicles, or major public utilities are compromised could be life-threatening.

The Internet of Things is a new world for traditional IT and cybersecurity folks. There are plenty of ways their current expertise can apply to this new IoT revolution, but theyll have to face some new challenges, as well.

Manufacturing machinery often has to produce hundreds of thousands of units per week, each one with its own certificate and identity. Certs have to be issued as fast as units come off the assembly line.

Simply maintaining the inventory of all the issued certs, let alone monitoring and updating them, is a major undertaking, especially for certificates with short lifecycles.

Forty-two percent of enterprises still use spreadsheets to track digital certs manually, and 57% dont have an accurate inventory of their SSH keys. Consequently, up to 40% of machine identities arent being tracked.

Automotive electronic control units (ECUs), which control in-vehicle safety, drive train, and infotainment systems, are manufactured in a sprawling supply chain with several points of entry that could be exploited by a threat actor.

And the products of this supply chain are deployed into unknown environments that might employ decades-old security controls. Manufacturers cant let their products security depend on the end user, as a data breach tied to the product can potentially damage the reputation of the manufacturer, even if the breach is ultimately the users fault.

IoT technology must take a Zero Trust approach to security for both human and machine identities. This approach, in which rejecting access is the default and access is only granted based on strict criteria, doesnt just bolt on security as a featureit bakes it in as a design element throughout the product lifecycle.

Additionally, the device has to integrate with a wide range of adjacent systems, some of which might not adhere to the same rigorous security standards. Regulations and industry standards are still taking shape in the IoT space, so manufacturers face the challenge of tool disparity among these systems. Protecting your products while also making them interoperable can be a tall order.

Security is hardly ever a selling point for an IoT device. What matters in the market is how well the product works, how energy efficient it is, cost, etc. IoT product sellers cant charge customers more for a product by using security as a value proposition. Consequently, manufacturers must take care that security measures dont adversely impact usability and efficiency.

Security considerations must be interwoven throughout the product development and manufacturing process so that they dont become clunky add-ons. If security is part of the workflow from the beginning, i.e., Security by Design, it will create less friction in the product release cycle and eat into profit margins less.

Security is not usually Job #1 in the design process for manufacturing equipment. Clients mainly care about how well the product works, whether it has all of the capabilities they need, and how much it costs. Giving business leaders the ability to oversee operations across the internet is a huge value driver, but everything a device connects to presents a new risk. Balancing security and interconnectivity has to be on a product designers mind to prevent the damage to a companys reputation a potential data breach could cause.

This balancing act can be difficult, especially if the design phase leans toward an Agile or DevOps model. Designers thrive on change and innovation, while security folks find stability in stasis and predictability. Designers may not want another cook in the kitchen, and security leaders may not be flexible enough to compromise.

IoT will see tons of evolution in the next few years. New use cases, technologies, and threats will spur new regulations. But if security isnt a top priority for IoT developers, then compliance will always be a struggle.

Currently, the regulatory environment around IoT security is disjointed. NIST informs regulations in the U.S., but other countries have their own sanctioning bodies and standards. Electric vehicle regulation covers PKI, but those regulations differ from one region to the next. Standards like IEC 62443 are often discussed in comparison to other security standards. Californias SB: 327 law was the first IoT-specific law in the U.S.

An enterprise releasing a product globally must manufacture that product with security that complies across several regulatory landscapes (e.g., GDPR in Europe, PIPL in China, LGPD in Brazil). These privacy regulations are being expanded to include IoT devices, and some organizations may benefit from specialized consultants who are familiar with all the standards.

For most IoT manufacturers, security is not the primary value, but buyers assume that products are secure, and a breach at the device level can diminish customer confidence in a brand and lead to high-profile reputational damage. An aquarium thermometer in a casino allowed a hacker to export 10 GB of undisclosed data out of the country. Breached security cameras gave hackers access to video feeds in Tesla factories as well as jails, police departments, and hospitals.

On a grander scale, the Stuxnet virus altered the speeds of Irans nuclear centrifuges so imperceptibly that humans could not detect the change, bringing the Iranian nuclear program to its knees.

