Can “Internet-of-Body” Thwart Cyber Attacks on Implanted Medical Devices?

spectrum.ieee.org

14 points·headalgorithm··7 comments

Ability to read data emitted from device is a different sort of "hacking" than ability to write data to the device in a malicious way to gain access or force an error. I don't like that the article conflated "cyberattacks on devices and hospitals" with "reading unencrypted data".

Unfortunately, "reading unencrypted data" repeatedly enough can turn into "burning the battery out" which is a denial-of-service attack.

I don't think that's how most of these devices operate. I think these unencrypted simple RF signals don't require any bidirectional comms or client negotiation steps -- but simply broadcast the data. I could be very wrong, but that's just what I thought.

It depends on the device. St. Judes device was vulnerable:

https://static2.businessinsider.com/r-st-jude-warns-of-heart...

Perhaps I am missing something but they claim that the solution is encrypting the RF signal but wouldn't this have an impact on device battery life?

Assuming that patients need surgery everytime a battery is replaced this seems like they are hand-waving a major lifetime design implication.

I'm sorry for the useless comment but this is really fucking cool

Can we all just agree there are places in which computers do not belong? Or if they do, they ought to be minimized. Implanted devices, nuclear plants, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com