Killed by code 2015
Download as PPTX, PDF0 likes270 views
The document discusses the 2010 Mobile Security Conference, focusing on the intersection of mobile medical devices and cybersecurity threats. It covers various applications, threat scenarios, vulnerabilities, and recommended countermeasures for securing mobile health technologies like implantable devices and mobile imaging systems. The presentation emphasizes the need for a systematic approach to analyzing threats and prioritizing security measures to protect patient data and ensure device safety.
Killed by code 2015
- 1. Mob Sec Mobile Security Conference 4/11/2010 Herzliya Danny Lieberman – Software Associates. v6
- 2. Agenda Mobile medical is hot Applications Threat scenarios A threat model framework for secure code Summary
- 3. Mobilemedicaldevices arehot Mobile consumer electronics creates potential for life-saving applications that are cheaper and more accessible than any other alternative. Social benefit comes at the price of cyber threats. In this talk we present a systematic method of analysing cyber threats in mobile medical devices. Applications Threat scenarios Countermeasures
- 5. Datatracking Who: Patients, care-givers, doctors What: Data acquisition Why: Controlling symptoms of chronic illness requires tracking data over long periods of time. • Glucose • Heart rate • Blood pressure • Dosage (insulin, dopamine …) • ... Platforms : Smart-phones, data & location-based services. Diabetes Parkinson/MSA Alzheimer Asthma
- 6. Life-sustaining Who: Patients What: Implanted devices for cardiac pacing, defibrillation, drug delivery… Why: Sustain life Platforms : Embedded devices with mobile connectivity for remote monitoring & programming. Chronic heart disease Epilepsy Diabetes Depression “…the latest technology in a full complement of patient-focused CRM products”
- 8. Threatscenariotemplate An attacker may exploit vulnerabilities to cause damage to assets. Security countermeasures mitigate vulnerabilities and reduce risk. Asset Vulnerability Attacker
- 9. Radioattackscenario Patient with ICD Clear text protocol Threat T1 – A malicious attacker may exploit a clear text protocol and instruct an ICD to deliver a shock that would cause sudden cardiac death. Vulnerability V1 – Clear text communications protocol Countermeasure C1 – Encrypt network link Countermeasure C2 – Validate messages using secure tokens. Attacker
- 10. Implantable CardioverterDefibrillators In 2008, approximately 350,000 pacemakers and 140,000 ICDs were implanted in the US. Forecasted to $48BN in 2014. Proof of concept attack: • Reverse-engineered commands • Intercepted vital signs, history • Reprogrammed therapy settings • DoS to deplete battery • Directed the ICD to deliver 137V shocks that would induce ventricular fibrillation in a patient. 2008 ICD vulnerability study
- 11. Devicedefectattackscenario Patient Life Software defects Device malfunction Threat T2 – An internal short circuit is undetected by the device control software and may be fatal. Vulnerability V2 – Software doesn’t monitor hardware malfunctions Countermeasure C3 – Notify customer service when hardware issue identified. Countermeasure C4 – Implement fail-safe function
- 12. FDAdevicerecalls The FDA issued 23 recalls of defective devices in H1/2010. All were “Class 1” : “reasonable probability that use of these products will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.” At least 6 recalls were probably caused by software defects.
- 13. Maliciouscodeattackscenario ePHI Weak or well- known passwords Software defects OS vulnerabilities Malware Threat T3 – Malicious code may be used in order to exploit multiple vulnerabilities and obtain patient information Vulnerability V3 – USB, and/or Internet access enabled Countermeasure C4 – Hardware toggle USB Countermeasure C5 – Network isolation Countermeasure C6 – Software security assessment
- 14. Mobileclinicalassistants Mobile imaging analysis devices used by hospital radiologists had unplanned Internet access. Over 300 devices infected by Conficker and taken out of service. Regulatory requirements mandated that the impacted hospitals would have to wait 90 days before the systems could be modified to remove the infections and vulnerabilities.
- 15. WhereistheFDA? Guidance documents from 2015 extend FDA regulatory oversight – 1. Mobile apps that are medical devices, draft 2/2015 2. Cyber security for networked devices, final 10/2014 However - If a device has FDA pre-market approval, consumers cannot sue the manufacturer for injuries and disability incurred because of the device. “Riegel v. Medtronic “, 2008
- 17. Objectives Assess product risk Understand what threats count Prioritize countermeasures. Drive profits Premarket approval. Cyber security asset and threat framework.
- 20. Prioritizecountermeasures Product management has 1 dollar in their pocket: Countermeasure C1 – Encrypt network link to ICD Countermeasure C21 – Validate POST requests with secure tokens. Countermeasure C3 – Wearable “cloaker” to ensure that only authorized programmers can interact with the device.
- 21. Driveprofits Transparency means more eyeballs can look at issues. More eyeballs reduces cost. More eyeballs means safer devices. Safer devices means more revenue. Medical device threat models are transparent.
- 22. Sources Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-179.ZS.html Pacemakers and implantable cardiac defibrillators: Software radio attacks and zero-power defenses. Daniel Halperin et al. Proceedings of the 29th Annual IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, May 2008. http://www.secure-medicine.org/icd-study/icd-study.pdf Software transparency in imbedded medical devices http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2010/transparent-medical- devices.html Prof. Nir Giladi,Tel Aviv Souraski Hospital Neurology Department, personal communication on data tracking for MSA patients Biotronik – cellular pacemaker, http://www.biotronik.com/en/us/19412