But its not just governments and corporations that can be impacted: from vehicles getting hacked while driving down the highway to home security cameras being compromised to vulnerabilities in IoT pacemakers, cyberattacks on some IoT devices can be directly life-threatening and create fear on the part of consumers.

Because of this, unsecured devices can result in hefty fines and penalties by government regulators. In 2015, the HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR) announced its first settlement involving a data breach through medical devices in a hospital setting. 600 records were exposed, and Lahey Hospital & Medical Center settled for $850,000. The argument could be made that the OCR is sending a message about bringing devices and systems under the HIPAA compliance umbrella.

The IoT industry is set to explode across several verticals. According to IoT Analytics, the Global IoT market grew over 22% in 2021, and it is projected to keep increasing at that same compound annual growth rate through 2027.

There are a lot of growing pains in this relatively new industry, and companies arent sure whos in charge of what when it comes to security. The best security posture will be achieved when design, operations, and security leaders recognize that they all have a stake in IoT device security. The best IoT products will be built by manufacturers that incorporate security and compliance considerations into device design from the beginning.

If you want to dive deeper into the principles of how to secure the Internet of Things, check out our whitepaper Five Guiding Tenets for IoT Security.

Access to real-time data has immense value for business intelligence. Imagine if a robotic arm on an assembly line could tell you how much energy its using, how long it takes to do its job, or when it will need maintenance.

From pacemakers to self-driving cars, devices that were previously siloed are getting connected to the internet. This offers a great deal of value to users and can even save lives in the case of medical devices. But with the added value of interconnectivity comes much greater risk.

Theoretically, the Internet of Things (IoT) infrastructure can be even more secure than that of servers and workstations, as manual processes are often the most vulnerable part of a cloud-based infrastructure.

But as a new technology facing explosive growth, IoT device security can be a moving target as new technologies, regulations, use cases, and threats emerge. And the stakes are high, as the potential fallout of a data breach in which medical devices, military equipment, personal vehicles, or major public utilities are compromised could be life-threatening.

The Internet of Things is a new world for traditional IT and cybersecurity folks. There are plenty of ways their current expertise can apply to this new IoT revolution, but theyll have to face some new challenges, as well.

Manufacturing machinery often has to produce hundreds of thousands of units per week, each one with its own certificate and identity. Certs have to be issued as fast as units come off the assembly line.

Simply maintaining the inventory of all the issued certs, let alone monitoring and updating them, is a major undertaking, especially for certificates with short lifecycles.

Forty-two percent of enterprises still use spreadsheets to track digital certs manually, and 57% dont have an accurate inventory of their SSH keys. Consequently, up to 40% of machine identities arent being tracked.

Automotive electronic control units (ECUs), which control in-vehicle safety, drive train, and infotainment systems, are manufactured in a sprawling supply chain with several points of entry that could be exploited by a threat actor.

And the products of this supply chain are deployed into unknown environments that might employ decades-old security controls. Manufacturers cant let their products security depend on the end user, as a data breach tied to the product can potentially damage the reputation of the manufacturer, even if the breach is ultimately the users fault.

IoT technology must take a Zero Trust approach to security for both human and machine identities. This approach, in which rejecting access is the default and access is only granted based on strict criteria, doesnt just bolt on security as a featureit bakes it in as a design element throughout the product lifecycle.

Additionally, the device has to integrate with a wide range of adjacent systems, some of which might not adhere to the same rigorous security standards. Regulations and industry standards are still taking shape in the IoT space, so manufacturers face the challenge of tool disparity among these systems. Protecting your products while also making them interoperable can be a tall order.

Security is hardly ever a selling point for an IoT device. What matters in the market is how well the product works, how energy efficient it is, cost, etc. IoT product sellers cant charge customers more for a product by using security as a value proposition. Consequently, manufacturers must take care that security measures dont adversely impact usability and efficiency.

Security considerations must be interwoven throughout the product development and manufacturing process so that they dont become clunky add-ons. If security is part of the workflow from the beginning, i.e., Security by Design, it will create less friction in the product release cycle and eat into profit margins less.

