🚩 CVE-2025-14994: HIGH severity buffer overflow in Tenda FH1201/FH1206 (1.2.0.8/1.2.0.14). Remote exploit published—risk of full router compromise. Restrict access, monitor for threats, await patch. https://radar.offseq.com/threat/cve-2025-14994-stack-based-buffer-overflow-in-tend-84473859 #OffSeq #Vuln #IoTSecurity #CVE

A Texas court has temporarily restricted the use of ACR technology by Hisense while privacy litigation proceeds.

From a security and privacy perspective, the case underscores recurring issues: transparency in telemetry collection, informed consent, and the expanding data footprint of consumer IoT devices.

What controls or disclosures do you believe should be standard for connected home technology?

Source: https://therecord.media/hisense-ordered-to-stop-data-collection-texas-lawsuit

Join the conversation and follow @technadu for practitioner-relevant cyber and privacy coverage.

#InfoSec #PrivacyEngineering #IoTSecurity #ConsumerPrivacy #CyberLaw #TechNadu

Many smart TVs, gaming apps, and consoles ship with embedded browsers years out of date, exposing users to spoofing and privilege escalation.

Full breakdown:
https://www.technadu.com/outdated-embedded-browsers-expose-smart-tvs-gaming-apps-game-consoles-to-cyber-risks/616240/

#IoTSecurity #BrowserSecurity #CyberRisk

Bisher war das mein meistgeteilter und meistgefavter Beitrag in 2025.

Die Tarnung von #Spionagetools als
#Staubsaugerroboter kommt anscheinend nicht so gut an. 🤣

#SmartHome #Sicherheit #IoTSecurity #privacy

https://mastodon.online/@tinoeberl/115480282083170464

Researchers disclosed a critical buffer overflow (CVE-2024-39432) in connected car modems that enables remote code execution and lateral movement across the vehicle SoC.

The findings challenge long-held assumptions about cellular protocol isolation in automotive systems.

Full analysis:
https://www.technadu.com/critical-vulnerabilities-in-connected-car-modems-expose-critical-vehicle-security-risks-researchers-say/615891/

#AutomotiveSecurity #ConnectedCars #RCE #IoTSecurity

PTA rolls out strict 5G security rules ahead of launch

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://dailytimes.com.pk/1418397/pta-rolls-out-strict-5g-security-rules-ahead-of-launch/

I’m having some fun with VStarcam firmware, so why shouldn’t you? After downloading hundreds of their firmware updates I decided to document all these numerous proprietary formats. This even included figuring out a proprietary compression algorithm (not the one I asked about here a few days ago, that one is still a mystery).

https://palant.info/2025/12/15/unpacking-vstarcam-firmware-for-fun-and-profit/

#vstarcam #firmware #iot #IoTSecurity

🚨 CVE-2025-14709 (CRITICAL, 9.3): Shiguangwu sgwbox N3 v2.0.25 has a buffer overflow in WIRELESSCFGGET, allowing unauth RCE. No patch; public exploit code available. Segment & monitor! https://radar.offseq.com/threat/cve-2025-14709-buffer-overflow-in-shiguangwu-sgwbo-9e06ff4f #OffSeq #CVE202514709 #IoTSecurity #Infosec

⚠️ CVE-2025-14665 (CRITICAL): Stack-based buffer overflow in Tenda WH450 v1.0.0.18 via /goform/DhcpListClient 'page' param. Remote, unauthenticated code execution possible. Exploit is public. Isolate & monitor now! https://radar.offseq.com/threat/cve-2025-14665-stack-based-buffer-overflow-in-tend-27bfc3c9 #OffSeq #Vuln #IoTSecurity #Infosec

CVE-2025-36752 (CRITICAL, CVSS 9.4): Growatt ShineLan-X v3.6.0.0 has a hard-coded backup account—effectively a backdoor. No patch yet. Isolate affected devices, monitor for access, and consult vendor for updates. https://radar.offseq.com/threat/cve-2025-36752-cwe-798-use-of-hard-coded-credentia-6ed12f6d #OffSeq #ICS #IoTSecurity

