Pacemakers, defibrillators open to attack (The Register)
Pacemakers and implanted defibrillators are vulnerable to wireless attacks that could kill tens of thousands, says the security researcher best known for "jackpotting" an ATM on stage at the BlackHat security conference in Las Vegas in 2010.
The researcher in question, Barnaby Jack, today told the Ruxcon Breakpoint security conference in Melbourne, Australia that “the most obvious scenario would be a targeted attack against a high profile individual.”
Jack also warned of a worst-case scenario “worm with the ability to commit mass murder".
Such devices are accessible through a wireless interface designed to deliver telemetry and allow maintenance. But Jack, who works for US-based security company IOActive, has subverted security in that interface and showed delegates a video demonstration of a wireless attack against an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD). "There's 830 volts going into the heart there, which is a bummer," he said as an audible zap played over the conference audio system.
The attacks work at a range of up to 50 feet.
Recent Posts
-
Public satellite imagery yields a wealth of intelligence...3 days 2 hours ago
-
Awesome feature track this week. Check it out here!3 days 2 hours ago
-
Special guests The Grugq, Singe, Charl and Andrew...1 week 3 days ago
-
Pwnage! Malware! Cats and dogs living together!1 week 3 days ago
-
All your herp derps are belong to RPTs...3 weeks 3 days ago
Recent comments
- Love the Das Efx tribute.
10 weeks 4 days ago - LOL so no comment by Adobe's
11 weeks 6 days ago - Welcome back, great stuff as
14 weeks 2 days ago - AEDs are very accurate and
20 weeks 5 days ago - I did see that after we
21 weeks 1 day ago - Great podcast, a small
21 weeks 6 days ago - Peck of pickled peppers? We
24 weeks 5 days ago - Link to Sophail: Applied
27 weeks 3 days ago - Fixed. I got autocorrected...
29 weeks 4 days ago - it's jduck, not duck
29 weeks 4 days ago

Comments
Hello,
Scary stuff. For me, this type of article is where disclosure of security research crosses the line as people could actually get hurt. I think in this case, a code of ethics in disclosure would be useful - i.e "You found the bug, you fix the bug" before disclosure? If the company doesn't want to fix it after taking account of the research, they should be held liable.
Interesting to note that before drugs come to the market they have to undergo strict testing. What happened to the code audit before the device was deemed fit to be implanted? Perhaps a new area of IT compliance to be introduced?
Post new comment