IoT Hacking Statistics 2026 | Global Trends and Key Insights

The world of connected devices faces a new wave of cyber threats in 2026. This report breaks down the latest IoT hacking statistics and trends, comparing 2026’s early indicators with the alarming growth seen in 2025 and prior years. From the sheer volume of attacks to the devices and industries under fire, we’ll explore how attackers are exploiting the Internet of Things – and what it means for businesses worldwide.

Key Numbers (2026 Outlook)

• 820,000+ IoT Attacks Per Day (2025): In 2025, there were on average 820k malicious IoT hacking attempts every day, a 46% increase from the previous year. Early 2026 data suggests this automated onslaught is not slowing down.
• 124% Surge in IoT Malware: Global IoT malware attacks spiked by 124% year-over-year in 2025, indicating that the pool of IoT devices recruited into botnets and other malware campaigns more than doubled. 2026 is on track to see continued expansion of these threats.
• 75% of IoT Attacks Target Routers: Routers remain the single most attacked IoT device, accounting for over 75% of observed IoT-related cyberattacks. Attackers exploit home and office routers (often via command injection flaws) to hijack traffic and spread malware, with popular brands like Netgear frequently targeted.
• 40% of IoT Malware Hits Manufacturing & Transport: The Manufacturing and Transportation sectors each saw ~20% of all IoT malware incidents in 2025. Combined, these two high-impact industries represented 40% of IoT attacks, highlighting where threat actors focus their efforts. (In 2024, Manufacturing alone was 36%, so attackers are now broadening into other industries.)
• 54% of IoT Attack Traffic Aims at the U.S.: The United States is the top target, accounting for 54% of observed IoT attacks in recent telemetry. Other hotspots include Hong Kong (~15%) and Germany (~7%). This reflects both the large number of devices in these regions and the adversaries’ interest in Western targets.

Volume and Types of IoT Cyberattacks

The volume of IoT-focused cyberattacks continues to skyrocket. Security analysts report a “staggering” level of background noise from automated threats – in 2025, an average of 820,000 IoT hacking attempts occurred each day. These are largely opportunistic scans and exploits blasting across the internet, seeking out any vulnerable smart device. Notably, global threat data showed a 16.7% rise in active scanning activity worldwide, as attackers’ bots relentlessly probe for open ports, default passwords, and unpatched gadgets. This always-on probing means virtually every internet-connected device is tested by attackers, often within minutes of going online.

Malware-driven attacks on IoT have exploded in tandem. By late 2025, IoT malware incidents were up 124% compared to the year prior. Much of this surge stems from the proliferation of IoT botnets – malicious networks of infected cameras, routers, wearables, and more that hackers use to mount attacks such as Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS). For example, one massive botnet dubbed “Aisuru” unleashed one of the largest DDoS attacks on record in 2025, peaking at an unprecedented 29.7 Tbps. Early reports suggest 2026 may see even bigger DDoS barrages, fueled by armies of compromised IoT devices.

Two broad attack categories dominate the IoT threat landscape today:

High-volume disruptive attacks

DDoS and denial-of-service campaigns remain extremely common, often launched by IoT botnets. In fact, over 35% of observed OT/IoT security alerts in 2025 were related to DoS incidents – flooding networks with traffic to knock systems offline. These noisy attacks can disrupt businesses and critical services, as seen when botnets target telecom providers, internet backbones, or industrial control systems. While they grab headlines for their scale, they’re often opportunistic (aimed wherever vulnerable devices can be found).

Targeted intrusions and ransomware

A more sinister trend is the rise of targeted attacks on critical infrastructure and enterprise IoT as a foothold for ransomware or espionage. Ransomware groups have “aggressively pivoted” toward operational technology environments in the past 1-2 years. By crippling smart manufacturing equipment or shutting down connected healthcare devices, attackers gain enormous leverage – it’s not just data at risk, but physical operations and safety. In 2025, ransomware attacks on industrial IoT/OT surged (e.g., a 46% jump in OT-targeting ransomware was reported in early 2025). Meanwhile, nation-state hackers are infiltrating IoT/edge devices in the telecom and energy sectors for spying. For instance, the Chinese “Salt Typhoon” campaign (exposed in late 2025) compromised telecom network devices, allowing attackers to intercept phone traffic and geolocate users across 80 countries. These stealthy attacks illustrate how IoT hacks can go beyond malware outbreaks – they can become long-term, strategic threats.

