Slashdot Mirror


Malware Is 'Rampant' On Medical Devices In Hospitals

Dupple sends this quote from MIT's Technology Review: "Computerized hospital equipment is increasingly vulnerable to malware infections, according to participants in a recent government panel. These infections can clog patient-monitoring equipment and other software systems, at times rendering the devices temporarily inoperable. While no injuries have been reported, the malware problem at hospitals is clearly rising nationwide, says Kevin Fu, a leading expert on medical-device security and a computer scientist at the University of Michigan and the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who took part in the panel discussion. [He said], 'Conventional malware is rampant in hospitals because of medical devices using unpatched operating systems. There's little recourse for hospitals when a manufacturer refuses to allow OS updates or security patches.' ... Despite FDA guidance issued in 2009 to hospitals and manufacturers—encouraging them to work together and stressing that eliminating security risks does not always require regulatory review—many manufacturers interpret the fine print in other ways and don't offer updates, Fu says. And such reporting is not required unless a patient is harmed."

51 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. Meh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When someone does get hurt, it will be a very clear case of negligence on the part of the manufacturer, and the lawsuit will bring everyone else in line.

    Sad that this is the way it works in America though.

    1. Re:Meh... by robthebloke · · Score: 5, Funny

      Everyone would just start leaving hospital with an enlarged wanger, and a $12,000,000,000,000,000 bank deposit from a Nigerian prince.

    2. Re:Meh... by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Except for when they pinpoint the nurse or tech who used to device to connect to another site.

      It is a Damn if you do and Damn if you don't situation.

      You don't update your OS you could get hacked. You do update the updates makes the device unusable.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Meh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The question is why would medical devices get malware on them just because the OS is unpatched? The frigging device could be Win95 but it shouldn't matter if all it ever runs is the vendor's software.

      If people are browsing the internet on them or sticking USB drives in them they are doing things very wrong.

      Medical people should be familiar with the terms "quarantine" and "isolation".

    4. Re:Meh... by Krojack · · Score: 2

      Hospital IT tech to patient: Sir, I need to reboot the computer controlling your heart pump to install some Windows updates. I need you to keep squeezing this "squeeze bulb" a few times a second while the computer is rebooting.

    5. Re:Meh... by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While this should be true, these devices are increasingly being connected to networks to offer integration with EHR/HIS for polling information, and especially in radiology, where images are being sent digitally to PACS. These machines often stay unpatched, yet get connected to the network for transfers. It's important to maintain a separate "medical device" network, but this only goes so far, especially when vulnerabilities bypass the Windows firewall on the medical device, allowing some infected PC/device/server to broadcast worms all over the place.

    6. Re:Meh... by eth1 · · Score: 2

      While this should be true, these devices are increasingly being connected to networks to offer integration with EHR/HIS for polling information, and especially in radiology, where images are being sent digitally to PACS. These machines often stay unpatched, yet get connected to the network for transfers. It's important to maintain a separate "medical device" network, but this only goes so far, especially when vulnerabilities bypass the Windows firewall on the medical device, allowing some infected PC/device/server to broadcast worms all over the place.

      Yep. It's nigh-on impossible to isolate stuff any more, because at some point, everything needs to talk to something outside it's play pen.

      I manage firewalls for a large chain of hospitals, and we have to deal with this all the time. Vendors need to VPN in to support their gear, PACS images need to go to off-hours remote radiologists, etc. We ended up having to put separate firewalls in every facility, and any "no-patch" system gets locked away in its own solitary confinement DMZ with very tight access rules (with "Internet access" very high on the "oh HELL no" list).

    7. Re:Meh... by CodeheadUK · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is why some hospitals in the UK got hit hard by Conficker. Microsoft had patched the vulnerability months before, some systems were deemed 'too important' to reboot or suffer any downtime. As a result, they went unpatched and got floored when the shit hit the fan months later.

      A system I was working on got hit badly by Conficker because we had a four month approval process for patches. We were still waiting for approval to install the patches when the whole network got infected.

      Needless to say a much shorter approval process is now in place.

    8. Re:Meh... by radtea · · Score: 4, Informative

      I would set it up as a physically separate network that only connects to the local network in one place and have my firewall there.

      Your whole reply can be summarized as, "I have never worked in anything like a hospital IT environment."

      Moving many gigabypes of information around transparently and quickly between subtly incompatible devices (DICOM isn't so much a "standard" as a "suggestion" if you look at the way vendors actually implement) coupled to a bespoke PACS network is barely possible without any additional list of pie-in-the-sky requirements of the kind you list.

