4 ms·
My experience of redundant embedded controller systems is that whilst they may not be WindowsTM software, they are usually based on an RTOS such as vxWorks, QNX
by laythea 8y ago
My experience of redundant embedded controller systems is that whilst they may not be WindowsTM software, they are usually based on an RTOS such as vxWorks, QNX etc.
I don't suppose they are any harder to "hack" than Windows. In fact, it is possible that they may be easier depending on the security mentality of the manufacturer, and given the number of eyeballs on WindowsTM.
I can only imagine this will get worse as these controllers become more and more sophisticated.
The only way, in my opinion, to safeguard against this, is have a fully disconnected system, with no USB access. However USB is easy.
- tetha 8y ago> I can only imagine this will get worse as these controllers become more and more sophisticated. That is exactly the thing though. If you could reduce a digital control unit to a small program and run that on a write-once memory in a dead simple controller, you'd avoid spectre, meltdown, you'd avoid the vulnerability of overwriting the program post-deployment and you'd simplify ensuring correctness of the control program. Verification might actually be possible there.
- laythea 8y agoHi, yes but they wont do that. Normally, there is no write once memory. Most eg. oil rig control systems are not hammered down to that level. Heck - most aviation flight control systems are not like that. In fact, I was, in my early career responsible for writing a windows C# communications driver for the entire oil rig. Its still working :)