What you’ll learn:
- Problems presented by legacy OS.
- Questions about OS vendors’ responsibilities.
- Role of standards like SEMI E187 and E188.
Semiconductor manufacturers are challenged in balancing the need for production continuity with risks posed by outdated operating systems (OS). A strong argument can be made that the vendors of legacy OS should be more responsible in maintaining their legacy systems, especially in critical industries such as semiconductors. But the reality in the space today is that manufacturers often rely on specialized equipment controlled by old OS that are very difficult to secure and impossible to patch.
The good news is that semiconductor manufacturers can take practical steps today—and some relevant standards like SEMI E187 and E188 to aid them—to secure their continuous operations and mitigate the risks posed by legacy OS.
What’s at Stake with Reliance on Outdated Systems in Semiconductor Manufacturing?
The semiconductor industry relies heavily on specialized equipment and software to manufacture chips in the fab. Central to these operations are operating systems that control everything from machinery to data management. Many of these systems are significantly outdated, posing huge security and operational risks.
In the early days of semiconductor manufacturing, OS like Windows XP, UNIX, and other proprietary systems from equipment vendors were widely adopted. These systems provided the necessary stability and functionality for the complex manufacturing processes.
Such equipment was designed to last decades, and, despite technological advances, many fabs continue to use these legacy systems. There are several reasons why this is happening—high replacement costs, compatibility issues with new software, and the critical nature of fab operations (where any downtime can lead to significant financial losses) among them.
Legacy OS generally lack modern security features, making them soft targets for malware, ransomware, and a host of other cyber threats. Without regular security updates, which generally aren’t available, these systems become increasingly vulnerable over time.
For example, the WannaCry ransomware attack in 2017 exploited vulnerabilities in an outdated Windows operating systems, causing widespread disruption. As technology evolves, legacy systems may not be compatible with new hardware and software. This incompatibility can prevent the integration of new technology advances, limiting the operational efficiency of fabs.
In addition, fabs are often left without official maintenance resources because OS vendors have ceased support for their outdated systems. As a result, fabs must rely on in-house expertise or third-party solutions. The lack of support also means that any new vulnerabilities discovered remain unpatched, increasing the risk of being exploited.
Semiconductor manufacturers, which are the primary users of legacy OS, bear the burden of any security or operational issues arising from the equipment. Manufacturers, consequently, have been forced into a difficult position where they must balance the need for operational continuity with the risks posed by outdated, unpatched systems.
The Role of OS Vendors in Securing Legacy Systems for Semiconductor Fabs
Oftentimes, the operating system vendors historically responsible for providing updates and support will end that support at some point for older systems, citing the high cost and resource allocation required to maintain them. But should this release them from all culpability simply because they choose to end support? The vendors’ role in originally designing and deploying these systems raises significant questions about their ongoing responsibilities.
OS vendors typically argue that their responsibility ends when the official support period is over. They cite the impracticality of indefinitely supporting outdated technology, especially given the rapid pace of technological advancement and the resources required to maintain old systems. This stance is usually justified by their need to allocate resources toward developing and supporting newer, more secure technologies.
Critics would argue that vendors—especially those who created insecure systems—should continue to provide updates to mitigate vulnerabilities. This position seems particularly cogent in semiconductor manufacturing, given the critical nature of the technology and its importance to not only advances in the field, but also national security. There are several reasons to support this argument:
- Profiting from the widespread adoption of their products, OS vendors have an ethical responsibility to ensure that their systems don’t become liabilities over time. The lack of continued support can leave critical industries like semiconductor fabrication vulnerable to cyberattacks.
- The decision to cease support ignores the long-term impact of these systems. Many legacy OS remain operational for decades, far beyond the support timelines mandated by vendors. These systems are often deeply integrated into critical infrastructure, making replacement or upgrade challenging, if not impossible, and costly.
- Many legacy systems weren’t designed with robust security in mind, reflecting only the security standards and threats of their time. Given that vendors didn’t initially create secure systems, they bear some responsibility for addressing these flaws as capabilities and threats evolve.
Options for Semiconductor Manufacturers to Protect Legacy Operating Systems
While the debate rages on about how much responsibility should be held by OS vendors, semiconductor manufacturers play the crucial role in securing their operations. They must invest in securing their legacy systems through internal measures or by employing external security solutions. This includes regular risk assessments, installing protective software, and ensuring secure network configurations.
