4 ms·

Of possible interest -- There was a homeland episode [1], where they used a hack on a pacemaker to assassinate someone. This caused lots of discussion around me

Of possible interest -- There was a homeland episode [1], where they used a hack on a pacemaker to assassinate someone. This caused lots of discussion around medical device security [2] [3] [4] [5]. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hogan/homeland-recap-season-2-episode-10-broken-hearts_b_2229246.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hogan/homeland-recap-s... [2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/singularity/2012/12/06/yes-you-can-hack-a-pacemaker-and-other-medical-devices-too/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/singularity/2012/12/06/yes-you-c... [3] http://www.cnbc.com/id/100306578 http://www.cnbc.com/id/100306578 [4] http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Homeland-Pacemaker-Hack-2206357.S.192475623 http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Homeland-Pacemaker-Hack-22063... [5] http://blog.ioactive.com/2013/02/broken-hearts-how-plausible-was.html http://blog.ioactive.com/2013/02/broken-hearts-how-plausible...

diminoten 13y ago
There was also an episode of Sherlock [1] which used a hack against a pacemaker to assassinate someone. It's an interesting theory, but the way this article reads, it's almost as if the medical equipment are incidentally harmed. It reminds me somewhat of the Stuxnet virus, as it's a kind of hacking intended to cause physical harm. There's a term for it, but the term escapes me currently. [1] http://welovetvmore.com/reviews/elementary-season-1-episode-21-a-landmark-story-review/ http://welovetvmore.com/reviews/elementary-season-1-episode-...
shawn-furyan 13y ago
The Forbes article is a little more informative than the SciAm one (normally I'm a fan of Scientific American, but the writer of this article just did not seem to know the right questions to ask to give an indication of just what's going on here; also, that title, jeez...), but I am still having trouble here. Do pacemakers and internal insulin pumps run old versions of Windows without security updates, or are we talking about more customary systems within the hospital (computerized equipment is so incredibly vague a descriptor)?[1] If it's the former, than that just seems like such a bad idea. Even a stripped down Linux system with GNU tools seems incredibly bad. I know that generally security through obscurity is looked down upon, but gah, you don't want common viruses looking for new botnet nodes on the least common denominator systems to have any chance of running on your pacemaker. It's much better to at least engineer the system so that these devices have to be specifically targeted, rather than being susceptible to being caught up in the most common attacks. But surely this isn't what's going on right? Surely I'm just reading that quote in an overly paranoid way, right? Right? [1] "In hospitals around the country there has been a dangerous rise of malware infections in computerized equipment. Many of these systems are running very old versions of Windows that are susceptible to viruses from years ago. Some manufacturers will not allow their equipment to be modified, even with security updates, partially due to regulatory restrictions." http://www.forbes.com/sites/singularity/2012/12/06/yes-you-can-hack-a-pacemaker-and-other-medical-devices-too/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/singularity/2012/12/06/yes-you-c...

diminoten 13y ago

There was also an episode of Sherlock [1] which used a hack against a pacemaker to assassinate someone. It's an interesting theory, but the way this article reads, it's almost as if the medical equipment are incidentally harmed. It reminds me somewhat of the Stuxnet virus, as it's a kind of hacking intended to cause physical harm. There's a term for it, but the term escapes me currently. [1] http://welovetvmore.com/reviews/elementary-season-1-episode-21-a-landmark-story-review/ http://welovetvmore.com/reviews/elementary-season-1-episode-...

shawn-furyan 13y ago

The Forbes article is a little more informative than the SciAm one (normally I'm a fan of Scientific American, but the writer of this article just did not seem to know the right questions to ask to give an indication of just what's going on here; also, that title, jeez...), but I am still having trouble here. Do pacemakers and internal insulin pumps run old versions of Windows without security updates, or are we talking about more customary systems within the hospital (computerized equipment is so incredibly vague a descriptor)?[1] If it's the former, than that just seems like such a bad idea. Even a stripped down Linux system with GNU tools seems incredibly bad. I know that generally security through obscurity is looked down upon, but gah, you don't want common viruses looking for new botnet nodes on the least common denominator systems to have any chance of running on your pacemaker. It's much better to at least engineer the system so that these devices have to be specifically targeted, rather than being susceptible to being caught up in the most common attacks. But surely this isn't what's going on right? Surely I'm just reading that quote in an overly paranoid way, right? Right? [1] "In hospitals around the country there has been a dangerous rise of malware infections in computerized equipment. Many of these systems are running very old versions of Windows that are susceptible to viruses from years ago. Some manufacturers will not allow their equipment to be modified, even with security updates, partially due to regulatory restrictions." http://www.forbes.com/sites/singularity/2012/12/06/yes-you-can-hack-a-pacemaker-and-other-medical-devices-too/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/singularity/2012/12/06/yes-you-c...