Most Targeted IoT Devices: From Routers to Smart Cameras

Not all IoT devices are equally attractive to hackers. Home and small-business routers are by far the biggest targets, serving as the workhorses of IoT botnets. According to Zscaler’s mid-2025 ThreatLabz report, routers accounted for over 75% of all observed IoT cyberattacks. The reason is simple: routers are ubiquitous, often poorly secured, and sit at key network choke points. Attackers exploit a litany of router vulnerabilities to execute malicious code and take control, frequently using command injection or buffer overflow flaws to gain a foothold. Once hijacked, a router can be weaponized to funnel traffic (becoming part of a DDoS botnet) or to snoop on and redirect data in man-in-the-middle attacks. Notably, researchers have flagged certain brands/models – for example, older Netgear routers are frequent targets – where unpatched firmware allows remote code execution (e.g., exploits like CVE-2016-10174 and CVE-2018-10561 are still seen in the wild).

Aside from routers, attackers are also hammering other connected gadgets. Forescout’s global threat telemetry observed that attacks on IoT devices (as a category) rose to 19% of all exploits in 2025, up from 16% the year before. The most frequently targeted devices in that dataset were IP cameras and network video recorders (NVRs). These internet-connected cameras/DVRs are common in both homes and businesses, and often ship with default logins or outdated software, making them low-hanging fruit. Once compromised, an IP camera might be used to spy on video feeds or participate in botnet attacks – a dual threat to privacy and security.

On the consumer IoT front, even seemingly innocuous gadgets can pose risks. Everything from smart TVs and baby monitors to internet-connected vacuum cleaners and coffee machines has been found vulnerable. A striking case was the “BadBox 2.0” botnet in 2024–2025, which pre-infected over 10 million Android-based smart TVs and streaming boxes at the factory. Users brought these devices home unaware they were already part of a botnet. The compromised TVs and TV boxes were then used as “residential proxy” nodes and for click fraud and credential-stuffing attacks – effectively turning consumer entertainment devices into covert cyber weapons.

In industrial and medical IoT, the stakes are higher, and so is the interest of attackers. Field sensors, smart controllers, and medical IoT devices (the Internet of Medical Things, IoMT) are not widely exploited like routers. Still, they are high-value targets in targeted attacks. For example, healthcare IoT devices (such as infusion pumps and remote monitoring systems) have been hit by ransomware and data theft incidents. Industry reports found that breaches involving IoMT devices in hospitals average around $10 million in damage each, the highest cost per incident of any sector. This reflects the dire consequences when something like a heart monitor or insulin pump is hacked – the disruption can threaten lives, forcing swift and costly responses.

Whether it’s a cheap home router or a million-dollar industrial sensor, if it’s connected, it’s on attackers’ radar. Legacy IoT devices are especially vulnerable – many run outdated firmware or have factory-hardcoded passwords. This has prompted moves in 2026 to purge or upgrade old hardware. The U.S. government’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), for instance, issued orders for federal agencies to remove unsupported network and IoT “edge“ devices that no longer receive security updates. That kind of initiative underscores the unacceptable risk posed by insecure-by-design IoT devices (those with no patch support or built-in flaws) in the future.

Common Attack Vectors How Hackers Exploit IoT

Despite all the advanced talk of zero-days and AI-driven attacks, most IoT breaches still boil down to basic security failures. The vast majority of successful IoT hacks exploit well-known weaknesses – weak credentials, unpatched software, and insecure protocols – rather than fancy new exploits. As one industry report noted, “the vast majority of successful attacks do not rely on nation-state level capabilities or zero-days; instead, they prey on a handful of fundamental, systemic failures baked into devices from the factory”. In other words, IoT hacks often succeed not because hackers are brilliant, but because many devices are shipped insecurely and deployed without proper hardening.

The #1 attack vector is passwords – or lack thereof. Brute-forcing default or weak credentials remains the top technique to compromise IoT endpoints. Nozomi Networks’ analysis of real-world IoT/OT incidents showed that “brute forcing default SSH/Telnet credentials“ is still the leading way attackers gain access to IoT devices. In fact, in their data, about 7.4% of all detected malicious actions were basic brute-force attempts on logins, and another ~5.3% involved using default passwords to move laterally after initial access. These numbers map directly to entries in the OWASP IoT Top 10 (notably “I1: Weak, Guessable, or Hardcoded Passwords”). The lesson is clear: many IoT devices still ship with factory-default logins (like “admin/admin”), and too many end-users never change them, effectively leaving the front door wide open. Cybercriminals know this, so they constantly run automated scripts to try common credentials on every device they can reach.

Another major attack vector is unpatched firmware vulnerabilities. IoT devices often run a lightweight OS or embedded software that doesn’t auto-update – some devices never get a single patch after production. Attackers exploit this by scanning for devices with known exploits. For example, the Mirai botnet (and its many variants) famously turned network cameras and DVRs into bots by exploiting publicly known flaws and default credentials. Today’s successors to Mirai continue that pattern.

