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.
Black Hat USA 2022 Attendee ReportBlack Hat attendees are not sleeping well. Between concerns about attacks against cloud services, ransomware, and the growing risks to the global supply chain, these security pros have a lot to be worried about. Read our 2022 report to hear what they're concerned about now.
Incident Readiness and Building Response Playbook
In this special report, learn the Xs and Os of any good security incident readiness and response playbook.
Tweet This
1 Comments
User Rank: Apprentice
3/17/2018 | 3:08:08 PM
First, anyone that has actuallty read the proposed legislation in 18 states would notice that the only information, firmware, parts, tools and diagnostics required are those ALREADY being provided to thousands of repair techs around the world. None of this information is secret, and most of it is arleady available illegally in asia. Legislation is carefully targeted for the sole purpose of allowing legal competition for repair services at the choice of the owner.
Even when the equipment being repaired is being used for a security function (such as a security camera), the application run on cpu within the camera is irrelevant to repair. The camera either passes a signal correctly or it does not. Someone has to repair the camera, and give it back to the owner. Its the owner that cares about his or her security -- and its still the owner that gets to decide whom to trust for repair.
If anyone has any doubts of the responsibility of the OEM to protect the security of the owner, just read the purchase contract closely, Every contract always dislaims responsibility for how equipment is used and carefull limits their risk and potential damages in that contract.
As to actual cyber risk -- equipnent is either secure by design, or insecure. Sadly, millions of IOT devices are being thrown into the marketplace with weak or absent security -- allowing botnets and other hacks to proliferate worldwide. These devices are already up and running and attached to a network, unlike devices which are broken and offline. Equipment under repair is among the most secure because its offline.
Opponents to Right to Repair have gleefully suggested that consumers will lose personal data without any explaination of how that might happen. We've yet to hear of anyone losing personal data as the result of an iPhone repair -- because Apple does an excellent job of security and encryption. Apple has even stated publically that despite their source code being posted on the internet, personal security was never at risk.
Happy to discuss any real examples of how repair as a business has made IOT devices less secure.