A billion medical images are exposed online

Post by uponcoffee » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 2:25 PM UTC

eitland wrote: post #12

moviuro wrote: post #7

% curl -L 'https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/10/medical-images-exposed-pacs/' curl: (7) Failed to connect to guce.advertising.com port 443: Connection refused WTF? I have a lying DNS server, and it's getting ridiculous. Here's the outline for people who care about privacy/tracking/GDPR, etc. https://outline.com/Ep5u4K

For now I'd be happy if techcrunch was blocked so people had to submit other sources. I've not been able to find a way to read content on that domain for months now. Edit: PS: unlike many here I've little against ads as long as they aren't tracking me, but the "consent screen" on techcrunch is less "consent" and more "strongarm". PPS: as others are mentioning it seems the whole thing seems to be compliance theater si…

Post by basilgohar » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 2:31 PM UTC

gridlockd wrote: post #18

avidphantasm wrote: post #2

[flagged]

What exactly makes you think government institutions would do a better job here? I quote: "...one unprotected server at one of the largest military hospitals in the United States exposed the names of military personnel and medical images"

Post by blueboo » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 2:48 PM UTC

christophilus wrote: post #24

prostheticvamp wrote: post #16

An odd line from the article, wherein it states that security researchers don’t blame vendors, but the physicians and hospitals that fail to properly secure the software. I have never, in all my years of working in healthcare, seen a hospital or physicians office directly install and manage PACS. They pay a third-party - usually the vendor - to install, configure, and walk them through it. Maybe a behemoth system lik…

I completely agree. I have friends in the medical field, and they hate their computer systems. One of them spends almost as much time on data entry as he does with his patients. He has to double and sometimes triple enter data. He’s probably going to end up hiring someone to do that full time, which is so obviously a totally broken system.

Post by reaperducer » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 3:16 PM UTC

chiefalchemist wrote: post #26

Clickbait-y headline that they forget to mention hospitals as well. Yes doctors should be more responsive and responsible. But they're (only) doctors. Hospitals on the other have have staff dedicated to technology and such infrastructure. Dr X being unaware of the implications is understandable. Perhaps not forgivable but certainly no surprise. But hospitals? They have no excuse.

Post by trackofalljades » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 3:25 PM UTC

prostheticvamp wrote: post #16

An odd line from the article, wherein it states that security researchers don’t blame vendors, but the physicians and hospitals that fail to properly secure the software. I have never, in all my years of working in healthcare, seen a hospital or physicians office directly install and manage PACS. They pay a third-party - usually the vendor - to install, configure, and walk them through it. Maybe a behemoth system lik…