      Add to that fun requirements such as that many hospitals are also teaching environments and so have to interface (again, transparently and at very high speed) to university networks, and then bring in external consulting scienctists (Hi) who may need access to some patient data AND who may be hooking up research devices to your pristine medical network for clinical trials (this is how progress gets made, you see) and your cartoon locked-down network becomes competely useless in the real world because you've only considered about 60% of the actual uses it has to support.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    9. Re:Meh... by ChumpusRex2003 · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're right about the network architecture, but things rapidly get complex.

      Let's take the example of MRI/CT. How much data is in a CT or MRI study, or even an X-ray study? A single X-ray image (e.g. a Chest X-ray) taken with a modern digital machine, is about 60MB (30 megapixel image, 16 bits per pixel).

      My new CT scanner, if I prescribe a "full neuro" protocol, generates 16000 files of 500 kB each. The reason I'm doing a "full neuro" it means that minutes count. I need to have that data set sent to not just a PACS (image repository and viewing software), but also to a PC with 3rd party software (which has the complex software capable of analysing the data) and I have to have it ready within 5 minutes. Not only do I need to have it in my office in 5 minutes, the doctor who is dealing with the patient in the ER, needs to have (some) of it in the ER within 5 minutes. Then, after everything is said and done, I need to send the data to my office at the university, so that I can run it through my research software.

      If it was just PACS - no problem. You put the scanners and the PACS incoming-data server on a restricted VLAN. Have the incoming PACS server communicate with the main PACS application and data-store servers over a private VLAN, and have the PACS app servers face the hospital clients on the main hospital VLAN (or individual departmental VLANs).

      However, at my hospital we also get several hundred CTs/MRIs sent in from outside per day, that need to get onto the PACS. Many come on CD/DVD. Some come via VPN tunnels. Some come via 3rd party proprietary transfer services. (The DICOM protocol used to transfer medical images doesn't support encryption, so must be tunnelled in some way). Now you have to somehow connect all these incoming points to your restricted VLAN (or you open your wallet to your PACS vendor for another software license at a cost that makes oracle enterprise look like chump change).

      What if your PACS vendor has you buy the balls on your SAN contract, so that you are paying $10 per GB + $2 per GB per year? Do you really want to send that 8GB dataset to PACS (which can't actually do anything useful with it- and remember, as a medical-grade archiving device, you can't delete)? Or do you now need to start putting PCs with 3rd party software on your restricted VLAN so they can talk to the scanners?

    10. Re:Meh... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2

      My experience in several different hospitals is that it largely depends on the size of the hospital.

      Smaller hospitals have shit for IT skill or capabilities, usually. You'll 50-200 workstations with a dozen proprietary systems, many of which may not even run Windows (eg. legacy stuff that runs eg MUMPS). You'll have multi-million-dollar grant funded xray machines running Windows NT or Windows 95sp1 because that's all they'll run. These will probably all be on a topographically flat network with a half dozen 'infrastructure' servers. Many of these networks just use switches, not managed or locked down as should be the case in a healthcare network.

      Healthcare vendors are a big, big part of the problem. They sell things they don't want to maintain. Often, products will be sold for millions of dollars to -small- hospitals, even when the product isn't done yet. Due to government meddling and regulations, hospitals (particularly the smaller ones) are forced to buy software which claims certain requirements; the vendors are then not really all that required to deliver in feature, just in name. It's dotcom software all over again, funded by tax money, really.

      The rest of the problem is that the healthcare system isn't really structured to properly do IT. IT answers to the CFO or a CTO of a "nonprofit" organization. They don't understand asset depreciation or anything like that, and they just expect IT to make it work, all while complying with the myriad of regulations. Often, the decision making process for IT equipment doesn't even involve IT - I've seen a dozen servers arrive for a 30 bed hospital for record OCR without IT knowing about the delivery. IT is there just for the 'maintenance' and everything runs around them.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  2. What about networks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't know about medical devices, but I do know that the last time I was in the emergency room I brought my laptop since I knew I would be there for a few hours. After getting tired of games and slashdot I decided to poke around the wifi network that I was on. I found an unsecured smb share on the network and downloaded a 17gb .bak file of patient records. Needless to say I deleted the file and sent an anonymous email to the administrator. 3 months later nothing had changed....

    1. Re:What about networks by FacePlant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hospitals are notorious this this kind of IT stupidity.

      --
      My Heart Is A Flower
    2. Re:What about networks by drainbramage · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Same thing I've seen in hotel web sites, but I digress.
      An additional problem in a HIPPA perspective is that (per your experience) the data was not encrypted...
      That may seem to be a huge oversight to someone on /. but a lot of medical staff are not terribly computer security conscious.
      Heck, too many IT staff don't understand security.

