 




<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Overheard in the tech blogosphere &#187; Firmware</title>
	<atom:link href="http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/overheard/tag/firmware/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/overheard</link>
	<description>A Whatis.com blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:32:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
		<item>
		<title>Overheard: Why would anyone want to attack the firmware?</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/overheard/overheard-why-would-anyone-want-to-attack-the-firmware/</link>
		<comments>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/overheard/overheard-why-would-anyone-want-to-attack-the-firmware/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2008 13:21:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Margaret Rouse</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[embedded systems]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Firmware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hardware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/overheard/overheard-why-would-anyone-want-to-attack-the-firmware/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The danger with embedded devices is that they are often forgotten. They don’t always get patched or audited, and they can contain application-level vulnerabilities, such as flaws in the remote management interface that leave the door open for an attacker. Rich Smith as quoted in Permanent Denial-of-Service Attack Sabotages Hardware We aren&#8217;t seeing the PDOS [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<table border="0" cellPadding="5" cellSpacing="5">
<tr>
<td><img width="109" src="http://cdn.ttgtmedia.com/ITKE/uploads/blogs.dir/8/files/2008/05/dept_justice.jpg" alt="dept_justice.jpg" height="116" /></td>
<td><a href="http://cdn.ttgtmedia.com/ITKE/uploads/blogs.dir/8/files/2008/04/keyboard.gif" title="keyboard.gif"></a>The danger with embedded devices is that they are often forgotten. They don’t always get patched or audited, and they can contain application-level vulnerabilities, such as flaws in the remote management interface that leave the door open for an attacker.</p>
<p>Rich Smith as quoted in <a href="http://www.darkreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=154270&amp;WT.svl=news1_1">Permanent Denial-of-Service Attack Sabotages Hardware</a></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p><a href="http://www.darkreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=154270&amp;WT.svl=news1_1"></a></p>
<blockquote><p>We aren&#8217;t seeing the PDOS attack as a way to mask another attack, such as malware insertion, but as a logical and highly destructive extension of the DDOS [dedicated denial of service] criminal extortion tactics seen in use today.</p></blockquote>
<p>So this is about corporate sabatoge? Or criminals wiping out a few routers and extorting money for keeping the rest of the company&#8217;s network operational? Wow.  Sounds like a good plot for a John Grisham book. </p>
<p>Rich Smith (HP System Security Lab)  has even come up with a cool name for the attacks: phlashing.  And the fuzzing tool he developedfor either launching an attack or detecting vulnerabilities? PhlashDance. </p>
<!-- wpms-network-global-inserts -->]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/overheard/overheard-why-would-anyone-want-to-attack-the-firmware/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