⚠️ CVE-2025-14535: CRITICAL buffer overflow in UTT 进取 512W (≤3.1.7.7-171114). Remotely exploitable via ssid param in /goform/formConfigFastDirectionW. Public exploit out, no patch. Isolate & monitor now! https://radar.offseq.com/threat/cve-2025-14535-buffer-overflow-in-utt-512w-d00ee28b #OffSeq #Vuln #IoTSecurity #CVE202514535

🚨 CRITICAL: CVE-2025-13955 in EZCast Pro II v1.17478.146 — Predictable default Wi-Fi password lets attackers nearby calculate access credentials. Review your AP configs & restrict access. More info: https://radar.offseq.com/threat/cve-2025-13955-cwe-330-use-of-insufficiently-rando-ef4a57fd #OffSeq #CVE2025 #IoTSecurity #Infosec

Zero Trust Security Model Explained: Is It Right for Your Organization?

1,135 words, 6 minutes read time.

When I first walked into a SOC that proudly claimed it had “implemented Zero Trust,” I expected to see a modern, frictionless security environment. What I found instead was a network still anchored to perimeter defenses, VPNs, and a false sense of invincibility. That’s the brutal truth about Zero Trust: it isn’t a single product or an off-the-shelf solution. It’s a philosophy, a mindset, a commitment to questioning every assumption about trust in your organization. For those of us in the trenches—SOC analysts, incident responders, and CISOs alike—the question isn’t whether Zero Trust is a buzzword. The real question is whether your organization has the discipline, visibility, and operational maturity to adopt it effectively.

Zero Trust starts with a principle that sounds simple but is often the hardest to implement: never trust, always verify. Every access request, every data transaction, and every network connection is treated as untrusted until explicitly validated. Identity is the new perimeter, and every user, device, and service must prove its legitimacy continuously. This approach is grounded in lessons learned from incidents like the SolarWinds supply chain compromise, where attackers leveraged trusted internal credentials to breach multiple organizations, or the Colonial Pipeline attack, which exploited a single VPN credential. In a Zero Trust environment, those scenarios would have been mitigated by enforcing strict access policies, continuous monitoring, and segmented network architecture. Zero Trust is less about walls and more about a web of checks and validations that constantly challenge assumptions about trust.

Identity and Access Management: The First Line of Defense

Identity and access management (IAM) is where Zero Trust begins its work, and it’s arguably the most important pillar for any organization. Multi-factor authentication, adaptive access controls, and strict adherence to least-privilege principles aren’t optional—they’re foundational. I’ve spent countless nights in incident response chasing lateral movement across networks where MFA was inconsistently applied, watching attackers move as if the organization had handed them the keys. Beyond authentication, modern IAM frameworks incorporate behavioral analytics to detect anomalies in real time, flagging suspicious logins, unusual access patterns, or attempts to elevate privileges. In practice, this means treating every login attempt as a potential threat, continuously evaluating risk, and denying implicit trust even to high-ranking executives. Identity management in Zero Trust isn’t just about logging in securely; it’s about embedding vigilance into the culture of your organization.

Implementing IAM effectively goes beyond deploying technology—it requires integrating identity controls with real operational processes. Automated workflows, incident triggers, and granular policy enforcement are all part of the ecosystem. I’ve advised organizations that initially underestimated the complexity of this pillar, only to discover months later that a single misconfigured policy left sensitive systems exposed. Zero Trust forces organizations to reimagine how users and machines interact with critical assets. It’s not convenient, and it’s certainly not fast, but it’s the difference between containing a breach at the door or chasing it across the network like a shadowy game of cat and mouse.

Device Security: Closing the Endpoint Gap

The next pillar, device security, is where Zero Trust really earns its reputation as a relentless defender. In a world where employees connect from laptops, mobile devices, and IoT sensors, every endpoint is a potential vector for compromise. I’ve seen attackers exploit a single unmanaged device to pivot through an entire network, bypassing perimeter defenses entirely. Zero Trust counters this by continuously evaluating device posture, enforcing compliance checks, and integrating endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions into the access chain. A device that fails a health check is denied access, and its behavior is logged for forensic analysis.

