Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday February 20 2020, @01:24AM   Printer-friendly
from the security++ dept.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/02/medical-device-vulnerability-highlights-problem-of-third-party-code-in-iot-devices/

When your family opened up that brand-new computer when you were a kid, you didn't think of all of the third-party work that made typing in that first BASIC program possible. There once was a time when we didn't have to worry about which companies produced all the bits of licensed software or hardware that underpinned our computing experience. But recent malware attacks and other security events have shown just how much we need to care about the supply chain behind the technology we use every day.

The URGENT/11 vulnerability, the subject of a Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency advisory issued last July, is one of those events. It forces us to care because it affects multiple medical devices.

[...] medical device vendors don't always have the flexibility to upgrade their underlying platforms because of the way they license components. Since third-party components are usually licensed for a prebuilt function, the license may only allow for the device's use with a certain version of an operating system or kernel.

[...] addressing the risks means understanding and addressing the value chain for how a device evolves from concept to disposition. We need to also evolve how devices are designed and updated to match the level of support that Samsung and Apple provide. This means there needs to be dedication by manufacturers to use platforms for a longer time and a commitment to keeping the build chains current to be able to consistently deliver patches and updates to customers.

[...] Outside of the major manufacturers, many of the companies that manufacture these devices are smaller businesses, and they have to be able to afford to develop new devices and support what they have at the same time—which is often difficult even for large companies.

We need to partner with our medical device vendors to solve issues like Urgent/11 through better processes. We need to understand how the devices work, and we need to understand that it takes a lot of work to get a patch out for devices that are more complex than a standard PC. Deploying patches to these devices also carries different risks.

The S in Medical IoT stands for Security.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday February 20 2020, @01:15PM (1 child)

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Thursday February 20 2020, @01:15PM (#960265) Journal

    Don't medical devices already have to go through expensive certification processes? I guess adding a few basic security tests to that process would be barely noticeable in the cost of certification, unless the vendor neglected security and has to re-do the whole process again for this reason (giving the vendor a huge incentive to get it right the first time).

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 21 2020, @12:57PM

    Sounds good in theory, don't it? Unfortunately putting a slow to change, clueless, and not giving a fuck to begin with bureaucracy in charge of something that changes as quickly as computer security is much, much worse than doing nothing at all.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.