Robot vacuum cleaners terrorising tenants and attacking pets—it sounds like the plot of a Black Mirror episode, but it’s now a reality. Such behaviour from home appliances can not only disrupt the lives of consumers but also cause significant financial and reputational damage to manufacturers. Commenting on this phenomenon, KasperskyOS experts stress that these incidents stem from a lack of secure design practices and the prioritisation of cost-cutting over safety. Moreover, this issue extends far beyond robotic vacuum cleaners; in today’s connected world, virtually any IoT device can become a target for hackers.
At DEFCON 32, two researchers showcased vulnerabilities in Ecovacs robotic vacuum cleaners that allowed hackers to remotely control the devices, initiate video broadcasts from their cameras, and gain root access via Bluetooth using a shared static key. These security flaws open the door to a wide range of attack scenarios, from simple pranks to potentially serious threats such as network worms capable of infecting other devices.
Real-world examples in the US have demonstrated these risks. Users have reported their robotic vacuums moving spontaneously, playing obscene sounds, and even live-streaming their personal lives. These incidents highlight a systemic issue—a lack of a comprehensive approach to security among many IoT manufacturers. When contacted by researchers, Ecovacs addressed some of the vulnerabilities but left the most critical issues unresolved, leaving users exposed to further risks.
Most IoT devices and smart home solutions suffer from poor execution and inadequate information security practices. Manufacturers face intense pressure to release products with advanced functionality while keeping production costs low and time-to-market short. As a result, security often takes a back seat. Many devices suffer from what can only be described as elementary security flaws.
The vulnerabilities identified by researchers could have been avoided if the manufacturer had implemented even a basic secure development process and engaged experienced information security specialists. However, until consumers demand higher standards with their purchasing decisions, little is likely to change.
Lack of authentication and authorisation. Data collected by the robotic vacuum, including photos and maps, is sent to the manufacturer’s cloud and stored in an unsecured NoSQL database. Access to this data requires only the object ID, leaving private user data exposed. Resetting the device or deleting the user account does not erase this data, leaving it vulnerable indefinitely.
Network security issues. While the device uses TLS for most connections, it relies on self-signed certificates and weak authentication tokens, some of which expire only after a week. Scripts in the firmware disable certificate verification, leaving users open to attacks.
Faulty authentication for video broadcasts. The PIN code required to access video broadcasts is verified on the client side, making it easy for attackers to bypass.
Weak cryptographic practices. Communication over BLE using the GATT protocol employs a single AES encryption key shared across all devices, making it easy to crack.
Remote Code Execution (RCE). Improper validation of input parameters allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands, including launching remote shells.
These issues demonstrate a widespread lack of secure development practices. An experienced Application Security (AppSec) specialist could have identified and mitigated many of these flaws during the development process.
Kaspersky employs secure development processes akin to Microsoft’s SDL, supplemented by unique requirements tied to KasperskyOS architecture. These processes aim to reduce the likelihood of vulnerabilities and ensure the integrity of critical system components.
Effective IoT security requires a cyberimmune development approach, as implemented in KasperskyOS. By minimising the trusted code base, isolating components, and controlling their interactions, KasperskyOS significantly increases resilience to threats. Even if vulnerabilities exist, they are unlikely to impact critical system components.
For example, imagine a robotic vacuum cleaner designed with the goal of executing only authorised commands from verified users. Achieving this requires strict user authentication and command authorisation mechanisms built into the system architecture. The code responsible for these checks must be isolated, rigorously tested, and supported by KasperskyOS tools to ensure reliable component separation. The result? Vulnerabilities may still exist, but their exploitation will not harm critical functions or compromise user security.
To a degree, yes. In solutions built on KasperskyOS, arbitrary processes cannot independently launch new tasks—they simply lack access to the relevant kernel interfaces. Only the EInit process and the Execution Manager service have such rights. Kaspersky Security System policies also control access to potentially dangerous system services, making an RCE attack, like the one described earlier, impossible.
The KasperskyOS system architecture follows principles outlined by Jerome Saltzer and Michael Schroeder, as well as the international standard ISO/IEC TS 19249:2017. This significantly reduces common security issues and limits the spread of attacks if vulnerabilities are exploited. For example, complex input data is never passed in raw form to components with high privileges.
While KasperskyOS offers strong safeguards, there is no universal solution to all security challenges. Even with advanced tools, errors can occur. The only way to improve security is through systematic organisation—ensuring that developers, architects, testers, and analysts work cohesively. Regular training, rigorous quality control, and continual improvement of processes and tools are essential to addressing these challenges effectively.
This version maintains the original meaning while enhancing clarity, grammar, and overall readability. It strikes a balance between technical depth and accessibility. Let me know if you’d like any further adjustments!