Zscaler reports that Mirai-family malware accounted for ~40% of all IoT malware payloads they observed, and that newer botnets like Mozi and Gafgyt (also built on known exploits) make up another large chunk. A Mirai variant might look for an old bug in a particular DVR model – and because many owners never updated the firmware, it can still compromise tens of thousands of those devices long after the vulnerability became public. We also see exploits targeting outdated SOHO devices: late 2025 saw a Mirai-based botnet called “Broadside“ exploit a year-old bug in TBK-brand DVRs (used in CCTV systems) to conscript them into attacks. Simply put, unpatched IoT devices are sitting ducks on the internet.

A third key vector is the insecure network services and protocols IoT devices use. Many IoT gadgets communicate in the clear or use proprietary protocols with little scrutiny. Shockingly, it’s estimated that around 98% of IoT device traffic is unencrypted – meaning credentials and commands often go over the air in plaintext, ripe for interception. Attackers can perform man-in-the-middle (MitM) attacks on such traffic, or hijack sessions if no strong authentication is in place.

We’re also seeing attackers abuse IoT protocols in novel ways: for example, OT-focused attacks rose sharply by abusing protocols like Modbus, BACnet, and EtherNet/IP (common in industrial IoT). In 2025, attacks using OT protocols jumped 84% – Modbus alone saw a 57% spike – as attackers recognize that many IoT/industrial devices implicitly trust traffic on these protocols, making them attractive for sabotage or espionage.

Supply chain compromises form a more complex attack vector that emerged recently. Instead of hacking a device in the field, adversaries infect it before it even ships. The BadBox 2.0 example (where malware came pre-installed on devices) is one instance. Another is the discovery of backdoors planted in the firmware of IoT devices by sophisticated actors. These supply chain attacks are harder to pull off but can be devastating – they effectively turn the manufacturer’s distribution of IoT devices into a delivery mechanism for malware. The concern for 2026 and beyond is that, as major governments push Secure-by-Design requirements, some attackers may respond by inserting themselves into the supply chain to maintain access. We saw hints of this in 2024–25, with supply chain disruptions in Asia affecting camera and router supply.

To summarize, IoT attackers usually go after the “low-hanging fruit“ first – try the default password, exploit an old bug, or abuse an insecure service. These simple vectors account for the majority of incidents. It’s a stark reminder that basic cyber hygiene (strong credentials, timely patching, encryption) would thwart a huge chunk of IoT attacks. Until that hygiene is universal, however, the IoT threat landscape will continue to be dominated by botnets and mass-exploit campaigns that capitalize on these well-known weaknesses.

Geographic Spread and Industry Impact

IoT hacking is a global phenomenon – there’s virtually no corner of the connected world that hasn’t been touched. One major trend in 2025 was the widening geographic spread of attacks. Forescout’s threat analysts tracked malicious activity in 214 different countries and territories over the year. Attack infrastructure is also more distributed; threat actors have begun hosting their tools on cloud servers and machines worldwide.

In fact, the top 10 source countries accounted for only 61% of attacks in 2025, down from 83% in 2024. In short, IoT attacks are coming from everywhere: a compromised security camera in one country can be attacking a hospital in another, while the command-and-control server directing it might be in a third country. This global dispersion makes attribution and defense much harder.

That said, some regions stand out as primary targets and sources. The United States remains the epicenter of IoT cyber targets – more than half of IoT attack traffic (54%) was directed at U.S. IPs in recent data. This is likely due to the high number of devices and high-value infrastructure in the U.S. Similarly, Europe and developed Asia see heavy targeting. Hong Kong (15%) and Germany (6–7%) were the second- and third-most-targeted locales for IoT malware traffic in the Zscaler study.

On the flip side, many botnet command servers and threat actors are based in countries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea – often cited as leading origin points for state-sponsored or criminal campaigns. Interestingly, telemetry from Nozomi in early 2025 showed a shift in botnet device origins: the U.S. actually overtook China as the top country hosting compromised IoT bots (the first time China wasn’t #1 since 2022). This could indicate that large numbers of American IoT devices (from smart thermostats to dash cams) have been ensnared in global botnets, underscoring that no nation is immune from being both a victim and a perpetrator in IoT cyberattacks.

When it comes to industries and sectors, the IoT attack trends map closely to where connected devices are most prevalent and where the potential damage is greatest:

Manufacturing

Continues to be a prime target. Factories are full of IoT and OT devices (sensors, robotic controllers, etc.) that, if disrupted, can halt production lines. Zscaler found Manufacturing accounted for 20%+ of IoT malware incidents in their dataset. In 2025, Manufacturing even saw specific ransomware campaigns that forced major plants offline. The motivation is clear: manufacturing downtime can cost millions per day, so attackers bet on higher ransom payouts. Manufacturing’s share of IoT attacks was huge in 2024 (over one-third of incidents), and while in 2025 that share was more distributed, the absolute number of attacks in Manufacturing still grew. Notably, researchers call manufacturing “uniquely vulnerable“ because its IoT devices often bridge to OT systems – meaning a hack can jump straight into physical equipment.

