[HN Gopher] When You Get Right Down to It, Most Security Is Base...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       When You Get Right Down to It, Most Security Is Based on the Honor
       System
        
       Author : Aloha
       Score  : 31 points
       Date   : 2021-08-05 20:45 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (mhd-aboelez.medium.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (mhd-aboelez.medium.com)
        
       | thaumasiotes wrote:
       | From the 'segment of a realistic episode of a crime program':
       | 
       | > "So it's an inside job?!"
       | 
       | > "No, the hacker got in by guessing one of the clerks'
       | passwords."
       | 
       | > "That's not possible, we have a password security policy in
       | place. Brute forcing that kind of thing would take hundreds of
       | thousands of attempts."
       | 
       | > "Well, normally, yes, but the clerk was using the same password
       | for her email, and that server got hacked, and a file with all
       | the usernames and plaintext passwords got dumped."
       | 
       | > "But everyone knows user passwords need to be stored as one-way
       | hashes so that getting the plaintext back out of them is
       | impossible."
       | 
       | > "They were hashed, but only md5! The hackers just used a
       | rainbow table to do the lookups."
       | 
       | A password security policy could have prevented that. ;p
        
         | sokoloff wrote:
         | About half the Epic (electronic medical records) terminals I
         | see have the password posted on the front of the terminal.
         | Often in a nice, professional PTouch label (so presumably by
         | IT).
        
         | aaron695 wrote:
         | I think you are saying with a password security policy you
         | couldn't rainbow table the md5 of the password following the
         | policy?
         | 
         | I'm not sure that's true anymore.
         | 
         | Without salts (which the third party didn't have) I'd assume
         | many passwords the human mind can remember within workable
         | policy rules have been compromised.
        
       | disabled wrote:
       | Yep. I am terrified for the people who are running open-source
       | medical devices via community-based code and reversed-engineered
       | medical devices. Something bad is bound to happen.
       | 
       | Specifications and details here:
       | https://openaps.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
       | 
       | The code is hosted on GitHub, and is against Microsoft's Terms
       | and Conditions, for obvious reasons. Still, nothing is done about
       | it.
        
         | monocasa wrote:
         | I used to be terrified of that as well, until meeting many
         | former medical device engineers in the Denver area who got out
         | for moral reasons. However shit you think the community code
         | is, the official code is probably worse. Like kills people and
         | hide behind lawyers already worse.
         | 
         | It's not uncommon for these engineers to have a 'if I am
         | incapacitated, do not hook me up to these devices' card in
         | their wallet like you'd normally see for alllergies for
         | products they've worked on.
        
           | disabled wrote:
           | Just FYI, the European Union made such projects illegal as of
           | 26 May 2021. See Medical Devices Regulation (MDR) EU
           | 2017/745: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
           | content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...
           | 
           | Also, these projects were designed on purpose to circumvent
           | or in some cases break the law, which is the wrong approach
           | to medical device design. It's dangerous and designs kill, as
           | you know.
           | 
           | See this stipulation (and control/command + f = "commercial"
           | in paper):
           | 
           | 27) 'making available on the market' means any supply of a
           | device, other than an investigational device, for
           | distribution, consumption or use on the Union market in the
           | course of a commercial activity, whether in return for
           | payment or free of charge;
           | 
           | Also:
           | 
           | 46) 'investigational device' means a device that is assessed
           | in a clinical investigation
           | 
           | Also:
           | 
           | 1) 'medical device' means any instrument, apparatus,
           | appliance, software, implant, reagent, material or other
           | article intended by the manufacturer to be used, alone or in
           | combination, for human beings for one or more of the
           | following specific medical purposes:
           | 
           | -- diagnosis, prevention, monitoring, prediction, prognosis,
           | treatment or alleviation of disease,
           | 
           | Also:
           | 
           | (19) It is necessary to clarify that software in its own
           | right, when specifically intended by the manufacturer to be
           | used for one or more of the medical purposes set out in the
           | definition of a medical device, qualifies as a medical
           | device, while software for general purposes, even when used
           | in a healthcare setting, or software intended for life-style
           | and well-being purposes is not a medical device. The
           | qualification of software, either as a device or an
           | accessory, is independent of the software's location or the
           | type of interconnection between the software and a device.
        
             | monocasa wrote:
             | Sure, I just have inside information into some of these
             | systems (and enough inside knowledge to be scared of their
             | lawyers enough to not name specifics). Therac style
             | systemic implementation issues aren't uncommon. Think
             | handle every failure mode by panicking the OS, and the
             | hardware fails in the wrong direction for the patient
             | without software control.
             | 
             | IMO, yeah, community approaches might not be the ideal
             | solution, but when it comes to my health it's the better of
             | the two options I have (community that I can actually look
             | at the implementation of vs. proprietary that I know has
             | systemic regulatory issues and is a crap shoot on if it is
             | actively killing people and the engineers who worked on it
             | don't ever want it used on them). If it comes down to it
             | I'm going to choose my health over legality every time.
        
               | skybrian wrote:
               | A third option might be some kind software transparency
               | scheme, where every change is publicly available and
               | audited, with bug bounties.
               | 
               | This could be done to keep the professionals on their
               | toes without resorting to relying on random unvetted
               | software.
               | 
               | They could even take pull requests, as long as the
               | company takes responsibility for them.
        
               | disabled wrote:
               | > Think handle every failure mode by panicking the OS,
               | and the hardware fails in the wrong direction for the
               | patient without software control.
               | 
               | Thanks, I am aware of this. It's called a block diagram,
               | and is standard safety design. See page 3:
               | https://pdfserv.maximintegrated.com/en/an/AN4675.pdf
        
             | netr0ute wrote:
             | Sad, Big Pharma strikes again.
        