      When devices, networks, and users fail to protect data individually or collectively there will be issues.
      That is no excuse for wide open access to medical devices. I do wonder if they have to go through a full FDA acceptance period for software/firmware updates? I suspect that could be an issue.
      --
      No brain, no pain.

      --
      No brain, no pain.
    3. Re:What about networks by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hospitals are notorious this this kind of IT stupidity.

      Most institutions are, including the financial sector, government, schools as well as millions of homes.

      Back when Windows 95 rolled out Microsoft was incredibly naive. Where for decades mainframe operating systems were hardened against attacks, Microsoft failed to learn from those experienced in the field and some clever lads found they could manipulate financial software remotely, thanks to a complete lack of security with ActiveX. Shocking. For over a decade Windows continued to be loaded with security holes and a lack of internal checks to ensure software should be allowed to do things it was. Where we had process monitoring applications on RSTS and *nix systems, there was no means to track what was going on, particularly with DLLs on your desktop or laptop Windows system. Yet Windows attempted to be able to do everything and uneducated users (for who is truly educated where a home computer is concerned?) trusted it to be a good steward of their data and other assets. Meanwhile good Bill Gates and Chair-tosser Steve Ballmer were plotting next conquests and becoming fabulously wealthy. Honestly, should anyone be surprised? A good bet would have been requiring a standard operating system, a good clean one, for medical systems as life depends upon them. Nope, everyone gets cheap - use Windows and commodity hardware.

      They really should include a warning that the healthcare facility may have information of a personal nature about you on Windows or that the maching going 'Bing' which keeps you alive may also and you accept these risks and relieve them of responsibility when it all goes to pot.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    4. Re:What about networks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't know about medical devices, but I do know that the last time I was in the emergency room I brought my laptop since I knew I would be there for a few hours. After getting tired of games and slashdot I decided to poke around the wifi network that I was on. I found an unsecured smb share on the network and downloaded a 17gb .bak file of patient records. Needless to say I deleted the file and sent an anonymous email to the administrator. 3 months later nothing had changed....

      Deleting the file and sending an anonymous email to the hospital administrator is like deleting a tape and telling a car thief that he was videotaped and to be more careful next time. If their network is still unsecured, why not be awesome and protect other patients by filing a complaint and cc'ing lots of people at the hospital that you have reported their irresponsible negligence to the US Dept of Health & Human Services at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/complaints/index.html

    5. Re:What about networks by shentino · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's because they have no incentive to listen to you.

      Report it as a HIPAA violation and stay anonymous (5th amendment implications for you downloading it yourself), and watch them get burned.

      If the regulators don't even care, then give up.

      The system may be broken, but it sure as hell doesn't belong to you.

    6. Re:What about networks by BVis · · Score: 5, Informative

      Probably more accurate to say that hospital administrators would rather rip their own arms off than fund IT adequately. Hospitals are *notorious* for under-funding IT departments.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    7. Re:What about networks by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 2

      That's probably what the SAN vendor charged them for the additional space on their EM3Pellent VDataBlackHole SuperSAN that's guaranteed* to meet HIPAA requirements. *Don't call 'em if you lose data. It's not their fault. That installer guy totally didn't mean to jump-rope with that FC cable. Totally.

  3. conventional malware = windows malware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Windows is not intended to be used in life-critical situations such as medical hardware or nuclear reactor control. It's right there in capital letters in the EULA.

    Someone's being a cheapskate here and decided to use windows instead of paying to develop a custom medical OS.

    1. Re:conventional malware = windows malware by dubdays · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Windows is not intended to be used in life-critical situations such as medical hardware or nuclear reactor control.

      I totally agree. However, this, to me, is the main question: Why in the FUCK would these devices be connected in ANY way, shape, or form, to the INTERNET in the first place??!?!? That's just asking for it, no way around it. It's stupid, careless, and shouldn't be allowed under any circumstance (barring VPN via a WIRE and ONLY when absolutely necessary). We're dealing with people's health and lives here, and this is a totally preventable situation.

      I can understand the issue with USB drives, but there need to be policies in place that prevent the use of them unless absolutely required.

    2. Re:conventional malware = windows malware by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      It's as simple as this.

      The doctors demanded it.

      They're the goose with the golden egg, so they get what they want.

      End of story.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    3. Re:conventional malware = windows malware by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      I agree there's some idiotic stuff out there. But hospitals are cheap and so a lot of things are just boards in PCs. I'd hesitate to say malware was rampant, except for all the thousands of generic windows machines out there which are turned into medical devices by running an app.

