3 ms·
Well first we should stop using code that was not intended or designed to be secure. If you are making a airplane you buy aerospace-grade screws. You do not go
by Veserv 3y ago
Well first we should stop using code that was not intended or designed to be secure. If you are making a airplane you buy aerospace-grade screws. You do not go down to Home Depot, get some screws out of a box and hope for the best.
Ask any of the software developers making these systems if they feel comfortable that people could die if their code has defects. Most would answer no. These systems should be rejected outright, to no fault of the developers who were probably not even told in what situations their code was going to be used.
Anybody answering yes, should have their code carefully scrutinized in much the same way we scrutinize other safety-critical systems such as the mechanical components of bridges, airplanes, medical devices and cars.
Any company using systems unfit for purpose must either demonstrate that their processes make their inputs fit for purpose or should face civil and/or criminal charges for willfully endangering the public.
- NoPicklez 3y agoI and most would completely agree with this. The challenge is that even despite these measures vulnerabilities will still be found and exploited. In the same way that critical safety systems are also found to have vulnerabilities. In my opinion what needs to be done and should be done, is looking at the network as a whole and thinking about how you can mitigate the impacts of potential vulnerabilities and designing the entire network with defence in depth. If it's a critical OT system that controls a power plant which could kill or injure someone, then it should realistically be completed air gapped as a first point of all.