Cyberbiosecurity 101: protecting life sciences in the digital age – CyberTalk

Cyberbiosecurity 101: protecting life sciences in the digital age – CyberTalk

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

In May of 2017, the life sciences industry contended with the WannaCry campaign, one of the most widespread and destructive cyber attacks in history. It rapidly propagated across networks, encrypting data and systems; leaving organizations crippled and desperate.

Some life sciences groups permanently lost intellectual property or data. Others were forced to halt production of certain drugs and vaccines. The combination of costly system downtime and ransom demands left a few enterprises financially insolvent.

Why life sciences?
Cyber criminals perceive life sciences as an attractive target due to the intellectual property available on computer systems. Ninety-five percent of all cyber attacks in the life sciences sector center around intellectual property (IP).

For the life science sector, WannaCry served as a cyber security wake-up call. However, not every organization took adequate action and the threat landscape has grown more perilous in the years since.

Here’s what to know about preventing and defending against cyberbiosecurity threats:

Addressing the challenge

First, know where the problems are. Conduct a thorough risk assessment – one that’s specific to your organization’s unique network environment. Identify critical assets, including intellectual property, research data and other proprietary information. Implement layered defenses to mitigate risks. These include firewalls, intrusion detection systems and endpoint detection systems.

But that alone isn’t enough. Be sure to train your employees effectively. Provide education around cyber threats, including social engineering. Develop a cyber security-conscious culture, where everyone understands the importance of safeguarding information. Provide regular supplemental training to address evolving threats.

Beyond that, ensure that your organization’s software developers use secure coding practices. Regularly patch and update software to address vulnerabilities.

Develop and test incident response (IR) plans that are specific to cyberbiosecurity/incidents in the life sciences sector. As goes for any IR plans, establish communication channels, delegate roles and clarify responsibilities, all of which will hasten the response in the event of a breach. Practice tabletop exercises to simulate real-world scenarios.

Leverage threat intelligence and information sharing efforts. Participate in Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs) or working groups that are focused on cyberbiosecurity. This will enable your organization to learn from peers and to exchange tactics. Your organization may also wish to collaborate on joint prevention and defense initiatives.

Cyber and physical system integration

Another aspect of the cyberbiosecurity situation to consider is reliance on cyber-physical systems. These types of systems integrate cyber-based control mechanisms into physical infrastructure. Examples include building automation systems and certain types of data collection and analysis instruments.

To protect these systems, ensure that your organization limits physical access to critical infrastructure and the toggles that control infrastructure functions. In addition, consider installing surveillance cameras and monitor access points.

Further, ahead of acquiring new cyber-physical technology, assess the security practices of the vendors who are providing the equipment. Ensure that vendors follow cyber security best practices.

More recommendations for CISOs

Have you completed all of the aforementioned recommendations? Great work! Take the next step: thoroughly test for vulnerabilities. Based on the results of the testing, devise and implement a remediation strategy. This will significantly minimize cyber risk. If you’re looking for experts with deep knowledge concerning how to resolve cyber security gaps, click here.

Closing thoughts

The life sciences community has an opportunity (and perhaps, an obligation) to lead when it comes to securing digital resources. Investing in cyberbiosecurity ensures the secure future of scientific research, life-saving vaccines, and life-changing pharmaceutical treatments.

For more insights like this, please see CyberTalk.org’s past coverage. Lastly, subscribe to the CyberTalk.org newsletter for timely insights, cutting-edge analyses and more, delivered straight to your inbox each week.

The Friday Roundup – Video Camera Settings & A YouTube Setup

Important Camera Settings For Videography If you are shooting video with a reasonably good camera or with a smartphone App offering access to advanced settings, then this video is well worth taking a look at. These days both of those choices are going to give you…

For MIT students, there is much to learn from crafting a chair

Design spans disciplines and schools at MIT as a versatile mode of inquiry. Whether software, furniture, robots, or consumer products, design classes at MIT guide students through the iterative process of ideation, planning, and prototyping.

“Design is 80 percent problem-setting and 20 percent problem-solving,” says MIT Professor Larry Sass SM ’94, PhD ’00, designer and researcher in the Department of Architecture. In many MIT classes, “problem-setting” typically brings to mind a weekly sheet of exercises calling for a mathematical proof or circled answer. But in design courses, problem-setting refers to the process of defining the needs and functions to be addressed with an effective solution.

