Spitballing IoT Security
lear at ofcourseimright.com
Fri Nov 11 17:55:32 UTC 2016
Moving offlist on this. For those who are interested, send ping.
On 11/11/16 4:42 PM, Marcel Plug wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:55 AM, Eliot Lear <lear at ofcourseimright.com
> <mailto:lear at ofcourseimright.com>> wrote:
> 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 to home.
> 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
> <mailto:20161108035148.2904B5970CF1 at rock.dv.isc.org>>,
> > Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org <mailto: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
> > hopes that timely and effective updates for all manner of
> devices will
> > be available throughout the practical lifetime of any such IoT
> > 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,
> > 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
> > for decades. It's called engineering. The problem isn't in
> > ability or inability to do safety engineering in the firmware of IoT
> > things. The only problem is providing the proper motivation to
> > it to happen.
> > Regards,
> > rfg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 481 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the NANOG