Energy & Utilities

The energy sector saw an astonishing 459% increase in observed IoT-based attacks from mid-2024 to mid-2025. Electric grids, oil & gas infrastructure, and water utilities have rapidly added IoT for remote monitoring and control (think smart meters, pipeline sensors, etc.), and adversaries have taken notice. Many of these attacks are malware probing for known weaknesses, but the risk is very real: an IoT breach in energy can cause power outages or safety incidents. Authorities worldwide have raised alarms over threats to energy IoT. For instance, late 2025 and early 2026 saw reports of probable nation-state actors targeting utility network gear (routers, VPN appliances) to disrupt power systems potentially. Energy companies are now racing to segment and harden these systems.

Healthcare

Hospitals and healthcare providers have embraced connected devices (IoMT) for patient care, and attackers are unfortunately capitalizing on it. From ransomware locking up internet-linked diagnostic machines to hacks of cloud-connected medical records systems, healthcare has been under siege. One striking stat: healthcare institutions face the highest breach costs, with IoT-related healthcare breaches averaging ~$10M each. We’ve seen ransomware attacks on hospital IoT devices (such as radiology equipment) that forced patient diversions, illustrating how IoT hacks can directly impact life-or-death situations.

Education

Schools have become a major target in the context of IoT. IoT malware activity targeting schools shot up 861% year-over-year – the biggest jump of any sector Zscaler observed. Why schools? Classrooms and campuses are deploying smart boards, IoT environmental sensors, and lots of student devices, often without robust security budgets. Attackers are taking advantage of these sprawling, loosely secured networks. Everything from DDoS (students or outsiders knocking schools offline) to more serious breaches of campus security systems has occurred. With limited cybersecurity staff, educational institutions are a soft target for IoT botnets.

Government & Smart Cities

Government agencies and city infrastructures (traffic lights, CCTV cameras, public WiFi, etc.) also saw big jumps – IoT malware in government was up ~370%, and in construction (related to smart city projects) up 410%. These increases hint at attackers testing the waters on critical public systems. There was at least one instance in 2025 of a city’s IoT traffic cameras being hacked (Mirai malware) to run cryptomining software – a comparatively benign outcome. Still, it underscored the vulnerability of civic IoT deployments. Governments are now some of the loudest voices pushing for improved IoT security standards, precisely because these threats cross from cyberspace into the physical realm (e.g., a hacked smart traffic system could snarl a city or compromise emergency services).

Overall, 2026 finds virtually every industry that relies on IoT facing elevated risk. From factories to city halls to hospitals, the “attack surface“ has expanded with each new connected device brought online. The trends from 2025 show that attackers don’t discriminate – if an industry has critical operations and significant IoT adoption, it’s on their target list. The geographic data likewise shows that, while certain nations are targeted more (e.g., the U.S., allies, etc.), no region is truly safe. International cooperation is becoming crucial, as attacks often traverse borders (for example, an IoT botnet in Asia might be used to attack North American hospitals).

Notable Incidents and Case Studies (Late 2025 – 2026)

Real-world incidents in the past few months illustrate the above trends in vivid detail. Here are a few notable IoT hacking cases from late 2025 and early 2026 that highlight emerging risks:

Kimwolf Android Botnet (2025–26)

In January 2026, researchers revealed a massive Android-based IoT botnet dubbed “Kimwolf“ that had infected over 2 million devices. Kimwolf spreads via exposed Android Debug Bridge (ADB) interfaces and abuses residential proxy networks, primarily compromising Android smart TVs, TV boxes, and phones. Disturbingly, Kimwolf is linked to a series of record-setting DDoS attacks in late 2025 – evidence suggests it was the engine behind some of the massive traffic floods, such as the 29 Tbps attack mentioned earlier.

The botnet’s operators have been monetizing it in multiple ways: installing unwanted apps for pay, selling the proxy bandwidth of the infected devices, and renting out its DDoS-for-hire capabilities. The Kimwolf case is a wake-up call that mobile and IoT worlds are colliding: an Android TV box is both a consumer media device and, if hacked, a potent cyber weapon. It also underscores the risk of devices with open developer/debug ports – a common issue in IoT gadgets that ship with settings meant for factory debugging but left enabled in the field.

DKnife Router Malware Framework (2026)

In February 2026, Cisco Talos researchers exposed a sophisticated malicious toolkit, DKnife, targeting routers and gateway devices. Operated by a China-linked group, DKnife is essentially an Adversary-in-the-Middle (AiTM) framework: it consists of implants that, once on a router, can inspect and manipulate network traffic on the fly. This means the attackers can inject themselves into any unencrypted communications passing through the router. DKnife has been used to hijack software downloads and updates, inserting backdoors (like the ShadowPad malware) into legitimate installations.