           | mattrj wrote:
           | Fascinating. Want to know another secret about code quality?
           | Custom software for banks generally sucks as well. That's
           | your money it's messing with. am: "Let's try it in
           | production" pm: We are going to need you to write a script to
           | put everything back where it was.
        
             | [deleted]
        
         | e2le wrote:
         | I doubt it's much worse than trusting your life to proprietary
         | code written behind closed doors. Something bad usually happens
         | every now and again.
         | 
         | Of course, those insulin pumps are running insecure firmware
         | allowing for adjustments to be made remotely by an sbc
         | (Raspberry Pi) where the OpenAPS software lives and takes
         | measurements from a GCM. Without the insecure remote interface
         | on those insulin pumps, OpenAPS might not exist.
         | 
         | I'm not sure it's moral to attack such a project built and
         | maintained by diabetics who simply want to provide for
         | themselves a better quality of life.
        
           | disabled wrote:
           | > Of course, those insulin pumps are running insecure
           | firmware allowing for adjustments to be made remotely by an
           | sbc (Raspberry Pi) where the OpenAPS software lives and takes
           | measurements from a GCM. Without the insecure remote
           | interface on those insulin pumps, OpenAPS might not exist.
           | 
           | This is the issue here, with a cyber to physical attack which
           | is bound to happen at some point, with some medical device,
           | and this project is a huge target for something like that.
           | This project was specifically mentioned in the book "Click
           | Here to Kill Everybody" by renowned cybersecurity expert
           | Bruce Schriener.
           | 
           | OpenAPS was also designed to circumvent government laws, and
           | is not-as-legal as the creators portray it to be. For
           | example, one of the main "advocates" calls OpenAPS an "off-
           | label qualification" for use, when in order for that to
           | apply, the specific device intended to be used must be FDA
           | approved. As you know, OpenAPS cannot be FDA approved at this
           | point of time. This individual also illegally markets
           | unapproved medical devices across the United States, Europe,
           | Australia, and New Zealand, plus online.
           | 
           | Yes, it is illegal.
        
         | mypalmike wrote:
         | Openaps is a shining example of why open source medical device
         | control is effective and necessary. Talk to the developers.
         | Talk to the users. For every fear that "something bad is bound
         | to happen" there are dozens of stories where bad things
         | actually did happen because these tools did not exist.
         | 
         | The key to safety is that hardware itself a) shows the real
         | state of things and b) has safety mechanisms in place such that
         | even the most malignant control software would be no worse than
         | poorly timed manual dosing.
        
       | kktkti9 wrote:
       | Duh; society is built on an honor system.
       | 
       | We look away to "live our life" and tacitly believe others are
       | behaving honorably.
       | 
       | And they all do.
       | 
       | Economists teach us inflation is good because if we increase
       | worker buying power they might own more than the current
       | landlords.
       | 
       | Hedge funds short stocks 200% to crater companies and make a
       | profit.
       | 
       | Social media manipulates our biochemistry (arguably wasteful
       | consumerism is built around this altogether.)
       | 
       | We're undermining the security of our habitat for future people
       | through all of this.
       | 
       | Everyone is acting honorably given our detailed history of being
       | honorable people.
        
         | voz_ wrote:
         | I notice a giant trend of new, throwaway, accounts quipping on
         | here and on reddit about inflation. First order
         | botting/targeting, or second order side-effects of shills hit
         | by first order on another site?
        
       | hncurious wrote:
       | We are sitting ducks if you think about it. If a couple
       | university researchers can get malicious code into the Linux
       | kernel, just imagine what well funded state actors are doing?
       | 
       | https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/22/22398156/university-minne...
        
         | Godel_unicode wrote:
         | Part of me wishes this test had gone on for longer, and had
         | used several bugs of varying subtlety. I'm more interested in
         | how long a supply chain bug can live than whether you can
         | introduce one (because I've never questioned that possibility).
        
       | austincheney wrote:
       | Proper security is ensured by a validation process from a third
       | party audit. That is expensive. For strictly internal scrutiny
       | security is primarily the result of a proper risk analysis.
       | Normally that means keep guessing until the software works enough
       | and then refactor as necessary in response to some security
       | apparatus far away from you. Same with accessibility, performance
       | testing, and just about everything else beyond merely pushing
       | content to screen.
        
       | endisneigh wrote:
       | When you get right down to it, civilization in general is based
       | on the honor system.
        
       | rcurry wrote:
       | Honestly. I miss the old days. I worked in intelligence at the
       | tail end of the Cold War. We kept all our shit on paper, in a
       | safe, and planted a couple of nice young Marines with guns in
       | front of it. It worked well as a system - so well in fact that
       | when the OPM got hacked and a bunch or people's security
       | clearance documents got leaked I was like "Well, thankfully my
       | information couldn't have gotten leaked, it's on microfiche in a
       | safe somewhere and I really doubt anyone would be stupid enough
       | to scan all that shit into a computer." Of course about eight
       | months later I get a letter in the mail, lol. Yep, they put it in
       | a computer after all, ha ha.
        
       | betwixthewires wrote:
       | Off topic but relevant, I wonder how many medium writers watched
       | their readership decline and don't know that it is because medium
       | now requires an account to read articles.
        
       | throwaway0a5e wrote:
       | You have to trust _some_ people. Technical security reduces the
       | number of people you need to trust and the extent you need to
       | trust them.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-08-05 23:00 UTC)