3 ms·

There's a software limit, selected by the user, in the microcontroller. There's a per-bolus limit, selected by the user, in the pump. There's a physical limit,

There's a software limit, selected by the user, in the microcontroller. There's a per-bolus limit, selected by the user, in the pump. There's a physical limit, in the amount of insulin that is loaded into the pump at a time (typically 2-5 days worth).

dekhn 8y ago
OK. Based on what you said, I see numerous situations in which a user could receive very large doses simply due to software errors. Have you had external auditors test your design from an adversarial point of view?
- exikyut 8y ago
  Well, the bloomberg article mentions that Medtronic has accepted this new uprising (which is great), but there's nothing mentioned about if the new relationship has meant the DIYers have a clear path to controlling pumps that doesn't rely on hacks. The chances are this is unlikely, for legal reasons: Medtronic creates regulated medical devices. I wonder whether it would be possible to add something along the lines of "push this (software/hardware) button to allow non-regulated 3rd-party hardware and software to begin controlling your medical device, but doing so will bind you to <insert waiver here>" and get such functionality to pass FDA approval. I somehow suspect not, although I would be very happy to hear otherwise. As things stand now, though, it sounds like (as the article suggests, with the picture of a "hacked pump") people are still relying on methods and techniques that it sounds like anyone can use. So yes, unfortunately everyone's in a situation where any adversary within Bluetooth range could probably take the device over, and (depending on the severity of the vulnerability being used) perhaps modify the pump itself to pump too much or too little regardless of inputs, or similar. Quite an uncomfortable situation from a security perspective. :/

3 ms·

There's a software limit, selected by the user, in the microcontroller. There's a per-bolus limit, selected by the user, in the pump. There's a physical limit,

by jimrandomh 8y ago

dekhn 8y ago
OK. Based on what you said, I see numerous situations in which a user could receive very large doses simply due to software errors. Have you had external auditors test your design from an adversarial point of view?
- exikyut 8y ago
  Well, the bloomberg article mentions that Medtronic has accepted this new uprising (which is great), but there's nothing mentioned about if the new relationship has meant the DIYers have a clear path to controlling pumps that doesn't rely on hacks. The chances are this is unlikely, for legal reasons: Medtronic creates regulated medical devices. I wonder whether it would be possible to add something along the lines of "push this (software/hardware) button to allow non-regulated 3rd-party hardware and software to begin controlling your medical device, but doing so will bind you to <insert waiver here>" and get such functionality to pass FDA approval. I somehow suspect not, although I would be very happy to hear otherwise. As things stand now, though, it sounds like (as the article suggests, with the picture of a "hacked pump") people are still relying on methods and techniques that it sounds like anyone can use. So yes, unfortunately everyone's in a situation where any adversary within Bluetooth range could probably take the device over, and (depending on the severity of the vulnerability being used) perhaps modify the pump itself to pump too much or too little regardless of inputs, or similar. Quite an uncomfortable situation from a security perspective. :/