On CBS MoneyWatch: Report: Tiger to Pay Wife $60 Million
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 1 of 8:
Next »
That's not the point.
I don't think that is the point. Devices like pacemakers, car GPS systems that receive traffic updates over radio, etc, have not been designed to authenticate/validate data coming in. This could be a serious problem if someone sent a whole bunch of fake traffic info to a whole mess of cars, or a send-shock-now command to a pacemaker. This research does one thing wonderfully in this space - it makes it personal. The car GPS example may not get people to say "wow, when I design something like this, I better do it right or people could get really hurt." The pacemaker example will. If we start putting technology into people's bodies that can affect the way those bodies function, we better start designing correctly and securely if these devices can accept remote interaction.
Posted by: CapnJeff   Posted on: 03/14/08 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

That's not the point.  CapnJeff | 03/14/08
I don't think we disagree...  DanaBlankenhorn ZDNet Moderator | 03/14/08
RE: How dangerous is the pacemaker hack?  carlino | 03/14/08
RE: How dangerous is the pacemaker hack?  brog45@... | 03/15/08
difference between theory and practice  brog45@... | 03/15/08
Pacemaker replacement cycle  DanaBlankenhorn ZDNet Moderator | 03/15/08
That's why you need security on the device  DanaBlankenhorn ZDNet Moderator | 03/15/08
RE: How dangerous is the pacemaker hack?  JoeSponge | 03/19/08

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here