I am just imagining a scenario where the hacker hijacks a high profile person and using the same technique of touch-to-access is able to generate that key to be able to reprogram the implants in a malicious way.
It could become a tool to get some ransom out of hijacking the high profile people!
The good doctor and her student told me that there is much concern that high-profile people could become targets of hackers because of the wide availability of wireless surveilance equipment. They are currently hawking their algorithm to makers of pacemakers, insulin pumps, defibrillators, neural implants, and drug delivery systems.
Beyond implants, since the heartbeat is being used as a random number generator, it is conceivable that the technique could be used in other forms ofr cryptography where the sender and receiver automatically generate the same secret key.
Kris, thanks for giving me the opportunity to point out one of the coolest aspects of our commenting system--you can actually go back and edit or even delete a previous post. Just click the Edit/Delete button below your post, change it as needed, then click the big Update button and you're done!
Similar to the car hacking article a few weeks ago. These devices should have some security, but it seems unlikely that anyone would go to the trouble to hack in to your pacemaker. Of course, with Obamacare, you probably won't be allowed to get one anyway.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.