Security is not usually Job #1 in the design process for manufacturing equipment. Clients mainly care about how well the product works, whether it has all of the capabilities they need, and how much it costs. Giving business leaders the ability to oversee operations across the internet is a huge value driver, but everything a device connects to presents a new risk. Balancing security and interconnectivity has to be on a product designers mind to prevent the damage to a companys reputation a potential data breach could cause.

This balancing act can be difficult, especially if the design phase leans toward an Agile or DevOps model. Designers thrive on change and innovation, while security folks find stability in stasis and predictability. Designers may not want another cook in the kitchen, and security leaders may not be flexible enough to compromise.

IoT will see tons of evolution in the next few years. New use cases, technologies, and threats will spur new regulations. But if security isnt a top priority for IoT developers, then compliance will always be a struggle.

Currently, the regulatory environment around IoT security is disjointed. NIST informs regulations in the U.S., but other countries have their own sanctioning bodies and standards. Electric vehicle regulation covers PKI, but those regulations differ from one region to the next. Standards like IEC 62443 are often discussed in comparison to other security standards. Californias SB: 327 law was the first IoT-specific law in the U.S.

An enterprise releasing a product globally must manufacture that product with security that complies across several regulatory landscapes (e.g., GDPR in Europe, PIPL in China, LGPD in Brazil). These privacy regulations are being expanded to include IoT devices, and some organizations may benefit from specialized consultants who are familiar with all the standards.

For most IoT manufacturers, security is not the primary value, but buyers assume that products are secure, and a breach at the device level can diminish customer confidence in a brand and lead to high-profile reputational damage. An aquarium thermometer in a casino allowed a hacker to export 10 GB of undisclosed data out of the country. Breached security cameras gave hackers access to video feeds in Tesla factories as well as jails, police departments, and hospitals.

On a grander scale, the Stuxnet virus altered the speeds of Irans nuclear centrifuges so imperceptibly that humans could not detect the change, bringing the Iranian nuclear program to its knees.

But its not just governments and corporations that can be impacted: from vehicles getting hacked while driving down the highway to home security cameras being compromised to vulnerabilities in IoT pacemakers, cyberattacks on some IoT devices can be directly life-threatening and create fear on the part of consumers.

Because of this, unsecured devices can result in hefty fines and penalties by government regulators. In 2015, the HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR) announced its first settlement involving a data breach through medical devices in a hospital setting. 600 records were exposed, and Lahey Hospital & Medical Center settled for $850,000. The argument could be made that the OCR is sending a message about bringing devices and systems under the HIPAA compliance umbrella.

The IoT industry is set to explode across several verticals. According to IoT Analytics, the Global IoT market grew over 22% in 2021, and it is projected to keep increasing at that same compound annual growth rate through 2027.

There are a lot of growing pains in this relatively new industry, and companies arent sure whos in charge of what when it comes to security. The best security posture will be achieved when design, operations, and security leaders recognize that they all have a stake in IoT device security. The best IoT products will be built by manufacturers that incorporate security and compliance considerations into device design from the beginning.

If you want to dive deeper into the principles of how to secure the Internet of Things, check out our whitepaper Five Guiding Tenets for IoT Security.

Access to real-time data has immense value for business intelligence. Imagine if a robotic arm on an assembly line could tell you how much energy its using, how long it takes to do its job, or when it will need maintenance.

From pacemakers to self-driving cars, devices that were previously siloed are getting connected to the internet. This offers a great deal of value to users and can even save lives in the case of medical devices. But with the added value of interconnectivity comes much greater risk.

Theoretically, the Internet of Things (IoT) infrastructure can be even more secure than that of servers and workstations, as manual processes are often the most vulnerable part of a cloud-based infrastructure.

But as a new technology facing explosive growth, IoT device security can be a moving target as new technologies, regulations, use cases, and threats emerge. And the stakes are high, as the potential fallout of a data breach in which medical devices, military equipment, personal vehicles, or major public utilities are compromised could be life-threatening.

