That explicitly lists “devices” and, while it doesn’t consider software tampering that’s hardly surprising - this started in 1982 (with the cyanide laced tylenol). It does show something of a failure of the FDA that anti-tamper requirements aren’t already in the device regulations. It’s not as though it is hard to get right, and we all know how paranoid people got after 1982 - fixing the problem after someone exploits it is not a good idea.
I really don’t get why this is such a big deal. I don’t think anyone has anything to worry about. I also don’t think that someone is going to hack into anyones insulin pump, it just doesn’t seem like a bright idea to even research this. I don’t think I could roll my eyes big enough on this one. I mean come on people, I look at this as now the FDA and our insurance companies to deny us to receive technologies like the insulin pump, and either we won’t be able to have one or we will have to pay out of pocket. Really don’t worry about it, no one is going to hack into your insulin pump, there is no motive and this is all just a media frenzy and the media just needs to stop all this BS.
What exactly would there to be to prove? That any computer based system is impossible to make 100% secure if the person trying to hack the system has the money, time, and technical expertise? I think that is something already well known.
If a Glucose Tablet salesman was at a PWD conference, he might force the crowd into a collective hypo so that he could sell some extra product, but that’s all I could think of!
and you don’t mean Blood Sugar!!! i agree with you 100% Lauren. unless your significant other is trying to kill you, then that’s about all there is to worry about regarding someone hacking into your insulin pump. like i stated earlier, i don’t have time to worry about this type of crap. there is enough on my plate without adding some unrealistic threat to it!!
I have many such systems, but I’m not sure what you are trying to prove. You made an irrelevant comment that “any computer based system is impossible to make 100% secure”, I said that wasn’t true and now you are asking if I have a 100% secure computer system.
The reason I said your statement was untrue is that people seem to be impressed by such generalisations. Physical security of an isolated computer system is a straightforward way of making it hack proof, and the one normally chosen for military applications. Many computer systems have software that can’t be modified (SD cards for example) and can’t be hacked because of that.
If you are asking how to make a communication between paired devices hack proof simply use a shared one use private code book. The algorithm predates computer systems although use once books are rare. Secure pairing can be reduced to an issue of physical security, and a temporary physically secure connection is adequate to share a code book given that the unknown data to be transmitted is minute (about 2kbytes for the Dexcom 7+, for example.)
EXACTLY!!! We have enough on our plates… and then to pile this ■■■■ on top of it, I mean come up it’s unrealistic and we don’t need to be worried about something that doesn’t even really matter. haha Kim now I’ll be worried about my boyfriend trying to kill me Don’t let the media get a hold of that because now they’ll tell us never to date again! hahaaha
I tend to agree completely with you. Bluetooth utilizes “channel hopping” about 1900 times per minute. Animas utilizes fixed pairs for their Ping system according to their customer material and their FCC (not FDA).
I know my Ping set off an alarm when I was in a secure area because of its RF activity even with its low power. So it looks like Animas has THE PROBLEM.
