5 ms·
Can “Internet-of-Body” Thwart Cyber Attacks on Implanted Medical Devices?
- _Schizotypy 8y agoI'm sorry for the useless comment but this is really fucking cool
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- lxe 8y agoAbility to read data emitted from device is a different sort of "hacking" than ability to write data to the device in a malicious way to gain access or force an error. I don't like that the article conflated "cyberattacks on devices and hospitals" with "reading unencrypted data".
- bsder 8y agoUnfortunately, "reading unencrypted data" repeatedly enough can turn into "burning the battery out" which is a denial-of-service attack.
- lxe 8y agoI don't think that's how most of these devices operate. I think these unencrypted simple RF signals don't require any bidirectional comms or client negotiation steps -- but simply broadcast the data. I could be very wrong, but that's just what I thought.
- bsder 8y agoIt depends on the device. St. Judes device was vulnerable: https://static2.businessinsider.com/r-st-jude-warns-of-heart-device-battery-issue-linked-to-two-deaths-2016-10?op=1 https://static2.businessinsider.com/r-st-jude-warns-of-heart...
- mises 8y agoCan we all just agree there are places in which computers do not belong? Or if they do, they ought to be minimized. Implanted devices, nuclear plants, etc.
- DoingIsLearning 8y agoPerhaps I am missing something but they claim that the solution is encrypting the RF signal but wouldn't this have an impact on device battery life? Assuming that patients need surgery everytime a battery is replaced this seems like they are hand-waving a major lifetime design implication.