This afternoon the DHS ICS-CERT published an advisory
for twin vulnerabilities in the Hospira LifeCare PCA Infusion System. The
vulnerabilities were reported by Billy Rios. Hospira has developed a new
version of the software that is awaiting FDA approval. There is no indication
that Billy has been given an opportunity to verify the efficacy of the fix.
The ICS-CERT Advisory
ICS-CERT reports that the twin vulnerabilities are:
∙ Improper authorization - CVE-2015-3459;
and
∙ Insufficient verification of data authenticity - CVE-2014-5406
According to ICS-CERT a relatively unskilled attacker could
remotely exploit ‘one of these vulnerabilities’ (apparently CVE-2015-3459), the
other would require more skill. Hospira is only making their report on these
vulnerabilities available by phone request.
ICS-CERT reports that there are no known exploits of these
vulnerabilities publicly available, but they are releasing the advisory before
the fix is in place (ICS-CERT reports working with the vendor since May of last
year) because of a public release of vulnerability.
The Public Release
ICS-CERT does not describe the release that triggered the
early release of this vulnerability, but there is certainly an in-depth discussion of the
vulnerability on the 0XTECH Security Blog that was published last week.
Actually, if this is the public discussion that ICS-CERT knew about that
required an early release, they did a real disservice to the medical device
security community because they seem to have left out a number of
vulnerabilities; very critical vulnerabilities in my opinion.
Probably the most important to my mind is that the device
stores the encryption keys for access to the hospital wireless network in plain
text. This allows access to all other Hospira infusion pumps on the same
network.
Jeremy Richards, the blog author, also reports that there
hard coded accounts on the devices with inadequately hashed passwords and the
web server being used on the device has uncorrected vulnerabilities that have
been publicly disclosed.
Oh, there is an interesting back and forth between Richards
and a medical device expert in the comments section. That expert belittles the
severity of the vulnerabilities that Richards disclosed, but his arguments sounded
week and pretty poorly informed.
Maybe an Alert was
More Appropriate
The interesting thing here is that according to a ThreatPost
article
posted today, these vulnerabilities were all discovered by Richards, not
Rios (Richards does acknowledge prior work by Billy on the Hospira MedNet
vulnerabilities). It could be that there were actually separate discoveries
of different vulnerabilities on the same device. Or it could be that Richards
simply found the same vulnerabilities on the infusion system devices that Billy
found earlier on the MedNet devices (they do sound somewhat similar).
If they were separate vulnerabilities, ICS-CERT might have
better served the public by issuing an alert for the vulnerabilities publicly reported
by Richards and held off on the Rios based advisory until the FDA validated the
newer version of the software.
FDA Cybersecurity
Problem
One final point in passing; it has been almost a year now
since Billy reported his vulnerabilities. Somewhere in that years’ time Hospira
wrote a new version of the affected software (there is no indication of when in
the Advisory) and now the FDA is reviewing the issue. A quick search of the FDA
web site does not show any recall of these devices for the vulnerabilities that
either researcher note or even a warning note to users about the
vulnerabilities. There have, however, been two recalls for problems with a
plastic door that does not necessarily stay closed. It may provide access to drugs, you know.
I’m absolutely sure (well at least pretty sure) that ICS-CERT would have included the
FDA in its coordination of this vulnerability. So why has the FDA ignored the
issue? Probably the same reason that they have generally written off
cybersecurity issues in general; it’s just not their job. And that is a damn
shame.
BTW: There was a
new Siemens-CERT
advisory issued yesterday that I had expected to see today on ICS-CERT. It
didn’t make it; maybe tomorrow.
1 comment:
Patrick - I think you may not have the right information or impression on FDA and security. Yes they were late to the party and are not perfect, but they have issued guidance and provided rulings that are quite impressive given the short time they have been working on the issue.
For example, some of the vendors were hiding behind a perception that fixing a security flaw would require recertification. (Sound familiar to the Safety / SIS excuse?) I don't have the document handy, but FDA made clear this is not the case.
Billy and others who work the medical device beat can give you more info, but I know from my recent podcast with Billy he is impressed by the FDA response, especially vis-a-vis DHS.
Dale Peterson
Digital Bond, Inc.
Post a Comment