      There is a bit of lax security even in embedded devices. The goal is not to stop terrorists or hackers, but to prevent someone from breaking your licensing or cloning your machines or firmware. Most embedded medical devices don't have Windows, some don't even have an operating system. You have to know the details of each individual machine to crack into them, and the attack that works will not work on a machine from someone else or from a different model line of the same manufacturer. If these machines ended up being as politically senstive as SCADA machines then the security would likely go up (not in terms of anti-malware which is nonsensical, but in encryption and certs and the like).

      What are these machines running? VxWorks, Nucleus, uC/OS, LynxOS, eCos, etc. These are not things your IT goons are going to know about.

      Of course as Stuxnet shows, you must secure your network infrastructure and train your personnel.

    4. Re:conventional malware = windows malware by NoKaOi · · Score: 2

      It's as simple as this.

      The doctors demanded it.

      They're the goose with the golden egg, so they get what they want.

      End of story.

      Um, no. You clearly have no idea how doctors work. The whole point of it is to give doctors easier access. Doctors don't live at the hospital. Most doctors aren't even at the hospital full time, they have an office where they see patients and do all of their paperwork. It's extremely useful to be able to access patient records, lab results, imaging (x-rays, MRI, CT etc) remotely. It makes things much, much faster (they can get information critical to the patient in minutes rather than days). The whole point is to be able to provide better care by having more information (something you clearly don't care about or wouldn't make such uninformed statements). They usually have to access the hospital network over VPN, but what good does that do if there's Malware on the computer (frankly, I want my doctor to spend his/her time specializing in medicine, not computer security) the doctor is accessing the VPN from.

      Of course, most EMR/EHR systems are complete pieces of crap. The makers of the software don't care if their software is any good, because they make *more* money if it sucks, because they make more in implementation than in licensing. Since it's really, really, really expensive for a hospital to upgrade (and often times met with failure) because of the utter shitiness of the large scale EHR systems available, the hospitals can't update their software. There are seriously very large hospitals still running IE6 because their piece-of-crap software won't run on anything newer it would cost them 10's of millions in implementation costs to upgrade.

      So...don't blame the doctors, don't blame the hospital (although at many hospitals IT lacks competency and are all about CYA rather than doing anything good), don't blame Microsoft, instead blame the companies that make the software for selling such a crappy product.

  4. Sad but true by kheldan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I used to work for an ophthalamic ultrasound company. You'd think that doctors, having all those years of college and medical school, would know better than to browse the internet on a medical device, or know enough to ensure that the USB flash drive they're carrying around and using to transfer images from one ultrasound to their computer is free of malware, but the sad reality is they're not, and while I can't speak for other devices manufactured by other companies, ours couldn't run antivirus and still run the ultrasound application effectively, so it was essentially wide-open to malicious software.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  5. I worked at a hospital by slashmydots · · Score: 2

    I worked at a hospital for about a half year and noticed that their policy was if it isn't a "normal" computer, we don't touch it. We leave it up to the lab techs and pharmacy staff and cardiology people. So there's 99% of the problem.

    1. Re:I worked at a hospital by RKThoadan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I work in hospital IT and we have an entire separate department for working with any clinical equipment. In most cases they can't do anything either because the vendors do not allow us any admin level access and none of them are part of our regular domain/AD. The lab/pharmacy techs quite literally have more access to those systems than we do. It's extremely aggravating.

  6. Willful Ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dad has owned an ultrasound service business since the late 70s. My brothers and I all worked for him in varying capacities, before becoming engineers ourselves.

    In my experience: the amount of willful ignorance towards all manner of IT in the medical field is nothing short of astounding.

    I hate to say it, because I love alot of these people- but I chalk it up to the arrogance of the doctors and administrators. They treat anything IT related on the same level as an issue regarding say, HVAC or sanitation. That is to say, beneath them.

    Which is fine, except in this case the "HVAC" can be programmed by a remote intruder to emit Zyklon B.

    1. Re:Willful Ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I chalk it up to the arrogance of the doctors and administrators. They treat anything IT related on the same level as an issue regarding say, HVAC or sanitation. That is to say, beneath them.

      Then computer security isn't their only problem. There have been cases of screwed up HVAC in a hospital routing the exhaust from a TB ward onto passers-by. And sanitation? Few things are more important in a hospital. The US has a terrible rate of nosocomial infections (i.e. acquired in hospital). Norway has one of the lowest rates because they spend money training people how to properly clean doorknobs in a hospital rather than potted plants and pictures in the lobby. It may sound silly at first, but little things like properly cleaning doorknobs are very important in reducing infection spread. Only arrogant fools ignore such important details.

