Please people.... before you comment on this thread, please inform yourself on what safety critical software is really like.
There is a lot of uninformed discussion in here currently.
“I Want to Know What Code Is Running Inside My Body”
121–130 of 217 posts
Re: “I Want to Know What Code Is Running Inside My Body”
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This doesn't work for embedded devices. This is patently incorrect. Even the underpowered Z80-clone micros with 18kB RAM I was writing firmware for 15 years ago had trivially updated firmware; modern devices are even easier. The article even mentions that wireless firmware updates is a feature: Then she bought a pacemaker programmer online, and she and other hackers figured out that it could be used to update the c…
Even if embedded devices are updatable in principle, in practice how often do they receive security patches? Pointing to a feature list isn't a realistic evaluation of what actually happens. We live in a world where even phones don't get patched as frequently as they should; you expect end users to patch their pacemakers? Putting them online and allowing auto-patching would probably be worse since it also increases t…
> in practice how often do they receive security patches?
I have no idea what the current patch rate is for pacemakers, but they do happen. The use of radio was a feature specifically to allow updating and management of the pacemakers while avoiding the serious risks of surgery. The pacemakers would be patched when the patient shows up for their next checkup appointment, which is probably every 1-2 months. They already connect to the devices for regular diagnostic purposes at those times.
If the problem was severe enough, calls would be made to the patients to come in right away. Medical services already handle problems on a priority basis ("triage"). This already happens for other types of problems.
> 'responsible disclosure' ends up looking a lot like obscurity
That's a circular argument. You're implying that the manufacturer wouldn't want to fix their product, which is highly unlikely. The only reason they are resistant to the idea at present is because the source is closed. The entire point is that by opening up the source the community can work with the manufacturers to fix these problems.
You're arguing that because the current system currently doesn't patch bugs that often, we shouldn't allow more debugging. Pretending that either bugs don't exist or that malicious actors won't find them without the source code is dangerous. "Pride goes before the fall"; do you really want to bet - potentially with your life - that all malicious actors are too stupid to find security problems? Hint: many medical devices have already been hacked (without the source). Or do you want to let the community at least attempt to find the bugs first?
Re: “I Want to Know What Code Is Running Inside My Body”
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
contrary to popular opinion.... Obscurity is good practice as one layer of a layered defence system. See "Defence in Depth" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_in_depth_(computing) "Defense in depth is originally a military strategy that seeks to delay rather than prevent the advance of an attacker by yielding space to buy time". We have to acknowledge that no system is perfect, there will always be holes, therefor…
I think you're right that it can be used as a layer, but the reason we admonish against security-by-obscurity is that when you hide something, you often put less work into securing it properly. It's like when you leave a key for someone under a door mat. You don't often consider that the door might be easily kicked in by an intruder.
"you often put less work into securing it properly."
Thats the problem right there.... not obscurity.
Re: “I Want to Know What Code Is Running Inside My Body”
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
Y'know, back in the early 2000's and the days of Slashdot, it was quite common to find people who advocated for free software everywhere. Now we find people who like yourself have to specify that the radical position that all software should be free is something worthy of serious consideration. That they're not joking or trying to be deliberately provocative. What happened to us? Why did we go from boasting about ins…
The fear is then others can rip it . It's an interesting proposition.
Rip what? Linux is free software, there's nothing to "rip"...
Re: “I Want to Know What Code Is Running Inside My Body”
#125Obligatory talk on that topic from the 32C3:
"Unpatchable - Living with a vulnerable implanted device"
Re: “I Want to Know What Code Is Running Inside My Body”
#126Re: “I Want to Know What Code Is Running Inside My Body”
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
contrary to popular opinion.... Obscurity is good practice as one layer of a layered defence system. See "Defence in Depth" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_in_depth_(computing) "Defense in depth is originally a military strategy that seeks to delay rather than prevent the advance of an attacker by yielding space to buy time". We have to acknowledge that no system is perfect, there will always be holes, therefor…
True, but history has demonstrated countless times that closed source code doesn't provide near enough obscurity to deter hackers, and automated fuzzing tools make it even easier.
And as shown by OpenSSH being open source does not help much in the security department either.
Re: “I Want to Know What Code Is Running Inside My Body”
#128> “You’re pulling data from my cardiac device that I paid for, implanted inside my body, the most intimate piece of technology anyone can have, and yet I’m devoid of access to the device? That moved me to my core,” he says. “That’s just not right.”
I'm sure she must have signed a user license agreement of some kind upon buying the device. So she shouldn't have to complain.
Re: “I Want to Know What Code Is Running Inside My Body”
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
Theoretically yes, but the problem with obscurity is that it creates moral hazard by lowering visibility of all other measures that are or are not taken to protect the system. It's not unreasonable to decide that such extra layer of protection is not worth of making your decision makers subject to being able to cut corners as there is no feedback loop for them.
Its only a moral hazard if you don't trust the people who are certifying the system and therefore aren't subject to the obscurity. The trust question is the problem with obscurity. Do you trust the people making it obscure? In this particular case, where safety-critical standards are relatively well known (within the industry) and not themselves obscured, they deserve to be trusted.
As long as "independent certification" companies are selected in a competitive market and paid by the system makers, they can't remove moral hazard - only shift it around.
After all, if you're a system maker, why would you hire hardasses who have rejected your products in the past? And if you're a certification house, why would you $$$ on many hours from experienced engineers when you could use fewer hours and junior employees giving you happier customers and higher profit margins at the same time?
You can hire "independent" people to tell you what you want in a lot of industries. You want an "independent salary survey" to tell you that $50,000 is the market rate for an experienced programmer, but that your CEO needs a $5 million raise? Or an "independent credit rating agency" to tell you your subprime mortgage backed security is triple-A rated? The free market will happily provide such "independent" reports at the right price.
Re: “I Want to Know What Code Is Running Inside My Body”
#130Sounds like they could do with a law similar to the freedom of information ones for software of this type. Without that device manufacturers are not going to want to publish as competitors could copy it and some people may sue over perceived errors.