← Back to context

Comment by quickthrowman

7 hours ago

Grocery stores do not use standalone refrigerators, I’m not sure why I have to keep repeating this fact when every single person has been in a grocery store and seen refrigerated cases that have a dozen or more doors.

They use cold cases and have rooftop or outdoor condensing units and evaporators inside of the cold cases/freezers/etc. There’s refrigerant piping running all over the place and there’s a bunch of sensors and relays that are automated to manage the refrigeration system.

My assumption is the Danfoss control system they’re using is EOL, it’s the grocer’s responsibility to upgrade their automation equipment if it’s unsupported.

No need to make assumption here, the article says it clearly:

> Danfoss told AFP in a statement that most of the affected equipment was "legacy" products which "no longer receive software or security updates". It said its AK-SM800 and AK-SC355 fridge regulator systems were notably affected, with a version of the former using "outdated firmware". It added that it had long advised supermarkets to update from those models.

That being said I am curious what is typically the amount of time for software support offered on a newly released equipment and how common it is for super market to use obsolete software (especially for the part which carry some security risk like something with remote control). Also what about the insurance? Will they (fully) cover the financial loss? I don't know what is in their insurance contract and I am not a lawyer but it seems to me that using obsolete software make the supermarket responsible to some extent

  • > how common it is for super market to use obsolete software (especially for the part which carry some security risk like something with remote control).

    It's a near guarantee. I've been in dozens of power plants where the engineering workstations or operator interface terminals are running Windows XP or Windows 7. More than zero of which were not properly air-gapped. If those sites (with sizable CapEx budgets) delay upgrading for various reasons I would expect grocery store chains to keep whatever they have running until it's broken to the point of not being fixable without a complete overhaul.

I'm with you on the remote monitoring but why do we need remote control?

Dispatch an HVAC tech if an alarm comes up. Physical access should be the only way to shut down a system like this.

  • > Physical access should be the only way to shut down a system like this.

    Your opinion does not change the fact that virtually every automation system can be access remotely. It can be done safely with proper access controls.

That doesn't excuse them being controllable over the Internet. I can understand that remote monitoring is important, but it's in a supermarket. There's always going to be somebody on site who can control things locally. The telemetry can be transmitted via data diode, automatically re-transmitting on schedule so there's no need for any remote control.

  • > There's always going to be somebody on site who can control things locally.

    No, there is not always someone onsite with the experience and knowledge to monitor and change the system. Grocery stores do not have staff refrigeration techs onsite, they contract that out.

    • There's always going to be a manager with access to keys. They get the HVAC tech on the phone and set the controls as instructed. They're still vulnerable to somebody scamming them into setting the controls wrong, but they at least have a chance of recognizing who they're talking to, and recognizing obviously crazy instructions (e.g. "turn the thermostat up to 50 degrees"). And even if they don't, the attack is a lot harder to scale with a human in the loop.

    • Then maybe companies should stop firing people with experience and knowledge. Maybe they served a purpose after all.

      The family run supermarket I'm very familiar with that eventually was taken over by Hannaford absolutely had their own HVAC techs. Years ago at least.

      You know what Hannaford did to that store after they bought it? They said that it would have to be a "smaller" store in their system, with less product diversity, fewer departments, less attention, less investment.

      Do you know what that store was famous for, and why Hannaford placed it as the center of that deal? Because it did really really well, ran very profitably, and was essentially preferred by the (poor) community despite the Walmart 10 miles away. This store was so well run in the opinion of Hannaford Corporate, that they gave the former assistant manager, who had a working relationship with Hannaford for 20 years, priority over other internal applicants for high level management roles in order to get him to fix their problems at other stores. They lost another valuable manager due to that decision!

      Their problems at another store were that it takes in $1 million a day but they refuse to pay more than local minimum wage to staff it. They struggled to keep that store staffed well, and this store in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the area looked like shit because stuff was never done.

      Hannaford is currently seeing incredibly stiff competition from Market Basket and Costco. People who have trusted Hannaford (in the new england way where it means something) their entire lives are turncoating to Market Basket because why the hell not? It's just a store. They all suck. They can't compete on prices because distributors and upstream corporate behemoths set the prices. They can't compete on quality, because they buy that product from the exact same truck. The company explicitly has chosen to go the direction of competing on vibes of "Upmarket" product lines from the in house brand.

      You know what Hannaford didn't do? Raise wages. You know what that Manager eventually did? He re-retired and gave up the good pay, good benefits, reliable and easy income to trade for being a physical laborer and building decks for rich people, because then nobody will be so stupid as to tell him to not do the things that he knows would improve things, and has the 40 year career to back it up. Hannaford had been courting him since the 90s, because that's literally how competent he was. This man went back to destroying his body, after a diagnosis of Rheumatoid Arthritis, After a new Marriage, after economic uncertainty, because he literally wasn't allowed to be a good fucking manager of a business that he has known in his bones for decades. They didn't let him solve all their problems! Because either that would have affected how they want their profits to work, or because that's just how stupidly pig-headed and petty the modern Executive class is.

“God news shareholders! We have decided that we didn’t make enough sales this quarter so we have EOLed a whole range of products!”

  • I understand you’re being sarcastic, but yes, eventually technology gets better so a manufacturer refreshes their product line. This is extremely common in many industries.

    • They do but they continue to service the old lines for quite a long time. This is not consumer grade equipment, it represents a large capital expense and also at stake is valuable inventory. The consumer "you're SOL when the warranty expires" approach won't fly.

    • "French supermarkets hacked because this is common in many industries". Maybe it should not be common? Maybe selling internet connected industrial plant means those things must be supported forever?