Imagine living with a device inside your body that keeps you alive—a pacemaker regulating your heartbeat, an insulin pump managing your diabetes, or a neurostimulator controlling your chronic pain. Now imagine someone with malicious intent could hack that device wirelessly and take control of it. This isn’t a scene from a sci-fi thriller anymore. It’s a real vulnerability that millions of people around the world unknowingly carry inside them.
As of August 2025, over 1.2 million internet-connected healthcare devices and systems are publicly accessible online, creating an expanding attack surface that cybercriminals could exploit. The problem is getting worse, not better. In 2024, over 70% of infusion pumps across surveyed hospitals remained unpatched, leaving them wide open to potential attacks.
The devices we trust to keep us healthy are increasingly connected, continuously transmitting data, and remotely adjustable by doctors. While these features have revolutionized patient care, they’ve also turned our bodies into potential hacking targets. And unlike your smartphone or computer, you can’t simply replace an implanted device when security flaws are discovered—it requires surgery, with all the risks that come with it.
Table of Contents
Why Medical Implants Are Vulnerable
Medical implants weren’t originally designed with hackers in mind. When the first pacemakers and insulin pumps were created, the priority was keeping people alive, not protecting them from cyberattacks. Security was an afterthought, if it was considered at all.
Today’s implantable devices communicate wirelessly with external controllers, smartphone apps, and hospital networks using Bluetooth, radio frequencies, or proprietary wireless protocols. This connectivity allows doctors to adjust settings remotely and monitor patient health in real-time—incredible advances that save lives. But every wireless connection is also a potential entry point for attackers.
The biggest challenge? Power. These devices run on batteries that need to last for years, sometimes decades. Every security feature—encryption, authentication, verification—consumes precious battery power. Replacing a depleted battery means surgery, so manufacturers face an impossible choice: implement robust security that drains batteries faster, or minimize security to extend device lifespan. Too often, battery life wins.
Another problem is that once a device is implanted, it’s difficult to update. Your smartphone gets security patches automatically, but a pacemaker inside someone’s chest can’t be easily updated. In 2023, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency warned of severe vulnerabilities in Medtronic devices, but many of those devices remained in patients’ bodies, unfixed.
There’s also the emergency access dilemma. In a medical crisis, doctors need to access and control implanted devices immediately, often without any prior knowledge of the patient. If security is too tight, it could prevent life-saving interventions. If it’s too loose, it enables attacks. Finding the right balance is incredibly difficult.
What Hackers Can Actually Do
The scary part isn’t just that these devices can be hacked—it’s what hackers could do with that access. Security researchers have repeatedly demonstrated these vulnerabilities at hacking conferences, proving that the threats are real.
With an insulin pump, an attacker could command the device to deliver a fatal overdose of insulin or withhold needed doses entirely. A hacked pacemaker could be reprogrammed to deliver deadly electric shocks or disabled so it can’t deliver life-saving ones. Neurostimulators could be manipulated to cause seizures or unbearable pain. The very features that make these devices life-saving also make them potentially life-threatening when compromised.
In one demonstration, researchers showed they could reprogram a pacemaker from 30 feet away, potentially delivering inappropriate shocks or draining the battery. Another team hacked an insulin pump live on stage at a security conference, showing how they could wirelessly hijack the device to deliver unauthorized insulin doses. The audience stood up and clapped—not because they were excited about the vulnerability, but because the demonstration was so convincing and alarming.
Here’s something that might surprise you: so far, there are no confirmed cases of malicious hackers actually harming patients through implanted medical devices. Not one. But the fact that researchers can do it means criminals could too. The absence of known attacks doesn’t mean it can’t happen—it just means it hasn’t happened yet, or at least hasn’t been publicly reported.
Real-World Vulnerabilities and Recalls
The threat isn’t theoretical. In recent years, several major security incidents have forced manufacturers and regulators to take action.
In 2017, the FDA recalled nearly 500,000 pacemakers manufactured by St. Jude Medical because attackers could exploit vulnerabilities by sending malicious programming commands to drain batteries, access memory, change heartbeats, or deliver inappropriate shocks. Importantly, no actual hacking incidents were reported, but the vulnerability was serious enough to warrant a massive recall.
