3 ms·

> One such option would be a device powered by our Kaspersky OS, which we are developing for car manufacturers. Thanks to our microkernel operating system, such

> One such option would be a device powered by our Kaspersky OS, which we are developing for car manufacturers. Thanks to our microkernel operating system, such protection can control all interactions between the hardware components inside an information system and prevent any deviations caused by internal errors or unauthorized access attempts. You can learn more about our operating system and its capabilities on the Kaspersky OS Web page. I get that the whole blog post is an advertisement, but infotainment systems should be physically isolated from control systems. Furthermore, just using a microkernel doesn't actually provide any guarantees. It's a sound architecture choice, but that's all. There are advanced control techniques that prevent replay, sensor spoofing, and other attacks specifically for control systems. But it doesn't look like this particular product implements those. Correctly using a security-oriented microkernel only mitigates certain (really stupid) classes of attacks. These sorts of application domains deserve serious, in-house engineering effort aimed at very well understood risk/attacker models that are specific to the particular control problem. Control systems need traditional pentesting/security types so that you're not broadcasting root credentials in plain text (...jesus). But a hardened system also needs input from controls/sensing people who understand security problems associated with particular application domains.

amluto 9y ago
True for more reasons than software. The critical control systems (anything that can screw up the driver’s control of the car) should probably run on a CPU that is hardened against single event upsets and similar faults. No amount of microkernel magic can replace that.
avs733 9y ago
>I get that the whole blog post is an advertisement, but infotainment systems should be physically isolated from control systems. But that costs money. It also would be a harder boundary to draw than you might think.
- fyfy18 9y ago
  > It also would be a harder boundary to draw than you might think As an example my 2010 Toyota has an automatic parking system[0], which connects the backup camera, infotainment system (for display and input), steering control and parking sensors. [0] Which to be honest is basically pointless. It works, but takes a lot longer to setup and use than just parking yourself.
  - avs733 9y ago
    exactly. or remote start, remote diagnostics, tire pressure monitoring systems, maintenance reminders, electronically controlled suspensions, many traction control systems, etc. Not arguing those features should/need to exist but they are heavily dependent on UI/control system data exchange.
- wkearney99 9y ago
  You clearly haven't owned a boat to understand what "costs money" means. An expense that would have your average automobile owner up in arms about would be pocket change for even the smallest of boat system systems. And for the majority of boats out there this is a total non-issue as they're not even going to come close to having any of this integrated in any usefully hackable way. So unless you're talking about the 80'+ class of boats or megayachts things are still based on circa 1990's tech, at best. Even the big boats don't integrate all that much.

amluto 9y ago

True for more reasons than software. The critical control systems (anything that can screw up the driver’s control of the car) should probably run on a CPU that is hardened against single event upsets and similar faults. No amount of microkernel magic can replace that.

avs733 9y ago

>I get that the whole blog post is an advertisement, but infotainment systems should be physically isolated from control systems. But that costs money. It also would be a harder boundary to draw than you might think.

fyfy18 9y ago
> It also would be a harder boundary to draw than you might think As an example my 2010 Toyota has an automatic parking system[0], which connects the backup camera, infotainment system (for display and input), steering control and parking sensors. [0] Which to be honest is basically pointless. It works, but takes a lot longer to setup and use than just parking yourself.
- avs733 9y ago
  exactly. or remote start, remote diagnostics, tire pressure monitoring systems, maintenance reminders, electronically controlled suspensions, many traction control systems, etc. Not arguing those features should/need to exist but they are heavily dependent on UI/control system data exchange.
wkearney99 9y ago
You clearly haven't owned a boat to understand what "costs money" means. An expense that would have your average automobile owner up in arms about would be pocket change for even the smallest of boat system systems. And for the majority of boats out there this is a total non-issue as they're not even going to come close to having any of this integrated in any usefully hackable way. So unless you're talking about the 80'+ class of boats or megayachts things are still based on circa 1990's tech, at best. Even the big boats don't integrate all that much.