21 ms·

This is why people fear the Internet of Things

404 points by wtbob 11y ago

fblp 11y ago
Open source software like https://kerberos.io/ https://kerberos.io/ enables many standard USB cameras to become wifi cameras. It'd be great to see things like this become a consumer product, there's no reason surveillance software should be propriety.
tjohns 11y ago
Between IoT and the deployment of IPv6 (meaning no more automatic NAT firewalling), I feel like we need to take a fresh look at how home routers are designed. I'd love to see products that provide a user-friendly way to help me audit what my network is doing, and create firewall rules for different classes of devices. For example, if you're running a DVR server, the camera mentioned in this article probably shouldn't have been granted Internet access. While some routers have basic firewall support, it's really rudimentary and nowhere near sufficient when you have several dozen (or more) relatively unknown devices on your network. And definitely not user-friendly enough for most home users.
- ihsw 11y ago
  Even if we get a user-friendly way to authorize outbound network access, users will still just click "Allow" and "Accept" to make the notifications go away. I am wholeheartedly open to maintaining a whitelist for all of what's trying to reach out of my home network, but the sheer magnitude of domains being queried makes it unfeasible.
- computator 11y ago
  > help me audit what my network is doing, and create firewall rules We need be a better solution than this! I already dread having to configure and tweak firewalls every time I add a new device or install a new application. Even with the most user-friendly firewall in the world, we'll still end up in a world where 99% of users don't do anything and have no security/privacy. And the 1% of technical users will end up breaking basic functionality because they blocked something that the manufacturer of the device or app deemed to be an essential connection. Thinking out of the box for a moment: If you install a camera, suppose your router automatically encrypted everything coming out of the camera such that it could only be decrypted on your smartphone, or whatever you're using to view the feed from your camera. The encryption, decryption, and keys are completely independent of and outside of the control of camera manufacturer. The encryption is unavoidable; even if they get a secret feed of the video, they cannot decrypt it. Instead of the router, perhaps it's the device driver that does the encryption. The point is that this is something automatically done whenever you plug in a camera and which the camera manufacturer cannot subvert. (This idea is for cameras and such. For other kinds of IoT devices, this particular idea may or may not help.)
- pdkl95 11y ago
  > no more automatic NAT firewalling NAT != firewall IPv6 doesn't take away your stateful firewall, and NAT isn't providing ANY security. Your private IP addresses are betrayed all the time by your browser (and TCP option headers). NAT has done an incredible amount of damage to the internet; it prevented the development of true peer-to-peer software and forced everything to centralize. The solution - even for IoT in the few places IoT isn't a surveillance scam - is to remove NAT by using IPv6.
  - jerf 11y ago
    I don't think anyone was claiming what you seem to be arguing against; the point was merely that even the accidental and minimal security brought on by being unable to externally address internal networks is going away with IPv6. It was never "real" security, but it did make it materially harder to breach into someone's network. Of course it's also going away with all the IoT things actively reaching out, since every external connection made without care is also an avenue for attack. ("Oh, you want your firmware update little camera? Have I got an unsigned blob for you! You're gonna love this update.")
  - arca_vorago 11y ago
    I am a sysadmin who has been slowly preparing for IPv6 as an eventuality, and have read quite a bit on it, though I admit there is much more to learn. That being said, and knowing that the industry says otherwise, I disagree on the seemingly accepted state that we should get rid of nat for ipv6, for a few key reasons. 1. Yes, browsers and other things will leak your private ip space sometimes, but nat does indeed provide a level of security simply due to complications in routing issues for attackers. Its certainly only a base layer, but it does help. 2. In many situations, we dont want devices on the internet at all, and on private only networks. This is doable with site private, but that brings me to 3. There is a lack of clearly communicated best practices for the industry. To the pont that adoption is almost nill. I recently had a private network setup via ATT, and they said I was the first customer on that network type to request ipv6... 4. Knowing how heavily the NSA was involved in ipv6 (in particular ipv6 ipsec), I have my concerns about the protocol itself, albiet as of yet unverified doubts. The corruption of NIST committees is a very serious thing to me. 5. As the admin, I want to be able to see non encrypted traffic and metdata traversing my exit points. I am having a harder and harder time diagnosing IPv6 because of how often it wants to tunnel to some ipv4 address that I dont trust (read: microsoft). I know that all these points are fairly weak and suspect to criticism, but what gets me is that I dont hear this discussion. Instead I just hear either how ipv6 is god and you should embrace its loving arms, or I see people just sticking their head in the sand who say, I dont like it so Im going to ignore it and hold on to my ipv4 blocks until they make me. Im open to conversations on the topic, and my list is larger but Im on mobile and late for fixing some ipv4 networking issues .
- drvdevd 11y ago
  This line stood out to me (especially after reading the protocol explanation points from a manufacturer just above): "I’m baffled as to why such a well-known brand as Foscam would enable P2P communications on a product that is primarily used to monitor and secure homes and offices." Well the first answer that came to mind for me was NAT. There's a reason you'll see both botnets and (commodity, cheap) security cameras generating P2P traffic: NAT. NAT+IPV4 is a problem that adds complexity and less usability at the cost of security. It's a clear bolt-on design that consumers have tolerated probably for longer than we should have. I think ISPs have mostly created this problem in being slow to adopt something else. I would also agree that we have a basic usability problem in home routers and pretty much the entire concept of firewalls when it comes to normal users. How do you explain egress traffic filtering to someone who just wants to control their thermostat from their phone and stuff?