More recently, concerns have only intensified. In 2024, over 305 million patient records were exposed due to healthcare breaches, representing a 26% increase from the previous year. While not all of these involved medical implants specifically, they show that healthcare systems are under relentless attack.
The scope of the problem is staggering. A 2025 study found that 99% of hospitals manage IoMT (Internet of Medical Things) devices with known exploited vulnerabilities. These aren’t obscure theoretical flaws—these are documented security holes that hackers already know how to exploit.
Even former Vice President Dick Cheney took this threat seriously. In 2013, he revealed that he had his doctors disable the wireless feature on his pacemaker implanted in 2007 because both he and national security officials feared terrorists could hack the device to induce cardiac arrest. Whether that specific threat was credible or not, the fact that someone at his level took it seriously speaks volumes.
Who Would Want to Hack a Medical Implant?
You might wonder: why would anyone want to hack someone’s pacemaker or insulin pump? The motivations vary, and some are more disturbing than others.
Targeted attacks: Nation-states could target political leaders, military officials, or other high-value individuals. Imagine the geopolitical implications if a world leader’s implanted medical device could be remotely manipulated. It sounds like something from a spy thriller, but security experts take this scenario seriously.
Ransomware: Cybercriminals could hold implanted devices for ransom, threatening to disable life-sustaining equipment unless a payment is made. In 2024, the mean cost for healthcare organizations to recover from a ransomware attack was $2.57 million, showing how profitable these attacks can be for criminals.
Terrorism: Mass-casualty scenarios become possible if widespread vulnerabilities exist across popular implant models. If thousands of people have the same vulnerable device, a coordinated attack could potentially affect them simultaneously.
Intimate partner violence: In domestic abuse situations, a partner with technical knowledge could monitor, manipulate, or threaten to harm someone through their implanted device, creating a new and terrifying form of control.
Data theft: Healthcare data is extremely valuable on the black market. Medical records can sell for up to $250 each, compared to just $6 for stolen credit card numbers. Implanted devices collect intimate physiological data that could be intercepted and sold.
The good news is that most of these attacks require the hacker to be physically close to the victim—typically within a few feet to several dozen feet. This provides some natural protection, as it would require significant planning and access. However, as wireless technologies improve and range increases, this protection is diminishing.
The Technical Challenges of Securing Implants
Securing medical implants isn’t like securing your laptop. These devices face unique challenges that make traditional cybersecurity approaches difficult or impossible to implement.
The permanence problem: Unlike a smartphone you can replace or a computer you can upgrade, medical implants are inside people’s bodies. Removing and replacing one requires surgery with associated risks, costs, and recovery time. This means many devices stay in patients long after security flaws are discovered—sometimes for the rest of their lives. Some newer devices allow over-the-air firmware updates, but this capability itself creates new vulnerabilities. If the update mechanism isn’t secured properly, attackers could push malicious firmware to devices.
The battery constraint: Every bit of security consumes power. Encryption, authentication, and verification all require computational resources that drain batteries. For devices designed to last years or decades on a single battery, every milliwatt matters. This creates a fundamental tension: robust security or long battery life. Patients rarely get both.
The emergency access dilemma: In a medical emergency, doctors must access and control implanted devices quickly, often without knowing anything about the patient or their device. Strong authentication that requires passwords or authorization could delay or prevent life-saving interventions. But weak authentication enables attacks. It’s an impossible balance.
What’s Being Done About It
Regulators, manufacturers, and healthcare organizations are finally taking these threats seriously, though progress has been slow.
The FDA has strengthened its cybersecurity requirements for medical devices significantly in recent years. In June 2025, the FDA issued final guidance on cybersecurity in medical devices, addressing quality system considerations and premarket submission requirements. Manufacturers are now expected to implement layered security controls, conduct vulnerability assessments, and maintain the ability to update and patch devices throughout their lifespan.
In December 2024, the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency announced that cybersecurity-specific guidance for Software as a Medical Device would be released in 2025, showing that international regulators are also taking action.
However, enforcement remains inconsistent, and countless older devices with known vulnerabilities remain in use. The reality is that regulatory frameworks struggle to keep pace with rapidly evolving technology and threats.