  7. "easy" to remedy by MrLint · · Score: 2

    The technical issues that cause this are "easy" to remedy. You don't allow people to use the instrument to have administrator access. A good portion of applications can be remediated to work in a low privileged environment via file system ACLs. Those that cannot need to be network isolated and stripped down to the bare essentials needed to do the task it is for. *These are technical steps*

    Administrative steps to take is to demand that the outside vendors don't get to dictate your network policies. Frankly in a hospital you can go all HIPPA on their asses.

    To give an anecdote, we had a vendor who delivered an instrument, for with the edict was that *NO* settings could be changed. They shipped it with a manually configured IP of an ISP in Germany. Presumably they wanted us to buy the IP block to get it on the network.

    1. Re:"easy" to remedy by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't allow people to use the instrument to have administrator access

      I guess you've never heard of a privilege escalation exploit. If you're not performing updates then you're vulnerable, end of story. It's a good argument for eliminating the full-fledged computers inside of general-purpose medical devices, and making them instead some kind of peripherals used with computers of some sort when an interface is needed.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:"easy" to remedy by chill · · Score: 3, Informative

      Admin access is a red herring. If I'm after patient medical or billing data and that is readily accessible by the logged-in user account, why do I care about Admin rights?

      Yes, it helps for propagation and hiding, but for data access it is superfluous.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  8. Mission Critical Systems? LolWAT? by ShooterNeo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok, I'm only a student. So I don't know anything. But I sorta THOUGHT that the standard for a mission critical system (aka something like a heart monitor, blood gas analyzer, etc etc etc) would be to NOT use any software in your system that you don't have 100% control over.

    You know, rather than picking some version of windows, use an embedded linux. Add the bare minimum graphics libraries you need in order to draw a gui. Isolate the threads that actually do the mission critical stuff (say, reading the sensor and displaying the output) from the ones that do other tasks (like handling all the complex menus and the network connectivity and so on). Heck, use a separate physical CPU for the mission critical stuff, and give it it's own dedicated display so that no matter what, it keeps displaying the important data. The hardware to do this is cheap.

    And firewalls should be integrated into the devices themselves - even Linux can theoretically catch a worm, and so it should apply strict filtering rules on any communications with the network.

    I can fully understand the reluctance of the manufacturers to issue software patches. Building the system so that it's practical to not ever patch it (well, maybe patch it a couple times to eliminate any bugs found after release) is a good thing. Everyone here must know that the best way to break a working machine is to shut it down and change something.

  9. The fine print mentioned in TFA by ShooterNeo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    All software changes that address cybersecurity threats should be validated before installation to ensure they do not affect the safety and effectiveness of the medical devices.

    Validated. That costs a bunch of money. And this basically is saying that if the manufacturer DOESN'T validate the changes to the FDA's satisfaction (meaning do a heck of a lot more testing than just applying the patch real quick and booting it up and making sure it's still working) then they are totally vulnerable to lawsuits.

    Also, just as importantly : the manufacturer does not receive money from medical devices already sold. Their new ones (with new hardware which is why they can't back-port the software) are where the revenue is. In fact, it's sort of beneficial if the hospital's old equipment starts running slowly and badly because they can push their new gear (now with enhanced cybersecurity!)

    1. Re:The fine print mentioned in TFA by RKThoadan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Maintenance contracts and pay-per-incident support means that manufacturers make plenty of money on already-sold devices. In many cases the cost of the device is a rather minor part of the contracts.

  10. PEBKAC by concealment · · Score: 2

    In industries where arrogance and demanding people are common, the only people who work the jobs are those with a tolerance for such behavior.

    This means you're picking your IT guys by whether they put up with your drama or not.

    If you wonder why many law firms and hospitals have such bad IT staff, this is the reason. High turnover, low investment beyond what is demanded. Mainly because the demands are constant and irate.

    These people are probably dropping 4000 Windows XP machines into a hospital, and then complaining about the reboots for patches and/or that weird orange browser they have to do now.

    As a result, they get a ton of malware. The solution is obvious: turn on Windows update, and train staff to rein in their egos and drama for just a few minutes every day.

  11. What is the current threat? by SpzToid · · Score: 2

    Okay, this is a valid point, and people need to pay attention when they engineer, build, support, and actually use these things. Still, what is done is done and paid for, and I imagine hospitals retain some I.T. department services of some sort, and all this gear is networked behind a firewall or two.

    New gear absolutely must take these concerns into consideration and address them long-term because the threat will not go away. But what is the current threat on the legacy devices? What can an attacker hope to accomplish? What would be the motivation of a hacker or two, to reverse-engineer the MRI scanner, oh and by the way where did these guys get a redundant MRI scanner (etc.) to reverse engineer for their evil motivations?

    Oh wait, much of this gear is beased upon Windows XP and that is the vector. Uh huh. Well that sort of shelf-lifes the security on your hardware I suppose. It might be best to support a long-term and truly open-system like Linux or FreeBSD rather than base your product on what the Microsoft Corporation can deliver for your own business requirements.

    Or, if Microsoft is so good for (medical equipment) developers to base products on, than why can't the software be upgraded to support Windows 7 or 8?

    --
    You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
  12. Re:WELL, THAT'S OKAY SINCE WE ALL DIE SOMETIME !!! by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Funny

    A little sooner than we should, but that's them bones !!

    Need a sign out front - Caution: This Hospital Uses Microsoft Windows.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  13. Not so simple by kullnd · · Score: 5, Informative

    I worked as an IT Manager in a hospital for a few years, and know a little bit about this... The first issue is that these systems typically CAN NOT be upgraded, and this is not due to the MFG not wanting to upgrade, this is a FDA compliance issue... If they upgrade the software, they have to do some very expensive certifications with the FDA, these same certifications delay the release of medical equipment to the point that much of the technology is already close to being outdated when it hits the market.

    Our solution, which seems simple enough, was that every type of medical equipment was located on a different physical network (for critical pt. monitoring equipment) or at a minimum a seperate VLAN on the main network. All network access to this equipment was blocked except for very specific exceptions that were allowed based on the absolute need of that piece of equipment. We had no issues with any of these infections or malware, although it did increase the man-hours overhead especially when working with the vendors that would sometimes wonder why they could not hit the internet from the X-Ray machine ... but we managed just fine.

    --
    +++ATH0 NO CARRIER
  14. This is extremely common. by ChumpusRex2003 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The term medical device has a broad definition; it includes obvious things such as laboratory analysers, X-ray equipment, etc., but it also includes PCs running specific types of software, such as medical records software. Most of these things run general purpose OSs - some embedded; some desktop.

    E.g. Windows XP is a common platform for things like ultrasound scanners, MRI scanners, etc. XP embedded is quite common on things like laboratory equipment. Variants of linux are also in widespread use - albeit, often old. E.g. I work with an MRI scanner that runs a 2.2 kernel.

    Now, things like analysers and scanners are usually on their own VLAN (or should be) with connections only to their application servers, with the servers heavily firewalled from the general purpose VLANs; however, this often isn't the case, and I've seen a number of installations where you can just sit down at a random PC, and SSH into an MRI scanner (these things usually have generic root passwords which are written in the service manual - once you know what the passwords are, you can get into any device of that make and model).

    The biggest problem, however, is that these machines never get updated. The manufacturers often won't support any updates to the OS, or even permit hotfix installation, nevermind a 3rd party security package (for more general purpose devices). For example, one hospital earlier this year, upgraded their PACS system (software for storing and displaying X-ray/MRI/CT images) and bought a new set of dedicated workstations (quad core, Xeon E5, 8GB RAM, Dual Quadro), but because the PACS client software had to interface with a number of other client software packages, and those vendors had strict requirements; these machines ended up being loaded with XP SP1 32-bit and Java 1.4. Unsurprisingly, these aren't regularly patched, and more importantly, they can no longer update their anti-virus software as the current version of their chosen AV software won't run on this configuration (so they're stuck using an obsolete, unsupported version).

    I saw an extreme example of this a few years ago when the Confiker worm hit. There were a group of hospitals in a major city, which shared the same infrastructure, and they had a very large PACS system. The worm got onto the PACS VLAN, and essentially killed the servers. The system was completely down for days, because as soon as the servers we rebooted or re-imaged; the worm killed them again. The vendor stubbornly refused to apply the hotfix and refused permission to install the hospital's antivirus system on the servers/workstations. The only thing that got it moving was when the CEO of the hospitals made a conference call with the hospitals lawyers and the CEO of the PACS vendor, telling them that they were going to f**k them so hard with the SLA stick, that they wouldn't be able to sit down for a month. After that call, the vendor agreed to install the hotfix, and the system came back online.

  15. Consider yourself very lucky... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I found an unsecured smb share on the network and downloaded a 17gb .bak file of patient records. Needless to say I deleted the file and sent an anonymous email to the administrator. 3 months later nothing had changed....

    Usually anyone who dares tell the Emperor that he's actually naked and not wearing any "new clothes" gets his head chopped off for pointing out the truth.

    Lemme tell you what would've happened at one particular hospital I know of: The IT administrator would've contacted law enforcement and provided them with all the video footage from the multitudes of security cameras around the place, along with the patient and visitor lists, as well as all the the wifi access and activity logs containing your mac address and anything else logged and/or identifiable about your laptop, to try to find out your real identity for criminal prosecution purposes.