Device security in a Zero Trust model isn’t just reactive—it’s proactive. Threat intelligence feeds, real-time monitoring, and automated responses allow organizations to identify compromised endpoints before they become a gateway for further exploitation. In my experience, organizations that ignore endpoint rigor often suffer from lateral movement and data exfiltration that could have been prevented. Zero Trust doesn’t assume that being inside the network makes a device safe; it enforces continuous verification and ensures that trust is earned and maintained at every stage. This approach dramatically reduces the likelihood of stealthy intrusions and gives security teams actionable intelligence to respond quickly.

Micro-Segmentation and Continuous Monitoring: Containing Threats Before They Spread

Finally, Zero Trust relies on micro-segmentation and continuous monitoring to limit the blast radius of any potential compromise. Networks can no longer be treated as monolithic entities where attackers move laterally with ease. By segmenting traffic into isolated zones and applying strict access policies between them, organizations create friction that slows or stops attackers in their tracks. I’ve seen environments where a single compromised credential could have spread malware across the network, but segmentation contained the incident to a single zone, giving the SOC time to respond without a full-scale outage.

Continuous monitoring complements segmentation by providing visibility into every action and transaction. Behavioral analytics, SIEM integration, and proactive threat hunting are essential for detecting anomalies that might indicate a breach. In practice, this means SOC teams aren’t just reacting to alerts—they’re anticipating threats, understanding patterns, and applying context-driven controls. Micro-segmentation and monitoring together transform Zero Trust from a static set of rules into a living, adaptive security posture. Organizations that master this pillar not only protect themselves from known threats but gain resilience against unknown attacks, effectively turning uncertainty into an operational advantage.

Conclusion: Zero Trust as a Philosophy, Not a Product

Zero Trust is not a checkbox, a software package, or a single deployment. It is a security philosophy that forces organizations to challenge assumptions, scrutinize trust, and adopt a mindset of continuous verification. Identity, devices, and network behavior form the pillars of this approach, each demanding diligence, integration, and cultural buy-in. For organizations willing to embrace these principles, the rewards are tangible: reduced attack surface, limited lateral movement, and a proactive, anticipatory security posture. For those unwilling or unprepared to change, claiming “Zero Trust” is little more than window dressing, a label that offers the illusion of safety while leaving vulnerabilities unchecked. The choice is stark: treat trust as a vulnerability and defend accordingly, or risk becoming the next cautionary tale in an increasingly hostile digital landscape.

Call to Action

If this breakdown helped you think a little clearer about the threats out there, don’t just click away. Subscribe for more no-nonsense security insights, drop a comment with your thoughts or questions, or reach out if there’s a topic you want me to tackle next. Stay sharp out there.

D. Bryan King

Sources

• NIST Special Publication 800-207: Zero Trust Architecture
• CISA Zero Trust Maturity Model
• MITRE ATT&CK® Framework
• CrowdStrike: The Rise of Zero Trust Security
• Mandiant Threat Intelligence Reports
• Schneier on Security Blog
• KrebsOnSecurity
• Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR)
• SANS Whitepaper: Zero Trust Security
• Black Hat Briefings: Zero Trust Talks
• DEF CON Conference Talks on Network Security
• Microsoft Security Blog: The Future of Zero Trust
• Palo Alto Networks: What is Zero Trust?
• Gartner Market Guide for Zero Trust Network Access
• IBM Zero Trust Security Resources

Disclaimer:

The views and opinions expressed in this post are solely those of the author. The information provided is based on personal research, experience, and understanding of the subject matter at the time of writing. Readers should consult relevant experts or authorities for specific guidance related to their unique situations.