Some manufacturers are taking proactive steps. Companies like Medtronic and Abbott have partnered with cybersecurity firms to conduct regular security assessments. Some have established bug bounty programs, working collaboratively with security researchers to identify and fix vulnerabilities before they can be exploited. But not all manufacturers are equally committed, and 73% of healthcare organizations report that new FDA cybersecurity guidance is already influencing their procurement decisions, suggesting market pressure may drive improvements.
Innovative Security Solutions
Researchers and engineers are developing creative approaches to secure medical implants without sacrificing functionality or battery life.
Lightweight cryptography: New encryption algorithms specifically designed for resource-constrained devices offer security with minimal power consumption. These aren’t as robust as the encryption protecting your bank account, but they’re far better than nothing and practical for implanted devices.
Distance-bounding protocols: These systems verify that commands originate from authorized devices within appropriate proximity. If someone tries to control your pacemaker from across the room, the device would reject the command. This prevents many types of remote attacks while still allowing doctors to access the device when needed.
Body-as-communication-channel: Some proposed systems transmit signals through tissue rather than through the air. This makes interception much harder, as an attacker would need physical contact with the patient. While not foolproof, it significantly raises the bar for attacks.
External security shields: Wearable devices could act as security intermediaries, sitting between implants and the outside world. These shields would authenticate all communications, filter malicious commands, and provide an updateable security layer without requiring modification to the implant itself. While this adds complexity and requires patient compliance, it offers protection for legacy devices with inherent vulnerabilities.
Biometric authentication: Systems that verify commands based on the patient’s unique physiological characteristics—like ECG patterns or gait—could prevent unauthorized access even if an attacker gains proximity to the device.
What Patients Should Know
If you have a medical implant or might need one in the future, here’s what you should understand:
First, know your device. Understand the specific model and manufacturer. Register it so you receive security updates and advisories. Many patients don’t even know what type of device they have implanted, making it impossible to know if they’re affected by newly discovered vulnerabilities.
Second, have honest conversations with your healthcare providers about security. Ask what security features your device includes and what precautions might be appropriate. During regular check-ups, request security assessments alongside medical monitoring. Be alert to unusual device behavior, unexpected battery drain, or unauthorized changes to settings.
Third, understand the privacy implications. The data your device collects and transmits—physiological information, device telemetry, health trends—could be intercepted. Know what data your device collects, who has access to it, and how it’s protected.
Fourth—and this is important—don’t panic. The risk of being attacked through your medical implant remains low for most people. The benefits of these devices in keeping you alive and healthy far outweigh the theoretical cybersecurity risks. But awareness enables you to take appropriate precautions and advocate for better security.
The Bigger Picture
The security challenges facing medical implants reflect broader issues in our increasingly connected world. As we integrate technology more intimately with our bodies, we need to think differently about security, privacy, and safety.
Healthcare organizations face immense pressure. Hospital information systems show that 20% contain known exploited vulnerabilities linked to ransomware, and 74% of hospitals relying on legacy systems experienced at least one cyber incident in the past year. The healthcare sector is under siege, and medical implants are just one part of a larger cybersecurity crisis.
The solution requires systemic change. Medical education must incorporate cybersecurity awareness, equipping healthcare providers to understand and address these risks. Regulatory frameworks must evolve to match the pace of technological change. Manufacturers must build security in from the beginning, not bolt it on as an afterthought.
Perhaps most importantly, the culture must shift. Security cannot be viewed as optional or as a constraint on innovation. In a world where medical devices connect wirelessly and lives depend on their proper function, security is as essential as the device’s primary medical purpose.
The good news is that awareness is growing. 75% of healthcare organizations increased their medical device and operational technology security budgets over the past 12 months, though only 17% feel extremely confident in their ability to detect and contain attacks on medical devices. We’re moving in the right direction, but we’re not moving fast enough.
Conclusion
The wireless medical implants keeping millions of people alive represent some of healthcare’s greatest achievements, but they also create profound vulnerabilities that put our most intimate biological systems at digital risk. While no confirmed malicious attacks have harmed patients yet, security researchers have repeatedly proven these threats are real and technically feasible. We’re in a race against time—as implants become more sophisticated and connected, as more people depend on them, and as attackers grow more capable, the window for addressing these vulnerabilities narrows. The devices implanted today may remain in patients’ bodies for decades, making the security decisions we make now echo far into the future and determining whether these remarkable technologies continue saving lives or become vectors for unprecedented harm