    Despite the fact that they are extremely weak in securing their network resources in the first place nor do they have any realtime alerting mechanisms to detect any kind of unauthorized access while in progress.... they do go to ridiculous lengths to log and record everything necessary to try to identify you so they can come and get you long after the fact.

  16. The computer virus's aren't getting people sick by jader3rd · · Score: 2

    A little over a month ago I was in a hospital and noticed a work station in a hallway that was obviously setup for visitors to use. I checked it out and it was running XP. Since the OS had noticed that a user had woken it up the balloons from the task bar started fighting with each other for my attention. Norton said it was months out of date, it also said that it had 400+ issues that needed looking at (found active virus's running, or something). I half wonder if someone with mal intent setup the computer and no one questioned it being there (the IT guys must have set it up), because the hospital sure wasn't taking care of it.

  17. From the front lines? by Kaldesh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Before I begin let me preface this post by saying I work in a hospital in the IT Staff, and I have for the past 10 years now (as scary as that sounds to me typing it out). At any rate I can say that malware, spyware, virus' etc are a constant concern for the staff here. When I started working here it was the 'Wild West' for computing, people did what they wanted, when they wanted to on their computers, and we've slowly curbed that. Especially now that electronic medical records are being used. The key we've found to keep malicious software off computers used for medical purposes, or with confidential data is actually three fold -- First segregate those devices with ePHI (electronic protected health information) off onto their own network, strip the computers of all but the most essential software, and the medical staff all have to sign agreements when they're hired that strictly prohibit them from using computers for personal tasks. Want to check your e-mail? Bring in your smart phone, or laptop etc, and do it with that device (we actually provide a wireless for the entire staff to use 'just' for that purpose). Nobody can keep 'on task' all day, so allowing them the outlet with some caveats has been a great success. However, all machines that have access to the ePHI network are imaged once put into service, but we re-image the machines on a staggered schedule so every 6 months they're a fresh install. Virus software (AVG) is installed and on an automatic update / scan schedule as well -- with a central server that reports results to us. Also for security concerns every Laptop is encrypted (thank you Truecrypt), and every device that accesses ePHI comes through a VPN. If a Laptop get's stolen (and one has in the past), the VPN access for that device is revoked immediately. So between the VPN and Encryption, the odds of a 'break' in our security are astronomical. Anyway all these procedures may seem a bit excessive, but we've yet to have a PC with ePHI or EMR softwaret be compromised where I work thanks to them. I sleep slightly better at night thanks to this system actually. I do know of several other hospitals / medical facilities that are far far less secure though, and frankly it scares the hell out of me how cavalier they are about the whole ordeal. One of our doctors is Per Diem and his home office supplied him with an unencrypt, unsecured, laptop with full admin rights, and their EMR software installed on said Laptop for his free use. PS -- A tip to anyone working in a medical facility, one of the ways we had our providers (Doctors) agree to this stringent of a system was to point out that infractions where ePHI is compromised put their necks on the line, even more so then they do ours. So all this security is for their benefit as much as yours. Also, this goes double if you have a counseling staff because the rules around ePHI regarding counseling services are even more strict and crazy. Anyway hopefully that helps someone out.

  18. Re:WELL, THAT'S OKAY SINCE WE ALL DIE SOMETIME !!! by pentalive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Caution: This Hospital Uses Microsoft Windows 98

  19. Re:And this is why the USA is in trouble by CowTipperGore · · Score: 3, Informative

    I get your point but this a stupid example to use for it. Should he have gone to his GP for a severely twisted ankle or for a high fever on Saturday evening? For that matter, he could have been there with his significant other, child, or friend.

  20. Re:Mission Critical Systems? LolWAT? by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ahahahahahahah I totally understand why you would think these things, but, you need a little history.

    I worked in Healthcare IT for about 6 years, until a few short months ago. Before that, I actually started my career as a service tech. The thing to realise is...the group I worked in moved out of the office they were in while I was there.... the original office had a room full of chest high benches, with a built in shelf above, and lots of plugs. If this sounds like the kind of setup that would have soldering stations, then you are getting very warm...because that what they used to do!

    In fact, some of the same guys I worked with...had been there since core memory that was tacked to the wall was decommed.

    That sort of attitude makes perfect sense if you are building a new network, in the total absence of road blocks. A hospital environment however... well.... we are talking about an environment thats been in CONTINUOUS operation since the early 1800s. (not all hospitals are that old, of course) all new equipment, all upgrades, all troubleshooting, all goes on, while operations continue. There is no weekend downtime. There is no middle of the night downtime.... thats just to START.