Sass is the designer and instructor of class 4.500 (Design Computation), a course centering the role of computational tools like 3D modeling, rendering, and animation in design. As a course in the Department of Architecture, 4.500 focuses on the creation and experience of an object in the built environment — in this case, the chair.

Chairs are a powerful pedagogical tool posing a challenging, scoped, and specific exercise for new designers. They have a particular and intuitive function addressing the universal need to rest and take countless shapes encouraging a variety of experiences, whether a short break or a lengthy lounge. Designers revisit the chair as an iconic object at the intersection of aesthetics and function, making dozens of careful design decisions that inform its visual and somatic experience.

“A chair is the best product for learning design,” affirms Sass. “Learning how to design a chair is hard for designers across all scales, from the nanoscale designer of instruments to the macro-scale architect of skyscrapers,” he adds. For him, a well-designed chair is “firm, affordable, and delightful.”

For MIT students, there is much to learn from crafting a chair

“I wanted to make something with a unique form that would be challenging to recreate using traditional woodworking techniques. That meant creating unnatural, curved shapes using methods exclusive to modeling software,” says junior Frankie Schulte, whose design is seen at top right. Additional student chair designs by Hazel Mann (top left), Max Reese (bottom left), and Angelica Zhuang (bottom right).

Photos courtesy of the students.


Reinventing the chair

Insights from students who took the course during the fall 2023 term show the thoughtful and experimental process of design. The course leaves students with not only a new piece of furniture, but also new skills and reflections on design. “The best [outcome] is that the students learn about design as the creation of an experience as part of a function,” says Sass.

Students in 4.500 begin their journey by considering the experience they wanted to design for their chairs. Junior Shruthi Ravichandran designed a chair around the experience of “gentle containment,” influenced by OTO, the “hugging chair.”

“I was very inspired by the idea of creating a chair that is both rigid and flexible at the same time — by conforming to the user’s body and offering a sense of comfort and security,” says Ravichandran.

Another student, second-year Wonu Abiodun, who was previously part of the DesignPlus First-Year Learning Community, envisioned a unique lounging chair drawing from precedents of existing seats and evocative images of yoga poses. It encourages users to “sit criss-cross and lean back to stretch their spine, creating a kind of meditative pose to drain stress from a busy day,” Abiodun explains.

The geometry of a chair ties directly into its success, motivating the use of computational modeling tools. “We need to know the heights, widths, and details of our ideas to ensure comfort and safety,” says Sass. Student designers use a suite of design software including Rhino, AutoCAD, and 3D Studio Max to realize their concepts in geometry.

Sometimes, the technology itself acts as an inspiration. For junior Frankie Schulte, the digital software and computer numerical control (CNC) fabrication — a computerized process that uses software and code to control production equipment — used in the course informed his chair design choices. “I wanted to make something with a unique form that would be challenging to recreate using traditional woodworking techniques. That meant creating unnatural, curved shapes using methods exclusive to modeling software,” says Schulte.

Making it real

After producing an initial digital model of their chair, students assemble quarter-scale models out of laser-cut masonite, a sturdy engineered wood material. Creating scale models (small but exact copies) helps students identify aspects to improve in their chair designs under material and physical constraints. Finding that some pieces would break or fall apart while building scale models, Abiodun would strengthen those parts of the design before moving on to the final chair.

Though there’s a lot of digital modeling, it doesn’t stop there because there’s also the physical aspect of sanding and routing parts, fitting them together, and testing — fingers crossed — the stability of the final product, she explains. Scale models also allow for shape exploration. Ravichandran found that each scale model of hers differed significantly.

“My models ranged from a chair that was fully made up of spheres to a chair that only had flat pieces. My final model and chair ended up in what I think is a happy middle — the seat and armrests are flat for containment and comfort, and the sides evoke the sentiment of a cloud,” she says.

Once satisfied with their scale models, students produce the full-scale prototype, keeping in mind a material limit — a single half-inch thick, 4-foot by 8-foot plywood board to be cut with a CNC machine.

Having never used such equipment before, Ravichandran sought guidance from teaching assistants and made a test object. “I built a little cloud desk organizer to test out the tolerances of the machine and see how well it could navigate around tight curves and points. This was super useful, as it helped me understand how to redesign the final file so that parts fit together snugly,” she says.

Schulte’s completed chair boasts bright colors evoking a Bauhaus-style sun. The careful arrangement of concentric circular pieces forms a seat suitable for a brief rest. “My initial precedents never had comfort in mind, and the final sitting experience certainly reflected that fact,” said Schulte. The chair has found a place in his living community lounge.

