4 ms·

Air-gapped systems far outnumber bug-free ones, so isn't that goal, by your own logic, even more pointless?

• tptacek 7y ago
  No?
  • deogeo 7y ago
    Let me put it this way - how would you achieve non-exploitable systems? Not just 'move towards them', but actually reach that goal? Because from what I can tell, it would require formal proof that the connected parts are safe (logic bugs can also be exploited, so just using a safe language is insufficient). If you can't get manufacturers to do the cheap, easy air-gapping, how will you get them to do the very expensive and time-consuming formal verification, that only a tiny, tiny fraction of developers is proficient in? Intractable doesn't even begin to describe it!
    • tptacek 7y ago
      There is nothing we're going to do that will immediately result in non-exploitable systems, and, as with all sorts of other kinds of risks, we're going to have to mitigate rather than eliminate this risk. Nobody is going to air-gap anything and I think there is ample evidence over the last 20 years that the trend goes in the opposite direction. Given the reality of the world we actually live in, productive conversations about securing embedded and IoT systems can't involve air gaps. Slightly later Here's another, simpler way to say the same thing: you might just as productively argue that these products shouldn't be built at all.