Read more.Hackers expected to cause "possible deaths" by targeting safety equipment.
Read more.Hackers expected to cause "possible deaths" by targeting safety equipment.
I must be stupid if I'm the only one who thinks "Lets not put an internet enabled device that could eventually be completely hijacked from out control into the mission critical, life dependant bit of hardware".
You want your life support hooked up over wi-fi, sure!...
But I'm ever the cynic.
Perhaps, but as history has shown, the drive towards ease of use has far outweighed the thought of security.
Just as an example, all those internet facing government networks, power stations and other sensitive sites that can just be accessed by anyone with a computer.
Nope, not just you. The obsession with the IoT is all made worse because theres no fixed protocols that would determine some sort of inter-operation and perhaps some sort of security layer that protects the devices at the LAN-WAN boundary.
We just need shiny walking toasters nowRoslin: A computerised network would simply make it faster and easier for the teachers to be able to teach-
Adama: Let me explain something to you. Many good men and women lost their lives aboard this ship because someone wanted a faster computer to make life easier. I'm sorry that I'm inconveniencing you or the teachers, but I will not allow a networked computerized system to be placed on this ship while I'm in command. Is that clear?
Challenge accepted!
McEwin (07-10-2014)
I don't get the obsession with allowing every single device possible to accept connections with the outside world. There isn't enough security available that stands up to any kind of serious attempt to pentrate it, especially not from those most likely to wish us harm such as spouses, family and friends who can more easily guess ot already know our passwords.
Sure the article might be a pessamistic timeframe but they're right that it will happen, whether a medical device, car hack or gas leak
(\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/)
(='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=)
(")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(")
This is bunny and friends. He is fed up waiting for everyone to help him out, and decided to help himself instead!
Funnily enough the FBI issued almost exactly the same scare mongering "please let us spy on you for your own safety" plea.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/09/23/i-helped-save-a-kidnapped-man-from-murder-with-apples-new-encryption-rules-we-never-wouldve-found-him/
Interesting just how similar the claims are. Now, you could go a little big further and thing "hang on, why would the FBI be so public about not being able to break new encryption? Surely that just clues every single criminal to update their hardware, and boom, no longer have to worry about the police."
Unless they *want* you to feel safe using it, because they do have methods of spying on you. Its hard to trust what they are saying either way. But I think it applies to both corporations with mission critical devices and criminals, if the NSA can get into your device to spy on you, then hackers probably can manage it (eventually) as well.
I remain most unconvinced by this whole "Internet of things" argument. As far as I see there's three categories of things that I have.
(a) stuff that I definitely DO want internet connected: my pc, tablet and phone;
(b) stuff that I can see the advantage of having connected: Tivo/Sky+ box; possibly the heating, and/or specific lights (the latter for security purposes); maybe the printer.
(c) everything else.
And I see NO benefit at all in anything in group (c) being connected to an Internet. Prime amongst that is my car - I don't run an F1 car so why the heck would I want it to send telemetry and receive updates OTA? I also have zero interest in an internet-connected fridge, oven or washing machine. In fact, I'll go further - a lot of the IoT items are being "internet enabled" purely because they can be, rather than from some actual need. However, I will admit to having a passing interest in an Intranet of things, where stuff in the house can talk to each other - but not the outside world.
Rant over, yes, it's pretty much inevitable that someone is going to be hurt or killed by a remote hack, although whether it's as soon as 2015 is something I'm a bit doubtful about. I'm also suspicious by the groups yelling about this "imminent threat", since it's usually followed by either "buy our product to protect yourself" or "we need to be able to snoop on whomever we feel is of interest". So in other words, people with an axe to grind.
Perhaps you won't need an F1 car for that - IIRC a few months back an article in the Observer regarding this subject mentioned that a senior Ford executive in a press briefing made an off the cuff remark along the lines of "well, we know where you are and what you're doing anyway" - further questioning yielded an admission that all modern Ford cars, suitably equipped, are enabled to automatically report telemetry such as speed, direction and location to Ford. The 'admission' was later retraced by the Ford press office...
So, I wouldn't trust any corporate body, which has profit as its sole objective, if it tries to sell me an internet enabled household device - they'd always want to use it to help themselves and so harvest potentially useful or sellable information about me and my family.
As for scaremongering - just look at the interview with the National Crime Agency's boss, Keith Bristow, in today's Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...orism-crime-uk
His argument is a retread of the 'let us snoop on you to catch the bad guys who would otherwise hurt you' argument.
Imagine if you could purchase a subsidised fridge freezer from Asda at £200 that would track what food you eat most often and advertise it to you via text or e-mails when it's on offer. But have the option of purchasing it at £300 for no adverts
I don't even know how I feel about that idea...
Not being rude, but I've got to wonder if that kind of saving would be worth the hassle. Strangely enough the use I see quoted a lot is the "smart fridge" that links with your online grocery ordering account and can automatically suggest stuff that you use a lot that needs replaced. Last example was quite clever, it also offered the option of a smartphone app that would give you a shopping list with locations, so if you had run out of parmesan cheese then it'd add it to your eShopping list and tell you that it's on special offer and in aisle 4. The store then tracks your phones movement through the aisles and can guide you to the next item. Of course routing you past the special offers to tempt you!
That said, while it sounds clever, I prefer to just amble through the aisles like a lost sheep!
Was that US only? Reason I ask is that they seem to be very enamoured of having "connected" cars - a recent podcaster I was listening to was talking up the desirability of some box that continually tracks and reports your auto's location so if you breakdown then a mere press of the button will summon help to where you are.
Coincidentally I used such a setup on an AA callout recently. But the difference is that the AA app on my phone (which is what I used) only reports location when you need assistance, not constantly. Didn't I read something about insurance companies wanting to "encourage" customers to fix tracking boxes? As my car insurance is due in a couple of weeks then maybe I should look at this (okay with the tracking by a particular company but only if there's a big saving - very mercenary)
The other reason I think that this might be US only is that I suspect that EU laws, and especially German ones, might look most unfavourably on such unlicensed wholesale "bugging" of citizens cars - especially by a US megacorp.
And my counter argument was that "if you need to snoop then surely it'd be a better use of your scarce resources [manpower?] to reserve that snooping on the 'bad guys' rather than doing unfocussed trawls of the innocent".
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)