I'd consider it if I could voluntarily control whether it's active or not
-
-
Replying to @whitequark
The infosec history of the medical device industry here gives me significant pause
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @mcclure111
this is somewhat subtle, for most medical devices availability to doctors >>> unavailability to would-be attackers
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @whitequark @mcclure111
no one wants a pacemaker your doctor can't adjust because they forgot the password! but this thing isn't life-critical
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @whitequark @mcclure111
IDK. I'd rather have a small operation to reset the password on my pacemaker than ransomware threatening to kill me..
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @oe1cxw @mcclure111
do you know why we don't do screening for certain cancers? like prostate cancer
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @whitequark @mcclure111
I can only guess: Because people don't like invasive testing procedures?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @oe1cxw @mcclure111
because it does not appreciably decrease mortality yet side effects from treating cancers that would have never caused...
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @whitequark @mcclure111
I think preventing ransomware from accessing pacemakers would considerably decrease mortality long-term compared to the alternative.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @oe1cxw @mcclure111
why ransomware? medical devices typically require physical proximity and aren't networked
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Possible scenario: Worm that spreads to smartphones and from there to nearby medical devices with RF interfaces.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.