Digital development has flourished in the health sector, with technological progress helping medical practitioners provide superior care for clients on a regular basis. Despite the increase in the number of interconnected medical appliances, the dangers of cybercrime related to these devices also rise.
Recently, vendor GE made it known that their hospital anesthesia and respiratory machines have security problems that could possibly create a risk of harm to patients.
Jonathan Tanner, a senior security researcher at Barracuda Networks, commented that biohacking has been a growing problem in the domain of cybersecurity.
It was back in 2008 when scientists initially uncovered flaws in the Medtronic Maximo. In 2012, the terrorism-focused TV show Homeland showed terrorists interference with a pacemaker that led to a character’s death.
Biohacking is a Do-It-Yourself movement that advocates utilizing biotechnology tools in order to better wellness and upgrade one’s natural abilities. This involves thinking like an engineer would: instead of just accepting the negatives in our biology or health, why not use science to find solutions to “hack” them and make them better? Therefore, famous biohacking organizations are in favor of making scientific data and equipment produced in research centers available for all to access and use, with an aim of bringing about equality.
People who refer to themselves as biohackers vary from the everyday person conducting experiments in a garage, to scientists with a formal educational background doing research independently of their job. A show called DIYSect recently presented how some scientists opt to become biohackers to get away from the burden of academic guidelines and to rekindle their enthusiasm for biology.
Biohackers are enthusiastic about the capabilities of science and technology to accomplish their desired outcomes. Biohackers may be spurred by their disagreements with existing laws and regulations, but it’s essential to consider the obligation and possible dangers that come with the freedom of operating outside the system.
The biohacking movement is consistently expanding, causing an increasingly evident divergence between those embracing it as a “counterculture” and the established “mainstream” scientific community.
An Entirely Plausible Attack
Although the details in the Hollywood situation may have been somewhat exaggerated, the underlying idea of vulnerability in such devices was very real and media sources released articles stating that, even though the specifics were not totally accurate, the fact that this type of technology has shifted from manual reprogramming to include wireless configurations makes it entirely likely that such devices would be susceptible.
Due to the rise and wide distribution of wireless gadgets, it appears to be becoming a fact that the ‘Internet of Humans’ is developing, as medical instrument designers strive to make their products simpler and more accessible to utilize and set up. Only a tiny sample of medical devices were taken into consideration.
Although there are an increasing number of gadgets that could be a potential target for attackers and rising worries about protecting the healthcare sector in general, research on this topic will get more and more attention.
Tanner mentioned that the DefCon security conference will once again offer the Biohacking village for the fourth year in a row for people to talk about the devices and topics related to it.
He expressed that, as understanding develops within the security sector, it stirs additional investigation. So far, no malicious attempts to target these gadgets have been seen, but hackers will only need to determine how to make money from these hostile activities, generating profits beyond what they make with other cyber-offenses, in order for that to change.
What Can CIOs and CISOs Do?
What actions can CIOs and CISOs in healthcare provider organizations take to safeguard against this menace?
There are two main things. A necessary first measure is to thoroughly research and analyze the potential consequences on safety and security of any medical tools that could be utilized at their institutions. This may necessitate extensive study since the field is very innovative and there may be a scarcity of safety data concerning the particular gadgets being contemplated. Looking into the distinct elements and possible safety concerns of different candidate gadgets can be rewarding.
He stated that it is important to figure out what kind of wireless connection and authentication systems are set up in the device. He suggested that the results of these studies could be compared to preexisting research, even if it is not necessarily on the same kind of device, but rather the same kind of application of the device. He mentioned that if a machine relies on Bluetooth for its setup, then any preceding examinations and breaches involving Bluetooth may be pertinent to this machine.
This research could provide alternative insight and reduce the need for research that is limited to one particular device. This insight could be based on prior knowledge and assist in identifying any potential dangers. If feasible, companies should think about appointing a security expert proficient in studying these gadgets.
Regardless, research can be utilized to pinpoint areas of concern and identify the vulnerable points of a device. If the device is only connected through an exclusive port via a wired connection, there will be no need to consider the potential for any wireless attack, and the study can be put towards other areas. It might be challenging, but it can be helpful to get data from the device manufacturers that can help identify potential security flaws.
It is improbable that a sales rep will provide this information, so it is essential to build connections with contacts that possess a deep understanding of the gadgets.
Hold Companies Accountable
Executives should be rigorous in ensuring that companies are responsible for any security issues. This could be seen as the most significant action they can take. This could be observed when initially investigating a device, when outside research is unveiled, or if the most awful issue occurs and the device is taken advantage of.
No matter when these faults are identified, it is essential to force manufacturers to mend any existing problems and produce forthcoming products without the same mistakes.
It is important to make producers aware that failing to invest in the right security can be damaging to their finances, which makes security a significant expense. It is simpler to talk about this than to truly do it, since it demands consciousness and diligence from all parts of healthcare in order for it to be effective.
Nevertheless, implementing these processes as soon as possible has its advantages, particularly when a similar situation takes place somewhere else and your company has already found a solution.
It is much better for a healthcare organization to be spared from the latest ransomware attack due to appropriate backups and secure defenses than to become the subject of news coverage for succumbing to the attack.
