Spitballing IoT Security
marcelplug at gmail.com
Fri Nov 11 15:42:33 UTC 2016
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:55 AM, Eliot Lear <lear at ofcourseimright.com>
> It is worth asking what protections are necessary for a device that
> regulates insulin.
Insulin pumps are an example of devices that have been over-regulated to
the point where any and all innovation has been stifled. There have been
hardly any changes in the last 10+ years, during a time when all other
technology has advanced quite a bit. Its off-topic for Nanog, but i
promise you this is very frustrating and annoying topic that hits me close
There has to be a middle ground. I guarantee we do not want home
firewalls, and all the IoT devices to be regulated like insulin pumps and
other medical devices. I think I'm starting to agree with those that want
to keep government regulation out of this arena...
> On 11/8/16 6:05 AM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> > In message <20161108035148.2904B5970CF1 at rock.dv.isc.org>,
> > Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:
> >> * Deploying regulation in one country means that it is less likely
> >> to be a source of bad traffic. Manufactures are lazy. With
> >> sensible regulation in single country everyone else benefits as
> >> manufactures will use a single code base when they can.
> > I said that too, although not as concisely.
> >> * Automated updates do reduce the numbers of vulnerable machines
> >> to known issues. There are risks but they are nowhere as bad as
> >> not doing automated updating.
> > I still maintain, based upon the abundant evidence, that generallized
> > hopes that timely and effective updates for all manner of devices will
> > be available throughout the practical lifetime of any such IoT thingies
> > is a mirage. We will just never be there, in practice. And thus,
> > manufacturers should be encouraged, by force of law if necessary, to
> > design software with a belt-and-suspenders margin of safety built in
> > from the first day of shipping.
> > You don't send out a spacecraft, or a medical radiation machine, without
> > such addtional constraints built in from day one. You don't send out
> > such things and say "Oh, we can always send out of firmware update later
> > on if there is an issue."
> > From a software perspective, building extra layers of constraints is not
> > that hard to do, and people have been doing this kind of thing already
> > for decades. It's called engineering. The problem isn't in anybody's
> > ability or inability to do safety engineering in the firmware of IoT
> > things. The only problem is providing the proper motivation to cause
> > it to happen.
> > Regards,
> > rfg
More information about the NANOG