Re: Vulnerability of IoT devices in Mauritius

From: S Moonesamy <>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 20:44:06 -0700

Hi Ajay,
At 10:51 22-10-2016, Ajay R Ramjatan wrote:
>A preliminary analysis indicates the botnet behind the DDoS is
>fueled partly by vulnerable IoT (Internet of things) devices, such
>as routers, DVRs. I have been asking myself how many such vulnerable
>devices are operating in Mauritius and whether any of them have been
>participants in this DDoS.

At least a few devices in Mauritius are infected by Mirai. I don't
know whether those devices were used in yesterday's DDoS.

>In the field of my profession, I have been asked to configure port
>forwarding so my clients can access their DVR devices inside their
>premises from an external location, which I did. Security experts
>have been warning the community at large about the threat that
>poorly engineered IoT devices can pose and the recent DDoS attacks
>only confirm that those warnings are to be taken seriously.

The local approach to (computer) security is unsafe. The regional
approach is not better ( ).

>Those botnets are made possible by inadequate processes from
>manufacturers, misconfiguration from resellers/installers and
>sometimes poor practices from end-users. I believe there should be a
>Mauritian campaign to raise awareness about the risks that
>poorly-deployed IoT devices pose and stop them from being used as
>attack vectors. It would reflect poorly on Mauritius if the island
>is present in some analysis of the source of future DDoS attacks.

The island is already listed as a source for "attacks". People on
the island are not concerned by those types of "attacks" as the only
personal or business "tech" usage is Facebook.

I noticed a few months ago but I
did not mention it as nobody in Mauritius would be interested. I
agree that there should be a local campaign to raise awareness about
poorly deployed IoT devices. It is difficult to talk about that in
Mauritius as people do not like hearing about problems and because
there isn't any public information to explain the problem.

S. Moonesamy
Received on Sun Oct 23 2016 - 03:53:22 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sun Oct 23 2016 - 03:54:01 PST