> There shouldn't be pentesting, because there shouldn't be anything to pentest.
> There shouldn't be pentesting, because there shouldn't be anything to pentest. At the face this seems like the right approach, but you end up with security-through-obscurity protecting (yet another) critical system. If you don't hire pentesters, how can you be sure there is no way to maliciously interact with the device? Because you didn't intend for there to be? Its a good thing vulnerabilities are never unintentional right? Its also not very resilient to a change in the software's requirements; maybe its okay for a pacemaker not to have a password when you need to open up a patient's chest to connect to it. Maybe those extra microseconds you save mean less blood loss and pain for the patient undergoing surgery, an undeniable win. But this operation turns out to be expensive (by every conceivable measure), so the next model ships with bluetooth, now we have a problem. See also: http://blog.ioactive.com/2013/02/broken-hearts-how-plausible...
Posted by fabulist on May 4, 2015, 10:20 PM
Tags
Related issues
- I love Americans making arguments against things like paper ballots or health care on the basis of "it's too expensive for such a large c...
- People hate it when faceless bureaucrats decide that some health care expense is too expensive for the large faceless bureaucracy to cove...
- > I will never understand why people think ACA was so great.
- Turning oneself in doesn't absolve one of a crime.
- All that we know is that the doctor carefully guided the patient out of the intervention, flashing a value that nobody had introduced bef...
- > Is that what we want?
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.6,500 issues0 comments
pricing (Healthcare)
I love Americans making arguments against things like paper ballots or health care on the basis of "it's too expensive for such a large c...
People hate it when faceless bureaucrats decide that some health care expense is too expensive for the large faceless bureaucracy to cove...
> I will never understand why people think ACA was so great.
Turning oneself in doesn't absolve one of a crime.
All that we know is that the doctor carefully guided the patient out of the intervention, flashing a value that nobody had introduced bef...
> Is that what we want?
If we're gonna stick with private insurance in the US, we should detach it from employment.
>Putting the entire population on vitamin D supplements would be too expensive for the country’s national health service, he told me.
> There shouldn't be pentesting, because there shouldn't be anything to pentest.
> There shouldn't be pentesting, because there shouldn't be anything to pentest. At the face this seems like the right approach, but you end up with security-through-obscurity protecting (yet another) critical system. If you don't hire pentesters, how can you be sure there is no way to maliciously interact with the device? Because you didn't intend for there to be? Its a good thing vulnerabilities are never unintentional right? Its also not very resilient to a change in the software's requirements; maybe its okay for a pacemaker not to have a password when you need to open up a patient's chest to connect to it. Maybe those extra microseconds you save mean less blood loss and pain for the patient undergoing surgery, an undeniable win. But this operation turns out to be expensive (by every conceivable measure), so the next model ships with bluetooth, now we have a problem. See also: http://blog.ioactive.com/2013/02/broken-hearts-how-plausible...
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.