Recognizing that continued reliance on unsupported systems can pose significant risks to their environment, manufacturers need to weigh the costs and benefits of maintaining these systems versus upgrading.
One of the main criticisms leveled against OS vendors is their prioritization of profit over the protection of their users. The decision to end support for legacy systems is often driven by financial considerations rather than the actual needs of users. This approach overlooks the critical nature of these systems in industries where replacing or upgrading isn’t a viable option.
Legacy systems in semiconductor fabs are part of critical infrastructure. The decision by OS vendors to cease support effectively shifts the burden of securing these systems onto users who may lack the necessary resources or expertise. This neglect can lead to significant vulnerabilities in essential services, which, if exploited, could have far-reaching consequences.
OS vendors often use the "end of life" (EOL) designation to justify ceasing support. In reality, this argument fails to consider the unique demands of industries reliant on long-term stability and reliability. In many cases, these systems were designed to be operational for decades, and the EOL designation doesn’t align with their actual usage lifespan.
Regulations and standards such as SEMI E187 and SEMI E188 play a crucial role in addressing the security of legacy systems. Unfortunately, without the active participation of OS vendors, these standards may not be sufficient to ensure comprehensive protection. Policymakers could consider mandating extended support for critical systems or providing incentives for vendors to continue supporting legacy systems in critical industries.
With the rise in cybersecurity threats, many fabs turn to specialized security firms and products for protection against vulnerabilities in their legacy systems. Mitigating controls is one of the few protections offered for these devices.
How Can Integration of Network Protection Capabilities Mitigate Risks in Semiconductor Fabs?
Network security is crucial in protecting the interconnected systems within a semiconductor fab. A breach in one system can potentially compromise the entire network, leading to significant operational disruptions and data breaches. One way to increase the effectiveness of the protection strategy is to implement network segmentation and mitigating controls into the topology.
Intrusion Prevention Systems (IPS) are essential for monitoring network traffic and blocking suspicious activities. They provide a proactive approach to virtual patching and network security, preventing attacks before they can cause harm. IPS can detect and respond to known threats as well as anomalous behaviors that could signal new threats and variants.
Additional measures such as firewalls, encryption, and secure access controls are vital. Firewalls act as barriers against unauthorized access, while encryption (protocol encryption is a whole other discussion and topic for another article) ensures that data remains secure during transmission.
How SEMI E187 and E188 Standards Enhance Security for Legacy Systems
SEMI’s E187 and E188 standards provide guidelines for the secure design, operation, and maintenance of semiconductor equipment and systems. E187 focuses on the secure deployment of new systems, while E188 provides guidelines for maintaining security in legacy systems. Both E187 and E188 include provisions that help mitigate the risks associated with legacy systems. For example, they emphasize regular security assessments, the implementation of best practices for protecting outdated technology, and the integration of network protection measures such as IPS.
The shared-responsibility concept in cybersecurity distributes security duties across all stakeholders, ensuring a more comprehensive protection strategy. This model recognizes that no single entity can address all aspects of security alone. In semiconductor fabs, this model implies collaboration among manufacturers, OS vendors, and security firms to protect legacy systems. Each stakeholder has a role to play in ensuring the overall security of the fab's operations.
Implementing regular security audits, employing robust cybersecurity measures, and fostering continuous collaboration among all stakeholders are essential for effective legacy-system protection. Best practices include establishing clear communication channels, sharing threat intelligence, and developing joint incident response plans.
Collaborative Approaches to Securing Semiconductor Manufacturing Operations
The continued use of legacy operating systems in semiconductor fabs poses significant challenges, primarily related to security and support. While OS vendors often cease support for these systems, the responsibility for their protection should be shared among all stakeholders, including manufacturers, vendors, and security firms. Secure-by-design principles, network protection capabilities like IPS, and standards like E187 and E188 offer valuable guidelines for mitigating risks.
Moving forward, a collaborative approach is critical to ensuring the security and efficiency of semiconductor fabrication operations. By adopting a shared-responsibility model, semiconductor fabs can better protect their legacy systems and maintain the integrity of their operations.