    Add to that the federated 'academic' model that most hospitals use for their budgeting (ask your professors to explain how departments are budgeted and why money gets suddenly spent before the end of the fiscal year, and thats very much like how hospitals work). They started bringing in all this equipment before they even had central IT. They have their own budgets and egos, sometimes bigger departments will have their own mini-IT staff even! It is utter chaos.

    Now the departments decide what they want, get most of the way down the path of purchasing it, then bring in IT late in the game. IT fights with them and the vendor about their standards, but can't fight too hard or else they will tell IT to go fuck themselves and just go do it with their own money, since IT can't actually say no. (or they make a stink up to a level where IT gets the smack down)

    Then patching and OS upgrades.... often you can't patch or upgrade because the vendor claims they wont support it. Occasionally they blame the FDA saying they certified it on the OS version its on (we often questioned whether that held water).

    In short, the vendor and department often act like they are on the same team and IT is the roadblock, rather than the department and IT working as a team. The department, especially if they are clinical, but sometimes research too, has more clout than IT, because the trustees are from the medical professions and they are the final say.

    Very early on in my career I got a stack of work orders. First I was told "they can't have windows 95 because their department hasn't been upgraded yet" (and there were internal reasons involving training and federation that meant each dept needed one or two people trained before it could be upgraded).

    A week later the hardware arrived and I was told "they are getting Windows 95, OEM build, not ours" (which was a HUGE exception for them)....from that point on, every day I showed up to do something for them based on what we were doing yesterday, and every day they had already had a meeting that I wasn't privy too, and my department had made new concessions to them, totally changing what I was supposed to do ..... the ego maniac who was making them do all this, of course, just got mad at me for constantly doing the wrong thing, even though, nobody had told me the plans changed.

    Eventually I heard, through more connected people than me, that he had a huge and prestegious grant and was threatening to take his grant and go to another institutiuon if they didn't give him everything he wanted....and he got it.

    Now.... tell me how you control what you are using when the final say on policy comes from people who don't understand IT, and are willing to see it as a roadblock rather than part of their team? Believe me when I say there are a lot of people (not everyone of course) who know what they should be doing, and want to do things right, but, they lose a lot of battles.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  21. Not Surprising by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 2
    Anyone who works in laboratory environments knows about this problem. Certain lab instruments that run a certain firmware that can only be supported on a certain version of windows. The firmware can't be updated because that instrument is no longer supported, but the lab keeps using it because it works and its too expensive to replace... Were talking Windows NT or 2000 here.

    The computer systems at fault in the monitors were replaced several months ago by the manufacturer, Philips; the new systems, based on Windows XP, have better protections and the problem has been solved

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  22. Re:And this is why the USA is in trouble by Hillgiant · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... rather then the ER which is free if you don't have insurance.

    No. While it is true that the ER cannot deny you care, they will bill you if you do not have insurance. Failure to pay will have all of the same implications of ignoring any other bill.

    This "we don't have to insure the poor because they can just go to the ER" trope has got to stop.

    --
    -
  23. Not everyone in the ER is a patient. by drainbramage · · Score: 2

    Few people in the E.R. got there alone.
    If you ever have to transport someone to the hospital you can probably expect a wait.
    Bring a book or something because you may not be able to enjoy the view from there.

    --
    No brain, no pain.
  24. Re:And this is why the USA is in trouble by almechist · · Score: 2

    ... rather then the ER which is free if you don't have insurance.

    No. While it is true that the ER cannot deny you care, they will bill you if you do not have insurance. Failure to pay will have all of the same implications of ignoring any other bill.

    This "we don't have to insure the poor because they can just go to the ER" trope has got to stop.

    My mod points seem to have just expired, unfortunately, but... Thank you, thank you, thank you. I have been trying to get people to understand this point for years, with little success. In particular, the "free ER healthcare for the poor" meme seems to be permanently embedded in the brains of conservative Republicans. Hell, even Mitt Romney got this one wrong recently. So ER care is free to the poor and uninsured in the US, Mitt? OK then, I'm currently unemployed with an income well below the poverty level, perhaps you could explain this whole free ER thing to the bill collectors currently hounding me over a recent ER visit? No, didn't think so. And that's precisely why I'm not voting for you, you have absolutely no conception at all of what it really means to be financially insecure and uninsured in modern day America.

  25. Re:WELL, THAT'S OKAY SINCE WE ALL DIE SOMETIME !!! by Apothem · · Score: 2

    Well... I suppose if you call a computer that old 'running'. More like walking at a leisurely pace.