Slashdot Mirror
Do Embedded Systems Need a Time To Die?
chicksdaddy writes: "Dan Geer, the CISO of In-Q-Tel, has proposed giving embedded devices such as industrial control and SCADA systems a scheduled end-of-life in order to manage a future in which hundreds of billions of them will populate every corner of our personal, professional and lived environments. Individually, these devices may not be particularly valuable. But, together, IoT systems are tremendously powerful and capable of causing tremendous social disruption. 'Is all the technologic dependency, and the data that fuels it, making us more resilient or more fragile?' he wondered. Geer noted the appearance of malware like TheMoon, which spreads between vulnerable home routers, as one example of how a population of vulnerable, unpatchable embedded devices might be cobbled into a force of mass disruption. Geer proposes a novel solution: embedded systems that do not have a means of being (securely) managed and updated remotely should be configured with some kind of 'end of life,' past which they will cease to operate. Allowing embedded systems to 'die' will remove a population of remote and insecure devices from the Internet ecosystem and prevent those devices from falling into the hands of cyber criminals or other malicious actors, Geer argued."
... change the password to something other than the default.
My thermostat will never be connected to anything and does not need an end of life thank you very much. And I want to see the manager who will approve buying this kind of stuff.
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
These are not consumer items. Industrial systems seldom live just one life, and after being decommissioned they usually go up for action to be recommissioned somewhere else. If you artificially disrupt this dynamic you cause enormous economic loss, and for what? To perpetuate a buzzword?
The entire proposal is barking up the wrong tree.
It is however a moderately interesting insight into the echo-chamber of national intelligence. Rather funny to see how Mr. Geer talks about monocultures while laying on their own lore _thick_.
All rites reversed 2010
If a device does not have a way to keep track of time (eg. in built real time clock, with backup battery that will last for the duration of the device's 'lifetime'), then it becomes vulnerable to permanent denial of service when something spoofs a fake future date and time. What happens when a hundred thousand devices go offline because someone spoofed an NTP response?
You may as well force every device to have a kill switch and remotely shut it down when it's too old. At least that'll probably require some kind of public key signature from an authenticated service (in the same way you'd authenticate a remote firmware update).
What I'm trying to say is this is one of those 'management ideas' that sounds great in the philosophical sense, but fails in technical merit.
As someone who has to support legacy systems, there is nothing more I would like to see old embedded systems die (and in some cases, incinerated and the embers crushed into the ground).
But we have to be realistic.
The main effort in systems like SCADA is the commissioning time required. You cannot just rip out a system, plug in a new box and expect everything to work as before.
Secondly who pays for this? The customer will not be happy if we say every 5 years we say you have to close your factory down for 2 weeks while we rip out all your old boxes and replace with new ones.
Finally what is the guarantee that the new box has not introduced a new security hole?
The real solution is the segmentation of the security and application code. Use Trusted boot technologies to verify the running code and ring fence the code with your security management application. Then if a new threat is introduced you only need to update the security app, leaving the hardware and application untouched.
Unfortunately at present industrial application either have no security or are very closely coupled meaning that updates are difficult and costly.
Choose your allies carefully, it is highly unlikely you will be held accountable for the actions of your enemies
This is based on a ridiculous premise that newer=more secure.
Who is going to pay for all of this?
What happens when someone forgets to replace some critical controller (gee, I thought your group was in charge of replacing it...)?
Also, what's In-Q-Tel's real motive? Mandating a secret back-door so that the CIA can have access to what they want? Or, are they quietly investing in Siemens, Rockwell Automation, Hitachi, and the like?
Okay, so my new device (a LeakyTech router, say) has a five-year expiry clock on it. A vulnerability is discovered a year after I buy it. It spends 80% of its lifetime completely exposed. I'm now out of pocket for the cost of a new device every five years, and I'm only protected for 20% of the time. Nice.
Or, my new device (from Securitron, this time) is actually quite secure. It takes ten years for the bad guys to find an unpatched or unpatchable hole. Five years of reliable, trustworthy use I could have had get thrown away. I've pointlessly reduced the safe, working lifetime of my electronic device by 50%, doubling my hardware cost and incurring extra downtime for no improvement in my security. Nice.
Better yet, I've gone through a couple of cycles of forced obsolescence. This time around, I've moved from the Securitron product to the LeakyTech one, and now introduced a hole in my security that wasn't there before. Either the LeakyTech device has another rapidly-discovered vulnerability - maybe it was introduced when they tried to patch their first one-year defect- or I didn't configure the new hardware properly when I was making my enforced switchover. Nice.
~Idarubicin
More DRM killswitches.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra