- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Software that controls your body should always respect your freedom. This article is a recap of scandals of medical devices, like hearing aids, insulin pumps, bionic eyes, and pacemakers, and what we can learn from them. It’s astonishing: you wouldn’t expect these devices to be run by software in such a way that they can leave you completely helpless.
Oh yes, why would I apply a security patch for Bluetooth which I don’t even use, on my life-supporting device which someone else could connect to via Bluetooth without me knowing or noticing?
What you are saying is far from reality. Most patches only state vague stuff like “security” or “Bluetooth”.
How would you know, what those mean? Bluetooth could be “Hey, you can now monitor even more with your app” or “fixed some big holes in the chips security which made it hack able via Bluetooth”.
You say it’s far from reality, but I’m speaking from experience. I was responsible for maritime life safety systems. When those systems were implemented, they were tested and qualified for use. It didn’t matter how many updates came out, if they weren’t qualified, they didn’t get deployed. If I had deployed an update that hadn’t been qualified, it would have put lives at risk, such as by causing issues with ship detection or man overboard alerts not going off.
If you want to get really into it, like the systems that run aircraft and nuclear reactors, look up formal verification.
Okay,so you are talking professional equipment with software patches to be applied by professionals.
The article (and also the comments as I understood them) was about end users updating software themselves. Those are two very different things.
Yes, we also only update needed patches on systems we handle, but as an end user I do not check all updates that I apply on my private PC.
Why would I?