It is possible that PR departments of organizations that deal with such attacks could exploit press releases to promote what the organization was doing right, both exalting its reputation and alerting the rest of the business world about the ideal procedures for preventing such incidents.
For Manufacturers, Security Should Be a Prerequisite
Tanner emphasized that security should be viewed not just as an extra feature, but as an absolute requirement when producing devices.
Responding to and collaborating with independent investigators when they unveil vulnerabilities is another significant step for producers. It is essential to be aware that researchers are not aiming to sabotage your business, they are offering to do work at no cost in order to create better products and manufacturing.
Offering financial rewards to people who can locate and expose security weaknesses directly to a business so they can patch them up before criminals have a chance to misuse them is called bug bounties – an effective technique to motivate independent research.
Not having to resort to any extra initiatives, simply having a reputation for being a pleasant organization to cooperate with for freelancers can be greatly beneficial. Many researchers strive to get recognition for their work, so rather than attempting to hide their discoveries, it is best to move quickly to find and rectify the weaknesses, he said.
This will not only encourage security researchers to investigate further into a company’s creations, but also generate an exciting storyline when they give presentations about their discoveries at the many existing security conferences.
It is almost certain that no matter how a manufacturer relates to an investigator, there will be a presentation regarding any security flaws; thus, it is in the best interest of the maker to be easy to be in contact with and take swift actions in order to address the issues, rather than being sour or hard to get through to, resulting in some of the risks still existent.
Biohackers’ actions and practices challenge the ethical boundaries of what is permissible in the traditional scientific world. Rather than turn away from this difficulty, what if the long-established group utilized this as a chance to review and then change or validate its present understanding of how “moral” scientific exploration should be done? Below, arguments in favor of biohacking will be discussed to contemplate the ethical motivations that come into play when looking at biohacking as an alternative to traditional means of arriving at developing life-saving treatments in a speedier and less expensive way.
Despite this, it is understandable for those with scientific training to view biohacking movements in an unfavorable light, as they are not properly managed and can be hazardous. Therefore, these criticisms will be looked into to impress on anyone readers who are interested in or engaged in biohacking that any reasonable grounds in favor of it cannot surpass the risks tied up with this independent course.
It will be shown that experts in engineering can have common ground with certain groups of biohackers, and it is feasible to direct biohackers towards an ethical approach that is secure for all people involved and that could likely be useful for research institutions.
Though biohackers are justified in their disappointment about the hindrance of ethical restrictions in terms of medical advancement, this does not entitle regular folks to gain access to biotechnological devices and circumvent these regulations. Adhering to ethical standards is not a straightforward or trivial decision, but if folks who engage in biohacking want to engage with technology which could potentially cause issues with organizations’ ethical boundaries, they must be ready to confront any issues involved.
Citizens who have an interest in scientific research can take part without having to face delicate ethical discussions or risk dangerous consequences. If biotechnologists lack the resources to get a higher education degree and first-hand research experience, they may still take part in the field by helping professionals in tasks such as obtaining data and finding participants to take part in studies.
A major point to be taken away from this is that dialogue should take place more often between amateur biohackers and trained scientists and technicians to exchange ideas and opinions on matters prevalent in the scientific field.
Rather than responding with hostility and prompting the Biohacking network to go covert, it is recommended to open up a discussion and take in knowledge from the Biohacking community. Biohackers tap into scientific studies and the products developed by engineers in order to work on their own projects and raise questions about who can be termed a scientist and who should be able to use scientific methods. Likewise, engineers can use the notion of biohacking to have involved talks about the speed at which the existing frameworks permit.
Additionally, involvement from professionals in the biohacking space that goes beyond just monitoring could be helpful in strengthening safety protocols. It is essential for everybody, including biohackers, to adhere to safety standards when handling strong biotechnology instruments in order to carry out ethical behaviour and decisions.
One approach to reducing the risk of biohackers using sophisticated tools without the right qualifications is to advocate for the formation of shared facilities like Genspace, which teach ordinary citizens how to use such tools whilst adhering to safety regulations. It is undeniable that this type of cooperation would lead to new moral considerations.
It is conceivable that certain citizen biohackers may not consensually study with pros, particularly those who hold a populist opinion and believe engineers and researchers are part of the “elite”, perceiving them in a negative light and denying them their freedoms. Moreover, trained professionals are not morally obligated to instruct people, and those who are eager to should have a new set of ethical principles drawn up to define the duties of engineers and scientists when handing over such influential understanding to the public.
Even with the new considerations in mind, this setup would permit biohackers’ objectives to be taken seriously by experts and provide those people the chance to make greater strides towards life-preserving advancements. This would give professionals the opportunity to get various thoughts and opinions on their work from those the study is focusing on.
Overall, the future of biotechnology and biohacking remains malleable. Freeman Dyson, referred to as the “patron saint” of biohackers, envisions a future in which biotechnology follows the same path as computers in having gone from being large machines only accessible in academic labs to being common even in the most inaccessible and deprived parts of the globe.
He sees biotechnology developing to the point where it is simple enough for children to have fun with biotech-related activities. Although this idea may appear distant and unlikely, some hard-core biohackers are resolved to bring it to fruition. One should consider and discuss the morality of this taming process at every stage of its progress.
Today, the scientific community should dialogue with those who practice moderate biohacking to create better, more morally sound outcomes through the utilization of DIY biotechnology.