The Internet of Things is a new world for traditional IT and cybersecurity folks. There are plenty of ways their current expertise can apply to this new IoT revolution, but theyll have to face some new challenges, as well.

Manufacturing machinery often has to produce hundreds of thousands of units per week, each one with its own certificate and identity. Certs have to be issued as fast as units come off the assembly line.

Simply maintaining the inventory of all the issued certs, let alone monitoring and updating them, is a major undertaking, especially for certificates with short lifecycles.

Forty-two percent of enterprises still use spreadsheets to track digital certs manually, and 57% dont have an accurate inventory of their SSH keys. Consequently, up to 40% of machine identities arent being tracked.

Automotive electronic control units (ECUs), which control in-vehicle safety, drive train, and infotainment systems, are manufactured in a sprawling supply chain with several points of entry that could be exploited by a threat actor.

And the products of this supply chain are deployed into unknown environments that might employ decades-old security controls. Manufacturers cant let their products security depend on the end user, as a data breach tied to the product can potentially damage the reputation of the manufacturer, even if the breach is ultimately the users fault.

IoT technology must take a Zero Trust approach to security for both human and machine identities. This approach, in which rejecting access is the default and access is only granted based on strict criteria, doesnt just bolt on security as a featureit bakes it in as a design element throughout the product lifecycle.

Additionally, the device has to integrate with a wide range of adjacent systems, some of which might not adhere to the same rigorous security standards. Regulations and industry standards are still taking shape in the IoT space, so manufacturers face the challenge of tool disparity among these systems. Protecting your products while also making them interoperable can be a tall order.

Security is hardly ever a selling point for an IoT device. What matters in the market is how well the product works, how energy efficient it is, cost, etc. IoT product sellers cant charge customers more for a product by using security as a value proposition. Consequently, manufacturers must take care that security measures dont adversely impact usability and efficiency.

Security considerations must be interwoven throughout the product development and manufacturing process so that they dont become clunky add-ons. If security is part of the workflow from the beginning, i.e., Security by Design, it will create less friction in the product release cycle and eat into profit margins less.

Security is not usually Job #1 in the design process for manufacturing equipment. Clients mainly care about how well the product works, whether it has all of the capabilities they need, and how much it costs. Giving business leaders the ability to oversee operations across the internet is a huge value driver, but everything a device connects to presents a new risk. Balancing security and interconnectivity has to be on a product designers mind to prevent the damage to a companys reputation a potential data breach could cause.

This balancing act can be difficult, especially if the design phase leans toward an Agile or DevOps model. Designers thrive on change and innovation, while security folks find stability in stasis and predictability. Designers may not want another cook in the kitchen, and security leaders may not be flexible enough to compromise.

IoT will see tons of evolution in the next few years. New use cases, technologies, and threats will spur new regulations. But if security isnt a top priority for IoT developers, then compliance will always be a struggle.

Currently, the regulatory environment around IoT security is disjointed. NIST informs regulations in the U.S., but other countries have their own sanctioning bodies and standards. Electric vehicle regulation covers PKI, but those regulations differ from one region to the next. Standards like IEC 62443 are often discussed in comparison to other security standards. Californias SB: 327 law was the first IoT-specific law in the U.S.

An enterprise releasing a product globally must manufacture that product with security that complies across several regulatory landscapes (e.g., GDPR in Europe, PIPL in China, LGPD in Brazil). These privacy regulations are being expanded to include IoT devices, and some organizations may benefit from specialized consultants who are familiar with all the standards.

For most IoT manufacturers, security is not the primary value, but buyers assume that products are secure, and a breach at the device level can diminish customer confidence in a brand and lead to high-profile reputational damage. An aquarium thermometer in a casino allowed a hacker to export 10 GB of undisclosed data out of the country. Breached security cameras gave hackers access to video feeds in Tesla factories as well as jails, police departments, and hospitals.

On a grander scale, the Stuxnet virus altered the speeds of Irans nuclear centrifuges so imperceptibly that humans could not detect the change, bringing the Iranian nuclear program to its knees.

See the article here:
Why is the Internet of Things So Hard to Secure? - Security Boulevard

Read More..