Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> ** Section 3.1 While there is an argument that old firmware was
> insecure and should be replaced, it is often the case that the upgrade
> process involves downtime, or can introduce risks due to needed
> evaluations not having been completed yet. As an example: moving
> vehicles (cars, airplanes, etc.) should not perform upgrades while in
> motion! It is probably undesirable to perform any upgrade to an
> airplane outside the service facility. A vehicle owner may desire only
> to perform software upgrades when they are at their residence. Should
> there be a problem, they could make alternate arrangements for
> transportation. This contrasts with an alternative situation where the
> vehicle is parked at, for instance, a remote cabin, and where an
> upgrade failure could cause a much greater inconvenience.
> The situation for upgrades of medical devices has even more
> considerations involving regulatory compliance.
> I’m having trouble understanding the examples provide and the
> associated analysis. Editorial recommendation: cut all the text after
> the first sentence. Otherwise:
If you find it enough to claim that upgrades introduce risks, I don't mind
cutting there.
> -- What does vehicles, aircraft and medical devices have to do with
> MUD? Is there existing and planned penetration of MUD in those markets?
There isn't a penetration of MUD in any market yet.
Aircraft have hundreds of non-critical systems (seat-back movie players for
instance).
MUD could have prevented the 2015 Jeep attack:
https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/
(The LTE provider(s) would have had to run MUD, and that's really not
crazy. Someone writing the MUD file would have included incoming telnet in
the acceptlist)
> -- Per “While there is an argument that old firmware was insecure and
> should be replaced, it is often the case that the upgrade process
> involves downtime, or can introduce risks due to needed evaluations not
> having been completed yet. As an example, moving vehicles ...”
> Where does the suggestion that moving cyber-physical systems should
> upgrade their firmware in use come from?
>From many people who think that you have to always run the latest software,
NOW, or else. I wrote the above a few years ago thinking nobody would be
stupid enough to upgrade while away, but Tesla did exactly that.
> -- What is the basis for the claim that the regulatory compliance of
> medical devices is more considerations than say of aircraft?
Different regulatory agency, different rules, different processes.
Many small aircraft use iPads for navigation/maps for instance.
They aren't critical systems, they aren't really regulated.
> ** Reference
> [falsemalware] "False malware alerts cost organizations $1.27M
> annually, report says", 18 January 2020,
> <https://www.scmagazine.com/home/security-news/false-
> malware-alerts-cost-organizations-1-27m-annually-report- says/ and
> http://go.cyphort.com/Ponemon-Report-Page.html>.
> Pick a single URL.
okay. Looks like second URL has died already.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [
] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