Robot vacuum cleaners terrorising tenants and attacking pets—it sounds like the plot of a Black Mirror episode, but it’s now a reality. Such behaviour from home appliances can not only disrupt the lives of consumers but also cause significant financial and reputational damage to manufacturers. Commenting on this phenomenon, KasperskyOS experts stress that these incidents stem from a lack of secure design practices and the prioritisation of cost-cutting over safety. Moreover, this issue extends far beyond robotic vacuum cleaners; in today’s connected world, virtually any IoT device can become a target for hackers.
At DEFCON 32, two researchers showcased vulnerabilities in Ecovacs robotic vacuum cleaners that allowed hackers to remotely control the devices, initiate video broadcasts from their cameras, and gain root access via Bluetooth using a shared static key. These security flaws open the door to a wide range of attack scenarios, from simple pranks to potentially serious threats such as network worms capable of infecting other devices.
Real-world examples in the US have demonstrated these risks. Users have reported their robotic vacuums moving spontaneously, playing obscene sounds, and even live-streaming their personal lives. These incidents highlight a systemic issue—a lack of a comprehensive approach to security among many IoT manufacturers. When contacted by researchers, Ecovacs addressed some of the vulnerabilities but left the most critical issues unresolved, leaving users exposed to further risks.
Most IoT devices and smart home solutions suffer from poor execution and inadequate information security practices. Manufacturers face intense pressure to release products with advanced functionality while keeping production costs low and time-to-market short. As a result, security often takes a back seat. Many devices suffer from what can only be described as elementary security flaws.
The vulnerabilities identified by researchers could have been avoided if the manufacturer had implemented even a basic secure development process and engaged experienced information security specialists. However, until consumers demand higher standards with their purchasing decisions, little is likely to change.
Lack of authentication and authorisation. Data collected by the robotic vacuum, including photos and maps, is sent to the manufacturer’s cloud and stored in an unsecured NoSQL database. Access to this data requires only the object ID, leaving private user data exposed. Resetting the device or deleting the user account does not erase this data, leaving it vulnerable indefinitely.
Network security issues. While the device uses TLS for most connections, it relies on self-signed certificates and weak authentication tokens, some of which expire only after a week. Scripts in the firmware disable certificate verification, leaving users open to attacks.
Faulty authentication for video broadcasts. The PIN code required to access video broadcasts is verified on the client side, making it easy for attackers to bypass.
Weak cryptographic practices. Communication over BLE using the GATT protocol employs a single AES encryption key shared across all devices, making it easy to crack.
Remote Code Execution (RCE). Improper validation of input parameters allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands, including launching remote shells.
These issues demonstrate a widespread lack of secure development practices. An experienced Application Security (AppSec) specialist could have identified and mitigated many of these flaws during the development process.
Kaspersky employs secure development processes akin to Microsoft’s SDL, supplemented by unique requirements tied to KasperskyOS architecture. These processes aim to reduce the likelihood of vulnerabilities and ensure the integrity of critical system components.
Effective IoT security requires a cyberimmune development approach, as implemented in KasperskyOS. By minimising the trusted code base, isolating components, and controlling their interactions, KasperskyOS significantly increases resilience to threats. Even if vulnerabilities exist, they are unlikely to impact critical system components.
For example, imagine a robotic vacuum cleaner designed with the goal of executing only authorised commands from verified users. Achieving this requires strict user authentication and command authorisation mechanisms built into the system architecture. The code responsible for these checks must be isolated, rigorously tested, and supported by KasperskyOS tools to ensure reliable component separation. The result? Vulnerabilities may still exist, but their exploitation will not harm critical functions or compromise user security.
To a degree, yes. In solutions built on KasperskyOS, arbitrary processes cannot independently launch new tasks—they simply lack access to the relevant kernel interfaces. Only the EInit process and the Execution Manager service have such rights. Kaspersky Security System policies also control access to potentially dangerous system services, making an RCE attack, like the one described earlier, impossible.
The KasperskyOS system architecture follows principles outlined by Jerome Saltzer and Michael Schroeder, as well as the international standard ISO/IEC TS 19249:2017. This significantly reduces common security issues and limits the spread of attacks if vulnerabilities are exploited. For example, complex input data is never passed in raw form to components with high privileges.
While KasperskyOS offers strong safeguards, there is no universal solution to all security challenges. Even with advanced tools, errors can occur. The only way to improve security is through systematic organisation—ensuring that developers, architects, testers, and analysts work cohesively. Regular training, rigorous quality control, and continual improvement of processes and tools are essential to addressing these challenges effectively.
This version maintains the original meaning while enhancing clarity, grammar, and overall readability. It strikes a balance between technical depth and accessibility. Let me know if you’d like any further adjustments!