Sass has taught 4.500 (Design Computation) for the past 22 years to students across the Institute. He joined MIT’s Department of Architecture faculty after earning his MS in 1994 and PhD at MIT in 2000, and 4.500 was the first course he designed as a new professor. For his long-held commitment to excellent undergraduate education, Sass was recently honored as a 2023 MacVicar Faculty Fellow, a prestigious award informed by student, colleague, and alumni letters of support.

While the course focuses on the design and fabrication of chairs, Sass emphasizes: “Everyone who completes my course can create a 3D model and prototype almost anything.”

A new way to quantify climate change impacts: “Outdoor days”

A new way to quantify climate change impacts: “Outdoor days”

For most people, reading about the difference between a global average temperature rise of 1.5 C versus 2 C doesn’t conjure up a clear image of how their daily lives will actually be affected. So, researchers at MIT have come up with a different way of measuring and describing what global climate change patterns, in specific regions around the world, will mean for people’s daily activities and their quality of life.

The new measure, called “outdoor days,” describes the number of days per year that outdoor temperatures are neither too hot nor too cold for people to go about normal outdoor activities, whether work or leisure, in reasonable comfort. Describing the impact of rising temperatures in those terms reveals some significant global disparities, the researchers say.

The findings are described in a research paper written by MIT professor of civil and environmental engineering Elfatih Eltahir and postdocs Yeon-Woo Choi and Muhammad Khalifa, and published in the Journal of Climate.

Eltahir says he got the idea for this new system during his hourlong daily walks in the Boston area. “That’s how I interface with the temperature every day,” he says. He found that there have been more winter days recently when he could walk comfortably than in past years. Originally from Sudan, he says that when he returned there for visits, the opposite was the case: In winter, the weather tends to be relatively comfortable, but the number of these clement winter days has been declining. “There are fewer days that are really suitable for outdoor activity,” Eltahir says.

Rather than predefine what constitutes an acceptable outdoor day, Eltahir and his co-authors created a website where users can set their own definition of the highest and lowest temperatures they consider comfortable for their outside activities, then click on a country within a world map, or a state within the U.S., and get a forecast of how the number of days meeting those criteria will change between now and the end of this century. The website is freely available for anyone to use.

“This is actually a new feature that’s quite innovative,” he says. “We don’t tell people what an outdoor day should be; we let the user define an outdoor day. Hence, we invite them to participate in defining how future climate change will impact their quality of life, and hopefully, this will facilitate deeper understanding of how climate change will impact individuals directly.”

After deciding that this was a way of looking at the issue of climate change that might be useful, Eltahir says, “we started looking at the data on this, and we made several discoveries that I think are pretty significant.”

First of all, there will be winners and losers, and the losers tend to be concentrated in the global south. “In the North, in a place like Russia or Canada, you gain a significant number of outdoor days. And when you go south to places like Bangladesh or Sudan, it’s bad news. You get significantly fewer outdoor days. It is very striking.”

To derive the data, the software developed by the team uses all of the available climate models, about 50 of them, and provides output showing all of those projections on a single graph to make clear the range of possibilities, as well as the average forecast.

When we think of climate change, Eltahir says, we tend to look at maps that show that virtually everywhere, temperatures will rise. “But if you think in terms of outdoor days, you see that the world is not flat. The North is gaining; the South is losing.”

While North-South disparity in exposure and vulnerability has been broadly recognized in the past, he says, this way of quantifying the effects on the hazard (change in weather patterns) helps to bring home how strong the uneven risks from climate change on quality of life will be. “When you look at places like Bangladesh, Colombia, Ivory Coast, Sudan, Indonesia — they are all losing outdoor days.”

The same kind of disparity shows up in Europe, he says. The effects are already being felt, and are showing up in travel patterns: “There is a shift to people spending time in northern European states. They go to Sweden and places like that instead of the Mediterranean, which is showing a significant drop,” he says.

Placing this kind of detailed and localized information at people’s fingertips, he says, “I think brings the issue of communication of climate change to a different level.” With this tool, instead of looking at global averages, “we are saying according to your own definition of what a pleasant day is, [this is] how climate change is going to impact you, your activities.”

And, he adds, “hopefully that will help society make decisions about what to do with this global challenge.”

The project received support from the MIT Climate Grand Challenges project and the Abdul Latif Jameel Water and Food Systems Lab.