Its focus appears to be on Chinese-speaking users and apps (with phishing pages for Chinese email services and modules targeting WeChat, etc.), indicating an espionage motive. The discovery of DKnife is significant because it shows how state-sponsored actors are weaponizing IoT routers as strategic footholds – by controlling an edge device, they can potentially surveil an entire network segment. It’s essentially an IoT man-in-the-middle attack at scale. This case dovetails with broader reports (such as Salt Typhoon in telecoms) that advanced attackers are moving “down the stack“ into routers, switches, and other infrastructure IoT devices, which often don’t receive the same security scrutiny as servers or laptops.

Legacy Device Exploit – TOTOLINK Vulnerability (2026)

A more traditional incident came in January 2026 when CERT researchers disclosed an unpatched firmware flaw in a popular IoT range extender (TOTOLINK EX200). This vulnerability could allow a remote attacker with minimal access to trigger an unauthenticated root telnet service, effectively granting full control of the device. While it required the attacker to be already authenticated to the web interface (so it’s not a zero-click attack), it’s a prime example of the kind of latent bug that lurks in many older IoT products.

The manufacturer hadn’t released a patch by the time of the advisory, meaning thousands of these devices in the wild remain open to takeover. An attacker could incorporate this exploit into a botnet scanner to quickly grow their botnet. This incident emphasizes the ongoing issue of “forever-day“ vulnerabilities in IoT – cases where no fix is coming, either because the vendor is defunct or uninterested. It’s exactly these scenarios that led CISA to push for the removal of unsupported devices in federal networks. One can imagine 2026 will bring more such disclosures as researchers audit legacy IoT gear.

Salt Typhoon Telecom Hack (2025)

While not an IoT device hack in the consumer sense, the Salt Typhoon operation (attributed to Chinese actors) deserves mention for its scale. Disclosed in late 2025, Salt Typhoon was a widespread compromise of telecommunications network equipment – essentially the routers and switches that carry cellular and internet traffic. It reportedly affected over 200 organizations and telecom carriers across 80 countries, potentially allowing attackers to intercept phone calls and track mobile devices. U.S. officials called it one of the worst telecom hacks in history, and in early 2026, it became a political issue, with Senate hearings pressing carriers on their responses. Salt Typhoon illustrates how IoT/edge device hacks can have geopolitical ramifications. By exploiting systemic weaknesses in network hardware (often IoT-like appliances), state hackers created a surveillance grid. It’s a reminder that IoT security isn’t just about gadgets – it’s national security. The fallout in 2026 is likely to include stricter requirements on telecom equipment security and more intense threat hunting in critical networks.

Each of these cases – from massive botnets to stealthy router implants – highlights different facets of the IoT threat landscape in 2026. They show that attackers are innovating: some go for sheer scale (millions of devices enslaved), others for strategic position (own the router, own the network). Unfortunately, defenders often play catch-up after such incidents come to light.

Looking Ahead: Emerging Risks and Defenses

As we move deeper into 2026, the trends point to IoT security becoming even more central to cybersecurity strategy. The attack surface is expanding with every newly connected thermostat, smart car, or factory robot. By 2030, projections suggest there could be 40+ billion IoT devices online (up from ~18 billion in 2025) – an astonishing growth that will undoubtedly attract cybercriminals seeking easy targets.

A few emerging risks and themes to watch in 2026:

AI and Automation in Attacks

Just as defenders employ AI for anomaly detection, attackers are using AI to improve their IoT exploits. We might see malware that can dynamically adapt to different device architectures, or automated attack scripts that leverage AI to find new vulnerabilities faster. The scale of IoT means automation is the only way to attack or defend – so this is an arms race.

Convergence of IT and OT attacks

Many organizations learned in 2025 that IoT/OT breaches can be far more damaging than IT breaches. Disrupting a production line or pipeline can have immediate financial and safety impacts. Ransomware groups know this and will likely continue to target industrial IoT for extortion, as well as critical infrastructure (energy, water, transportation). Unfortunately, if trends continue, we may see an incident in 2026 in which an IoT hack impacts a major city’s infrastructure. This raises the importance of segmenting networks – keeping the IoT/OT side isolated – and having robust incident response plans that account for cyber-physical scenarios.

Regulatory and Security Baselines

On the positive side, 2026 is also a year when governments and industry bodies are rolling out new IoT security regulations and standards. The EU’s NIS2 directive and the Cyber Resilience Act, for instance, impose stricter requirements on the security of connected devices and on vendor accountability. In the U.S., a national IoT security labeling program is expected to launch, rating consumer IoT products on their security (similar to an “Energy Star“ label, but for cyber). These efforts aim to tackle the root cause of many issues: the misalignment between economic incentives and security in IoT manufacturing. By forcing better baseline security (unique device passwords, support for patching, etc.), regulators hope to reduce the flood of easily hackable devices entering the market. 2026 may be a turning point in this “insecurity by design“ crisis, if these policies gain traction.

