Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Comments
Automakers Openly Challenged To Bake In Security
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
GonzSTL
50%
50%
GonzSTL,
User Rank: Ninja
8/12/2014 | 8:10:21 AM
Re: Automobile security
Well, the more press this gets, the more people become aware of it. I'm surprised that this hasn't hit the major news outlets. I know that car hack videos have garnered millions of hits on youtube, so at least social media helps to spread the information. This is such a critical issue, and it doesn't stop at vehicles. The security of the IoT is of particular concern, as we know from discussions about the topic.
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
8/12/2014 | 7:44:08 AM
Re: Automobile security
Totally agree that this is an important and necessary first step for the auto industry to take to protect consumers as next gen connected cars come to market. Hope the car makers are paying attention!
GonzSTL
50%
50%
GonzSTL,
User Rank: Ninja
8/11/2014 | 10:33:11 AM
Automobile security
If this gains traction, and there's no reason why it shouldn't, then maybe for the first time, we will see security baked in during the infancy of a technology application. With widespread publicity, people will be aware of the dangers of complacency or ignorance, especially if they use the technology in such a personal thing as an automobile. With the recent spate of data breaches, the general public is keenly aware of its effect on them, and I venture to guess that they are pretty fed up with it. Automobiles are big ticket items on anyone's budget, and I hope that buyers will take its technology security into consideration in the vehicle that they purchase. Can you imagine a public service commercial displaying the remote takeover of a vehicle, leaving the driver helpless? What an impact that would make and it would place enormous pressure on the automobile industry to take technology security seriously.


Commentary
What the FedEx Logo Taught Me About Cybersecurity
Matt Shea, Head of Federal @ MixMode,  6/4/2021
Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
A View From Inside a Deception
Sara Peters, Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  6/2/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
The State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
In this report learn how enterprises are building their incident response teams and processes, how they research potential compromises, how they respond to new breaches, and what tools and processes they use to remediate problems and improve their cyber defenses for the future.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-32552
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-12
It was discovered that read_file() in apport/hookutils.py would follow symbolic links or open FIFOs. When this function is used by the openjdk-16 package apport hooks, it could expose private data to other local users.
CVE-2021-32553
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-12
It was discovered that read_file() in apport/hookutils.py would follow symbolic links or open FIFOs. When this function is used by the openjdk-17 package apport hooks, it could expose private data to other local users.
CVE-2021-32554
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-12
It was discovered that read_file() in apport/hookutils.py would follow symbolic links or open FIFOs. When this function is used by the xorg package apport hooks, it could expose private data to other local users.
CVE-2021-32555
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-12
It was discovered that read_file() in apport/hookutils.py would follow symbolic links or open FIFOs. When this function is used by the xorg-hwe-18.04 package apport hooks, it could expose private data to other local users.
CVE-2021-32556
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-12
It was discovered that the get_modified_conffiles() function in backends/packaging-apt-dpkg.py allowed injecting modified package names in a manner that would confuse the dpkg(1) call.