#accessManagement #adaptiveSecurity #attackSurfaceReduction #behavioralAnalytics #breachPrevention #byodSecurity #ciso #cloudSecurity #cloudFirstSecurity #colonialPipeline #complianceEnforcement #continuousMonitoring #cyberResilience #cybersecurityAwareness #cybersecurityCulture #cybersecurityReadiness #cybersecurityStrategy #deviceSecurity #digitalDefense #edr #endpointSecurity #enterpriseSecurity #iam #identityVerification #incidentResponse #internalThreats #iotSecurity #lateralMovement #leastPrivilege #mfa #microSegmentation #mitreAttck #multiFactorAuthentication #networkSecurity #networkSegmentation #networkVisibility #nistSp800207 #perimeterSecurity #privilegedAccessManagement #proactiveMonitoring #proactiveSecurity #ransomwarePrevention #riskManagement #secureAccess #securityAutomation #securityBestPractices2 #securityFramework #securityMindset #securityOperations #securityPhilosophy #siem #socAnalyst #solarwindsBreach #threatDetection #threatHunting #threatIntelligence #zeroTrust #zeroTrustArchitecture #zeroTrustImplementation #zeroTrustModel #zeroTrustSecurity

🔒 CVE-2025-14136: HIGH severity stack-based buffer overflow in Linksys RE6500 & related models (1.0.013.001+). Remote code execution risk with public exploit, no vendor patch. Mitigate — isolate, monitor, restrict access! https://radar.offseq.com/threat/cve-2025-14136-stack-based-buffer-overflow-in-link-e0ef136b #OffSeq #Vuln #IoTSecurity

🚨 CVE-2025-34256: CRITICAL (CVSS 10) vuln in Advantech WISE-DeviceOn Server <5.4—remote attackers can forge JWTs & gain full admin access via hard-coded key. Patch to v5.4+ or restrict access now! https://radar.offseq.com/threat/cve-2025-34256-cwe-321-use-of-hard-coded-cryptogra-3c681503 #OffSeq #ICS #IoTSecurity #Vulnerability

🏠🔐 Your Smart Home Might Be Spying on You (And You Invited It In)
https://youtu.be/mCIGNYqPP2A #Cybersecurity #SmartHomeSecurity #PrivacyMatters #CyberAwareness #DigitalPrivacy #IoTSecurity #HomeNetworkSecurity #CyberHygiene #InfosecCommunity #DataProtection #SecureYourHome #DNS

🔥 CVE-2025-34319: CRITICAL OS Command Injection in TOTOLINK N300RT (firmware < V3.4.0-B20250430). Unauthenticated RCE via Boa formWsc—patch ASAP or segment & restrict access. Monitor for exploit attempts! https://radar.offseq.com/threat/cve-2025-34319-cwe-78-improper-neutralization-of-s-9672dc71 #OffSeq #CVE202534319 #IoTSecurity

ShadowV2, a new Mirai-based IoT botnet variant, is exploiting multiple CVEs across D-Link, TP-Link, DD-WRT, DigiEver, and TBK devices. Activity was first seen during the AWS outage, suggesting early testing. The botnet connects to a C2 server and supports UDP/TCP/HTTP DDoS attacks.

Full analysis:
https://www.technadu.com/new-mirai-variant-shadowv2-targets-vulnerable-iot-devices-to-create-botnet-for-ddos-attacks/614670/

#CyberSecurity #IoTSecurity #Botnet #ThreatIntel #DDoS #TechNadu

New research finds that exposure in aircraft cabin IoT doesn’t happen over the air - it happens once data reaches any authorized device that can read full sensor details.

Tests of differential privacy and secret sharing show viable paths toward protecting readings at the source without breaking cabin performance.
Follow TechNadu for more clear, research-based security insights.

Source: https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2025/11/25/aircraft-cabin-iot-privacy-exposure/

#infosec #iotsecurity #aviationtech #privacyengineering #threatintel #techcommunity #TechNadu

Censys analysis shows that Android TV boxes like Superbox use unauthorized app stores, DNS hijacking, ARP poisoning, and proxy relays communicating with Tencent QQ and Grass IO.
Stable retail availability remains a concern.

Full write-up:
https://www.technadu.com/streaming-devices-and-iot-security-threats-android-tv-boxes-linked-to-botnet-activity/614472/

Follow TechNadu for more threat research updates.

#Infosec #IoTSecurity #AndroidTV #Botnet #HomeNetworkSecurity #CyberThreats