Zero Trust & Network Segmentation

Given that completely securing every IoT endpoint is unrealistic (especially legacy ones), many organizations are embracing a Zero Trust approach for IoT. That means assuming any device could be compromised and limiting what it can do. Techniques include network segmentation (isolating IoT devices on separate VLANs or networks), strict access controls, continuous monitoring of IoT device behavior, and micro-segmentation at the device or application level. If an IP camera gets hacked, for example, Zero Trust principles would limit it from reaching other sensitive systems or using credentials to move laterally. In 2026, expect to see more solutions marketed for IoT segmentation and monitoring, as well as increased adoption of agentless security tools that can watch IoT devices without installing software on them (since you often can’t install AV on a thermostat or printer). Even Zscaler’s reports explicitly advise to “monitor East-West traffic and contain threats“ to stop lateral movement in 2026, and to deploy “deeper visibility and proactive controls“ for IoT/OT networks.

How Long Do Hackers Stay Inside IoT Networks?

One of the biggest blind spots in IoT security discussions isn’t how often attacks happen;  it’s how long attackers stay hidden after they get in.

While traditional IT breaches are often detected within days or weeks, IoT compromises often persist for months. In many real-world incidents, organizations only discover the breach after attackers have already moved laterally, deployed malware elsewhere, or triggered a visible disruption.

This gap between compromise and detection,  known as attack dwell time,  is quietly becoming one of the most dangerous aspects of IoT hacking in 2026.

Why IoT Attacks Stay Undetected for So Long

IoT environments are uniquely suited to long-term attacker persistence. Unlike laptops or servers, most IoT devices are:

• Headless – no screens, no alerts, no user interaction
• Log-poor or log-free – little to no forensic visibility
• Rarely monitored continuously – often “set and forget“ devices
• Designed for uptime, not inspection – reboots and scans are avoided

Once compromised, an IoT device can operate maliciously without disrupting its primary function, so nothing appears “broken“ from the outside. A smart camera can keep streaming video. A factory sensor can keep reporting data. Meanwhile, the attacker quietly uses the device as a foothold.

This is fundamentally different from IT endpoints, where malware often causes noticeable performance issues, alerts, or user complaints.

IoT vs IT: A Growing Detection Gap

Industry data shows a clear divide in detection speed:

• IT endpoints: Often detected within days or weeks due to EDR, SIEM alerts, or user reports
• Cloud workloads: Increasingly monitored in near real time
• IoT devices: Frequently detected months after initial compromise

In multiple 2025–2026 investigations, security teams only discovered compromised IoT devices after:

• A ransomware event elsewhere on the network
• A DDoS attack traced back to internal devices
• Anomalous outbound traffic flagged by an ISP or third party

In other words, IoT breaches are rarely the first alarm;  they’re the silent enabler.

Dwell Time = Bigger Blast Radius

The longer an attacker remains undetected, the more damage they can do. Extended IoT dwell time allows adversaries to:

• Map internal networks quietly
• Steal credentials passing through compromised routers or gateways
• Move laterally into IT and OT systems
• Establish persistence across multiple devices
• Use IoT endpoints as long-term command-and-control nodes

This is why many large-scale incidents initially blamed on “IT failures“ later turn out to have started with IoT. A single compromised router, camera, or gateway can become the launchpad for a full enterprise breach.

In manufacturing and healthcare environments, this delayed detection can be especially dangerous. An attacker sitting undetected within industrial IoT networks can observe operations for weeks, learning exactly when and where disruption will have the greatest impact.

Real-World Pattern: IoT First, Damage Later

A recurring pattern has emerged in recent investigations:

1. An IoT device was compromised via default credentials or unpatched firmware
2. Device operates normally, raising no alarms
3. Attacker monitors traffic and harvests credentials
4. Lateral movement into IT or OT systems
5. Only the final stage triggers detection (ransomware, outage, DDoS)

By the time security teams respond, the attacker has already had weeks or months of free access.

This is why IoT dwell time isn’t just a metric;  it’s a risk multiplier.

Why This Problem Is Getting Worse in 2026

Several trends are extending IoT dwell time even further:

• Exploding device counts overwhelm security teams
• Legacy IoT devices that cannot be patched remain online
• Encrypted traffic hides malicious behavior inside “normal“ flows
• Tooling gaps,  most security stacks still prioritize IT endpoints

As IoT adoption accelerates across factories, hospitals, cities, and campuses, attackers are increasingly betting on one assumption:

No one is watching closely enough.

IoT hacking isn’t just about how many attacks occur; it’s about how long attackers can live unnoticed inside your environment.

In 2026, the most damaging IoT breaches aren’t fast, loud, or obvious. They’re quiet, patient, and persistent, exploiting the fact that many organizations still lack deep visibility into their connected devices.

