• stealth_cookies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Is this mitigated by blocking mass storage devices on all devices on the air gapped network? Seems like the minimum you would want to do on a network important enough to air gap.

    • HC4L@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Depends. If you need updates on the software used in the air gapped network you won’t have lot of options. Burning cd’s doesn’t sound so crazy all of a sudden though…

      • KamikazeRusher@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Having worked in classified areas, both as an admin and an unprivileged user, CDs were normally the method of transferring data up the network. (Transferring down rarely occurred, and even then you’d be limited to plaintext files or printouts.)

        I’ve seen more places use data diodes to perform one- or two-way transfers so that requests can be streamlined and there’s no loose media to worry about tracking. It’s not super fast and higher speeds mean more expensive equipment, but it covers 98% of software update needs, and most non-admin file transfers were under 20MB anyways.

        Anything that did require a USB drive, like special test equipment (STE) or BIOS updates, had to use a FIPS-140-1 approved drive that offered a ready-only mode via PIN. This drive could only be written to from a specific workstation that was isolated from the rest of the machines (where data was transferred via CDs of course) and required two persons to perform the job to ensure accountability.

        Not the most time-efficient way of doing things, and not completely bulletproof, but it works well enough to keep things moving forward.

      • stealth_cookies@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 hour ago

        You can greatly reduce the attack surface by limiting device use to specific users or maybe even specific devices that are controlled.

      • quixotic120@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        I mean therein lies the problem. If you remove mass storage devices but allow cds then that’s just a different attack vector to exploit. You could potentially make it so there is no way to interface with any kind of storage but then when someone finds a way to break things open with a hid device you now have no practical way to fix the issue (plus working with the machine will be a nightmare)

      • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Wouldn’t you validate that update on a test machine in an isolated environment…like we’ve done since forever?