4 ms·
No, that still fits with my experience. In the safety-critical realm anything that casts doubt on your claims of robustness, reliability, or safety such as a TC
by jschwartzi 7y ago
No, that still fits with my experience. In the safety-critical realm anything that casts doubt on your claims of robustness, reliability, or safety such as a TCP/IP stack vulnerability opens you up to a lawsuit.
What will happen is you'll purchase a certificate for the RTOS kernel plus a few critical components. Then you can choose to use any other off-the-shelf components that the vendor or third parties provide. Those parts don't have to be safety-critical, but if a defect is found in uncertified software it's not VxWorks's problem.
VxWorks is very clearly and concisely stating that the safety-critical certified components are not affected. But they're not going to make statements about the systems their safety-critical clients built. That's not their responsibility. And Armis is almost certainly reprinting a statement from VxWorks. Both Armis and VxWorks are leaving it up to each VxWorks customer to determine whether their particular configuration of Safety-Critical VxWorks uses a vulnerable stack as an add-on.
- jaclaz 7y agoWell, that Armis labs is reprinting a statement from VxWorks is a possibility, but the statement is on Armis page, and sounds like they themselves wrote it, since it is an announcement on discovered (by Armis) vulnerabilities, there are as I see it two possibilities: 1) Armis tested those certified environments and couldn't replicate the bugs 2) Armis did not test those certified environments and reprinted the VxWorks statement If #2 they should have written instead "we could not test the vulnerabilities on the "certified" versions but we believe in VxWorks' assurance that they are not vulnerable (because ... )"