Reducing IoT dwell time through better visibility, behavioral monitoring, and network segmentation may be one of the most effective ways to limit the real-world impact of IoT attacks.

And for many organizations, that realization comes only after the damage is already done.

How Mature Is Your IoT Security Program?

Unlike traditional IT, IoT security maturity varies wildly. Two companies in the same industry can have completely different risk profiles depending on the level of visibility and control they have over their connected devices. To help close that gap, it’s useful to think about IoT security in clear maturity levels.

Below is a practical IoT Security Maturity Model you can use to self-assess where you stand in 2026,  and where attackers are most likely to exploit you.

Level 0: No Visibility (High Risk)

At this level, organizations don’t know what IoT devices they have.

Common signs:

• No centralized inventory of IoT devices
• Devices added by facilities, vendors, or third parties without IT awareness
• No distinction between IoT, IT, and OT assets
• Security teams discover devices only after an incident

This is where many environments unknowingly operate. Shadow IoT thrives here, and attackers benefit from the fact that you can’t protect what you can’t see.

Attacker advantage:

IoT devices are compromised and used as long-term footholds with little chance of detection.

Level 1: Basic Inventory (Limited Control)

Organizations at this stage have taken the first step: they know most of their IoT devices exist.

Typical capabilities:

• Asset discovery tools or manual inventories
• Device classification (camera, sensor, router, medical device, etc.)
• Basic ownership or location tracking

However, visibility alone doesn’t equal security. Many teams stop here, assuming inventory is enough;  it isn’t.

Limitations:

• Little insight into device behavior
• No real-time threat detection
• No understanding of which devices are risky

Attacker advantage:

Devices are visible, but compromises still go unnoticed for long periods.

Level 2: Network Segmentation (Reduced Blast Radius)

At this level, organizations begin to contain risk, not just observe it.

Key improvements:

• IoT devices are isolated from core IT systems
• VLANs or micro-segmentation applied to device groups
• Restricted east–west and north–south traffic
• Least-privilege network access enforced

Segmentation dramatically reduces the distance an attacker can travel after compromising an IoT device. Even if a device is breached, the blast radius is limited.

Why this matters:

Most real-world IoT incidents escalate because attackers move laterally from IoT into IT or OT systems.

Attacker challenge:

Compromise is still possible, but lateral movement becomes harder and noisier.

Level 3: Behavioral Monitoring (Early Detection)

This is where IoT security becomes proactive.

Organizations at this level monitor how devices behave, not just where they sit on the network.

Capabilities include:

• Baseline “normal“ device behavior
• Detection of unusual traffic patterns or protocol misuse
• Alerts for unexpected destinations or data flows
• Identification of compromised devices before damage occurs

Because IoT devices are highly predictable, behavioral anomalies are strong indicators of compromise. This dramatically reduces attack dwell time.

Security benefit:

Threats are detected early,  often before attackers can move laterally or deploy ransomware.

Level 4: Zero Trust IoT (Adaptive & Resilient)

The most mature environments treat IoT devices as untrusted by default.

Zero Trust IoT principles include:

• Continuous verification of device identity and behavior
• Dynamic access policies based on risk
• Automated isolation or remediation of suspicious devices
• Tight integration with SOC, SIEM, and response workflows

At this stage, IoT security isn’t a bolt-on;  it’s built into the organization’s broader Zero Trust strategy.

Attacker reality:

Even successful compromises are short-lived, isolated, and costly to exploit.

Why This Maturity Gap Matters in 2026

Most organizations today fall somewhere between Level 0 and Level 2, while attackers are operating as if targets are at Level 3 or higher.

This mismatch creates:

• Long IoT attack dwell times
• Higher ransomware success rates
• Greater regulatory and insurance risk
• Unexpected operational disruptions

The question isn’t whether your IoT environment will be targeted;  it’s whether you’ll detect and contain the attack in time.

IoT security maturity isn’t about buying tools; it’s about progressively reducing the attacker’s advantage.

If you don’t know where you are on this scale, attackers already do.

Understanding your maturity level is the first step toward moving from blind exposure to resilient, controlled IoT environments,  and in 2026, that difference is what separates minor incidents from major breaches.

The Real Cost of an IoT Hack in 2026

When IoT breaches make headlines, the story usually focuses on ransom demands or the volume of attacks. But ransom is often just the smallest, most visible line item.

In reality, the true cost of an IoT breach extends far beyond the payment itself,  and in 2026, those secondary and tertiary costs are what hurt organizations the most.

For decision-makers, understanding these hidden costs is critical because they directly affect operations, compliance, insurance, and brand survival.

1. Physical Downtime: When Cyber Attacks Stop the Real World

Unlike traditional IT incidents, IoT breaches often translate into physical disruption.

