Re: [sc] SCADA Holes Allowed Remote Takedown of Siemens Systems



Re: [sc] SCADA Holes Allowed Remote Takedown of Siemens Systems

From: Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett_at_xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 20:09:01 +0100
Message-Id: <201106082009.01913.Paul_E.Bennett@xxxxxx>
On Wednesday 08 Jun 2011 19:52:59 Tom Ferrell wrote:
> Drawing a boundary around standards related to safety can be quite
> challenging where security is concerned.  In many cases, a safety escape
> and a security breach can lead to the same unfortunate outcome.  The
> only real difference is the intent or lack thereof behind the initiating
> cause.  The committee working on DO-178C has taken the same tack as the
> authors of IEC 61508, i.e. security is a different and distinct
> technical topic and therefore out of scope.  The latest draft does list
> security as a system consideration.  There are at least a few (myself
> included) in the aerospace community who believe this may be more than a
> little shortsighted.  There is a separate RTCA committee working on
> security requirements but thus far no clear set of guidance for airborne
> systems has emerged.  It is a touchy subject because the airframers, the
> avionics developers, and the airlines all see this as likely to drive
> significant cost.

So, all the Safety Standards have to include is a phrase that states "Security 
considerations may have an impact on the safety of the system and should be 
reviewed as part of the overall design".

-- 
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett...............<email://Paul_E.Bennett@xxxxxx>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************
Received on Wed 08 Jun 2011 - 20:10:31 BST