Breaking News
Blog

ISA99 Rolls New Industrial Security Standard

NO RATINGS
View Comments: Oldest First | Newest First | Threaded View
Charles.Desassure
User Rank
Author
Any examples...
Charles.Desassure   9/7/2013 12:36:40 AM
NO RATINGS
This sounds very interesting.  After doing additional research,  according to the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), this standard is designed to provide a flexible framework to address and mitigate current and future vulnerabilities in industrial automation and control systems (IACS).  I wonder if they could provide and example of a future vulnerability in this area.  Carolyn Mathas, any examples?

CMathas
User Rank
Author
Re: Any examples...
CMathas   9/9/2013 9:15:21 AM
NO RATINGS
The focus of this standard is how to set up a cyber security management program. The ANSI/ISA-62443-3-3 standard is the first standard from ISA-99 which provides technical cyber security standards for the control systems that make up an IACS—the first standard to address systems.

While there are several industry-segmented standard covering water, infrastructure, oil and gas, etc., cyber security is left to the user to implement. Sometimes that's not possible as the systems aren't capable of meeting the requirements of the individual standards. ANSI/ISA-62443-3-3 defines these capabilities. End users can now define compliance to the ANSI/ISA-62443-3-3 standard as their requirement in their procurement specification. Naturally, issues of cyber security and implementation continue to evolve—somewhat rapidly, so there is a futures element of this. Like several standards, however, a basis of certification from which to go forward is always preferable compared with everyone to their own devices. This certification is currently ISASecure, from the ISA Security Compliance Institute (ICSI). Now, with the new standard, certification for these systems will be labeled ISASecure SSA. Systems that have been designed for this level of security will be easily identified.

As to a specific future vulnerability on a system level, there are so many current ones with systems the constant target of hacking, and nothing sufficient in place to protect so many, I think the criminal mind would be better than mine to think of a future vulnerability! Hacking and undermining are constantly evolving.

Thanks for posting, Charles.

 

Most Recent Comments
michigan0
 
SteveHarris0
 
realjjj
 
SteveHarris0
 
SteveHarris0
 
VicVat
 
Les_Slater
 
SSDWEM
 
witeken
Most Recent Messages
9/25/2016
4:48:30 PM
michigan0 Sang Kim First, 28nm bulk is in volume manufacturing for several years by the major semiconductor companies but not 28nm FDSOI today yet. Why not? Simply because unlike 28nm bulk the LDD(Lightly Doped Drain) to minimize hot carrier generation can't be implemented in 28nm FDSOI. Furthermore, hot carrier reliability becomes worse with scaling, That is the major reason why 28nm FDSOI is not manufacturable today and will not be. Second, how can you suppress the leakage currents from such ultra short 7nm due to the short channel effects? How thin SOI thickness is required to prevent punch-through of un-dopped 7nm FDSOI? Possibly less than 4nm. Depositing such an ultra thin film less then 4nm filum uniformly and reliably over 12" wafers at the manufacturing line is extremely difficult or not even manufacturable. If not manufacturable, the 7nm FDSOI debate is over!Third, what happens when hot carriers are generated near the drain at normal operation of 7nm FDSOI? Electrons go to the positively biased drain with no harm but where the holes to go? The holes can't go to the substrate because of the thin BOX layer. Some holes may become trapped at the BOX layer causing Vt shift. However, the vast majority of holes drift through the the un-dopped SOI channel toward the N+Source,...

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed