Wireless Technology and Implants
I will admit that I have not yet made it through the entire forum yet so I hope that this has not been brought up before.
I have seen people mention in this forum, casual conversations, and sci fi shows/books, using implants that are either bluetooth or WiFi for updating or interface purposes. The question that I pose is this: If you have an implant of some kind that generates a wireless signal of some sort, what is the chance that someone with a fair amount of computer knowledge would be able to hack it for their own purposes? As we all know, computer capabilities is ever increasing and every new generation of human seems to have a greater understanding and capability utilizing them.
The more I learn about the underlying architecture of computing and programming the more I see the possible security issues that may be faced in the future.
Opinions?
Tagged:
Comments
That being said, if the implant can be interacted with wirelessly, it may be possible (depending on how any particular implant is implemented) to reprogram it or update whatever software is running on it wirelessly, so you can "stay up to date" with security by implementing new fixes or security features as new vulnerabilities arise. The physical nature of the device should be distinct from its software operation, so again the fact that it's an implant really has no impact on security any more than, say, what color your computer's housing is.
at least for my current design, i keep overall complexity so low that i can be sure it's not used in any unintentional ways.
if you allow your hardware to be able to reprogramm itself it sure opens the same security holes as on any other platform. in that case, it really just is a regular computer as zombiegristle mentioned.
those faced by any other similar device, the fact that it's implanted
doesn't inherently change anything."
It seriously changes one big thing. It's easy to replace your computer/phone/tablet if it gets infected/ages/etc. It would not be so easy to replace an implanted Bluetooth 1.0 with a 2.0 version..If it can handle it in the software yes, but the hardware no.
I was under the impression from reading the OP that he was asking specifically about the "hackability" of Bluetooth or Wi-fi implants, not upgradability or physical security concerns. Implanting an antenna doesn't change how easy it is to transmit to, or receive from, it.
having hardware and software dedicated to a single job helps cutting down the attac vectors a lot. what remains is securing the existing mechanisms (like audio playback in case of a headphone implant) against abuse. but there are means to help with that, like cryptographic methods to sign data packages etc. in some cases adding hardware to prevent software failures from causing harm may be possible too.
in the end it's a matter of trust. do you trust the person who engineered an implant for it to be save, or do you not. and in case you don't: do you have means to check if the work he did was good or not.
specifically about the "hackability" of Bluetooth or Wi-fi implants, not
upgradability or physical security concerns. Implanting an antenna
doesn't change how easy it is to transmit to, or receive from, it."
Think of it like old wireless routers. They started with no encryption, then to get encryption (WEP) you had to buy a new router. WEP became weak so they came out with new routers with WPA. Then WPA became weak so they came out with WPA2, which again required new hardware. It is a software weakness that required new hardware to overcome.
my guess would be that most OS would consume more recources and energy than desired anyway.