Examples include:

• Manufacturing lines halted due to compromised controllers or sensors
• Hospital procedures are delayed when connected medical devices are taken offline
• Utilities are throttling services to prevent wider system damage

In industrial environments, downtime costs can range from tens of thousands to millions of dollars per hour, depending on the sector. Even brief shutdowns ripple across supply chains, contractual obligations, and safety operations.

What makes IoT downtime especially costly is that:

• Devices can’t always be quickly reimaged or rebooted
• Safety validation is required before restarting systems
• Manual operations are often slower or impossible

For many organizations, downtime,  not ransom,  becomes the dominant cost of an IoT breach.

2. Regulatory Fines and Legal Exposure

As governments tighten regulations around connected devices, IoT breaches increasingly trigger compliance consequences.

Key risk areas include:

• NIS2 violations for critical infrastructure and essential services
• GDPR penalties when IoT devices expose personal or location data
• HIPAA violations involving connected medical devices
• Industry-specific safety and reporting mandates

In 2026, regulators are far less tolerant of “unknown device“ arguments. Failing to secure IoT assets can now be interpreted as negligence, especially when basic controls (inventory, segmentation, monitoring) are absent.

Legal costs add another layer:

• Class-action lawsuits
• Contractual breach claims
• Regulatory investigations that span months or years

For many organizations, the compliance fallout outlasts the attack itself.

3. Cyber Insurance: The Cost That Keeps Rising

IoT breaches don’t just affect current claims; they also affect future insurability.

After an IoT-related incident, organizations often face:

• Higher premiums
• Reduced coverage limits
• Mandatory security controls to renew policies
• Exclusions for OT or IoT environments

Insurers are increasingly asking pointed questions about:

• IoT device visibility
• Network segmentation
• Monitoring and incident response capabilities

Organizations that can’t demonstrate mature IoT security controls may find coverage more expensive or unavailable,  a long-term financial impact that rarely appears in breach statistics.

4. Device Replacement and Recovery Costs

Unlike laptops or servers, many IoT devices:

• Cannot be easily wiped or reimaged
• Require physical access to replace
• They are embedded in walls, machinery, or infrastructure

Following a breach, organizations may be forced to:

• Replace a large number of compromised devices
• Upgrade unsupported or end-of-life hardware
• Accelerate capital expenditures that weren’t budgeted

In large environments, such as factories, hospitals, campuses, and smart cities, these replacement efforts can cost millions of dollars and take months to complete.

5. Lost Trust and Brand Damage

Perhaps the hardest cost to measure,  and the easiest to underestimate,  is loss of trust.

IoT breaches can:

• Undermine customer confidence in connected products
• Damage partnerships and vendor relationships
• Raise safety concerns among employees and the public
• Trigger long-term reputational harm

When breaches affect physical safety, healthcare, or critical services, reputational recovery is slow. In many cases, organizations face increased scrutiny for years after implementing security improvements.

For consumer-facing brands, a single IoT incident can permanently change how customers perceive the product.

Why These Costs Are Often Ignored

Many reports skip these categories because:

• They’re harder to quantify than ransom demands
• Impacts vary widely by industry
• Data is often buried in post-incident reports

But for executives and security leaders, these hidden costs are often the real business case for investing in IoT security.

In 2026, the cost of an IoT breach is no longer defined by how much attackers demand;  it’s defined by how deeply the attack disrupts operations, compliance, and trust.

Organizations that focus only on ransom prevention miss the bigger picture. The real financial risk lies in:

• Prolonged downtime
• Regulatory consequences
• Insurance fallout
• Infrastructure replacement
• Long-term reputational damage

Understanding these costs reframes IoT security from a technical concern into a core business risk,  one that leadership can no longer afford to treat as invisible.

Conclusion 

The global statistics on IoT hacking tell a clear story: threats are growing in volume, evolving in technique, and spreading worldwide. The year 2025 saw unprecedented attacks, and 2026 is poised to continue that trajectory – unless defenders and device makers significantly up their game. The most targeted devices (routers, cameras, etc.) and industries (critical infrastructure, Manufacturing, healthcare) coincide with where we as a society are most vulnerable to disruption. It’s no wonder IoT security has become a boardroom-level concern, tied directly to business continuity and even public safety.

The takeaway for professionals and organizations is this: IoT is not “someone else’s problem.“ Every enterprise likely has tens, if not thousands, of IoT devices in or around its network – and attacks will come, whether through a default password exploit or a sophisticated supply-chain backdoor. Knowing the trends – like the 820k daily attacks, or the fact that 3 out of 4 attacks will hit your routers – can help prioritize defenses. By focusing on basics (strong credentials, patch management, network hygiene) and investing in IoT-specific security measures, we can start to bend the curve of these statistics in a safer direction. The challenge is enormous, but as 2026 unfolds, so does our collective resolve to secure the connected world.