w_tom wrote:
> For a longest time, satellites, et al did not have computer
> (microprocessors) or even encryption. Satellites were a gentleman's
> game even during the Cold War. Most processing was performed on earth.
> A satellite had only enough intelligence to maintain itself for short
> periods. Electronics was the simplest and the least complex possible.
>
> Later, simple processors were installed only for station keeping -
> only to increase reliability. I suspect TDRSS (NASA's communication
> satellite system) may have been a first to use intelligent processing
> for data - satellite operating as a switch and not as a repeater.
> However that is the trend. Electronics in aerospace is the simplest,
> old, and well understood because reliability and being 'fully
> qualified' are so critical. To put something more advanced means there
> was no alternative. Only then was massive money spent to qualify a new
> part.
>
> When more processing power is required, an expensive process would be
> used to qualify a newer and yet well proven processor. So designers
> kept most intelligent functions on earth. Yes, slowly more robust
> processors make it into space. But rarely is anything 'state of the
> art' in aerospace. 'Reliability' is a far larger consideration which
> often means old and well proven hardware. Processing power of one
> astronaut's laptop is far more powerful than all Shuttle computers
> combined. That laptop need not be reliable. Those shuttle computers
> must be extremely reliable - and still they sometimes fail. Therefore
> the Shuttle has five computers making flight decisions. A poll
> determines which three will be believed. Again, it's about
> reliability and why those computers have so little processing power.
>
>
> Viruses that attack firmware have even been shipped (unknowingly) by
> the computer manufacturer. Such viruses, although rare, have been
> observed (and manufacturers don't like to talk about it). But again,
> no hardware damage.
>
> Cited previously was the case where a monitor signal too high in
> frequency could cause monitor damage. So yes, sometimes a designer
> does make a mistake, the lessons learned, and hardware fixed so that
> software cannot cause damage.
>
> We also built customized equipment where a software bug could cause
> relay damage. But again, this was customized equipment AND restricted
> users also had no access to embedded software. Software was embedded
> so that damage could not result from user programming. Even customized
> equipment makes hardware as resilient as possible to software failure
> or malware.
>
> The context is not such custom equipment. This context is consumer
> computers. Consumer electronics is designed so that software cannot
> harm hardware. Consumer equipment must be that 'idiot proof'.
>
> More complex and custom equipment can be harmed if the attacker has
> very specific engineering knowledge of that item; a specific item
> targeted. Specific engineering knowledge is what a virus writer must
> have to specifically attack firmware for a specific machine. These
> customized machines were designed so that software could not cause
> hardware damage. But then some functions might not be so robust
> because costs would be so high and because of the unique customized
> nature of its function. It is possible to put a virus into a robot so
> that robot destroys its own arms. But then good luck trying to do it.
> It is possible, but ....
>
> Supercomputers are a different environment. The days of customize
> hardware (ie Cray XMPs) are gone. Same processor chips built for
> commercial purposes now are used in supercomputers where numbers of
> processors - not specialized functions - are the objective. Most
> 'souped up' chips are sold in the market. An example: Sony Playstation
> 3. This new hardware is also challenging how software can utilize the
> power - creates a massive challenge to software engineers.
>
> Don't assume that because it is a nuclear missile, then it must have
> the most advanced electronics. Instead, it will have the most
> 'reliable' electronics. Each market has different parameter
> requirements. Sony Playstation 3 would be far too unreliable for
> aerospace use.
>
> But consumer electronics is carefully designed so that software will
> not damage hardware. Computers are legacy designs where most of the
> machine is simply a faster version of the same thing done a decade ago.
> That legacy requirement is important because of what the market
> demands of consumer electronics - where everything is a black box and
> the retail 'computer expert' does not even know what a power supply
> does. In such markets, hardware is designed so that software (viruses,
> bugs, and mistakes) cannot damage hardware.
>

So basically, you are saying that it depends on the system, consumer
systems are too difficult, and for more specialized things (like the
robot) it
would pretty much be a one-shot virus that wouldn't do great heaps of
damage, and thus would not be effective as a weapon except for very
specific circumstances (for example if your enemy was planning to
deploy the robot on you.). Not as a weapon of mass destruction, though,
which would have to be able to attack a great many different systems.

> mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
> > So then, basically, it would be very difficult to write a virus that
> > could attack 95% of the firmware out there and thus require
> > 95% of infected systems to be sent back to the factory (which
> > is what I had in mind when I asked the original question -- a
> > virus that would demand factory return.), or have parts
> > replaced, etc., and almost impossible to damage hardware
> > physically with the virus, right?
> >
> > You mentioned about spacecraft not using advanced Pentium
> > processors, only 8086s. But what if they needed more
> > computing power? 8086 is a very slow processor and is only
> > useful for relatively simple things. Even though they might not
> > need it now, what if they do in the future?
> >
> > I also needed to know about the motivation to make the virus
> > thing, where I asked about the military. Could it be possible
> > that the military has a virus that can damage hardware or
> > otherwise mandate physical repair procedures?
> >
> > Also, though, for military computers used for doing complex
> > calculations or other intense activities, including
> > supercomputers, is it possible that the chip companies
> > manufacture "souped-up" chips for THOSE computers?