- Integer 11y ago
  The Turris Omnia router project has the Majordomo component, which sounds somewhat similar to what you have in mind.
bane 11y ago
What concerns me, as somebody who has absolutely zero interest in internet connected thermostats or fridges or whatever, is that as IoT devices become more and more ubiquitous, I'll probably still end up with some kind of quasi-surveillance garbage in my house. Either because I didn't mean to purchase it, or because there was no alternative because in the future every under-sink garbage disposal requires a wi-fi connection or some nonsense. Due to smart phones, computers and tablets, I already have all my internet habits being recorded, and half a dozen cameras and microphones all over the house. Whats just as concerning is how many quasi-legitimate service providers, for reasons of people desperately trying to secure themselves from bad actors, end up finding technical solutions that are indistinguishable from malware and other kinds of network attacks/exfil techniques. Argh, this is a stupid future, I want to go back and try again.
- reviseddamage 11y ago
  From 1950: "What concerns me, as somebody who has absolutely zero interest in computers or electronics or whatever, is that as electronic devices become more and more ubiquitous, I'll probably still end up with some kind of quasi-electronic garbage in my house. Either because I didn't mean to purchase it, or because there was no alternative because in the future every under-sink washing apparatus requires electronic connection or some nonsense.
  - function_seven 11y ago
    What point are you trying to make here? I don't see the parallels between OP's comment and yours.
- Umn44 11y ago
  " is that as IoT devices become more and more ubiquitous, I'll probably still end up with some kind of quasi-surveillance garbage in my house." This is the natural result of free market capitalism and private property, property owners (corporations) want to protect it and their profits from the plebians. So they buy the governments and strip plebians of their rights. Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought. Science on reasoning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ The (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY Brezinski at a press conference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWTIZBCQ79g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWTIZBCQ79g Major powers, and imposing control over the awakened masses. https://youtu.be/4usbR_kKCDs?t=397 https://youtu.be/4usbR_kKCDs?t=397
iofj 11y ago
There are many features that a P2P network would enable for this sort of hardware that would require large central infrastructure if done any other way. Probably, it's either something like this or paying a subscription fee for these devices, as having them use other local hardware infrastructure is a non-starter. I'd love a device like this that does P2P and lets me build meeting rooms across the different P2P devices. Just something that looks like a webcam, or like this, plug into the TV, and maybe have a button to start a meeting. That it gives access to my home network, oh well. I let anyone who visits more than once on my home network anyway, and also devices by a dozen manufacturers that I know aren't secure.
trm42 11y ago
Maybe there should be some kind of IoT security standards or maybe some Security Company testing and handling "Secure IoT device" rubber stamps to every tested and compliant device? This is because every company that has been making "Things" for the last 5-100 years are now thinking about making IoT devices without understanding anything about Internet or Security. The Nissan Leaf or that toy maker Vtech cases are good examples of this. A Quick starter for the rubber stamp list: 1. Authenticate every request 2. Use encryption in every phase (transport, passwords etc) 3. Really, handle basic Web security 4. Be really, really protective about your customers data in every way 5. Don't sell the data without consent from the customer
- jerf 11y ago
  Step 0: Do a cost/benefits analysis of your network connectivity, taking into account the risks of doing it wrong and the expense of doing it right, plus the support pain of doing it right but still having to deal with dodgy home network support calls, and figure out if it's even worth it. Networked cameras do make sense to me, but a lot of the IoT stuff I see, if one really takes into account the full range of costs and benefits, are quite absurd propositions.
- CaptSpify 11y ago
  Although I agree with your premise, I don't know if it would work out. Look at PCI compliance nowadays: it's all bullshit. PCI is really there for the bank to pass the buck when something goes wrong. It pretends that it's making things more secure, but IME, it does not. I don't know the answer to this problem though
  - trm42 11y ago
    Don't have any experience with PCI compliance but I assume this kind of stuff _should_ remove the most idiotic security holes.
    - CaptSpify 11y ago
      You'd think so, and it's supposed to. IME: As long as your not audited, nobody cares. I know of a place that was PCI approved for over 3 years that was doing every single item on the "do not do list". Since they weren't audited, nobody cared.
elorant 11y ago
What we really need is a universal IoT OS. Something like Android for devices. Then we can enforce the same set of safety rules that apply for smartphones and have some relative ease of mind. Otherwise it's gonna be hell because on top of everything we'd have to deal with manufacturer's incompetence to build decent software.
- kristiandupont 11y ago
  Well, even though I am not sure it would (because that OS would surely allow http requests, right?), there is no incentive for manufacturers to use such an OS, at least yet. I can't really think of anything that would change this situation -- although IoT devices will get more sophisticated, they will likely remain quite single-purpose, with webapps or mobile apps serving as the UI, so there isn't going to be much to gain from a large common code base.
- roymurdock 11y ago
  The IoT encompasses a huge number of heterogeneous devices - for consumer electronics you have webcams, smart TVs, wearables, smart white goods, thermostats, etc. - all with vastly different hardware that requires varying levels of complexity at the OS level. On top of that, the space is very immature and a huge nascent market, so you have all the big players trying to beat each other out for a large slice of the pie - Alphabet, Apple, Amazon, Intel+Qualcomm+Microsoft+Samsung (OCF Alliance), etc. What you really need is a strong vendor with a compelling security story who you can credibly trust to create good devices with a lot of thought on end-to-end security...any guesses who that might be?
- throwaway2048 11y ago
  Android is nothing short of an utter security disaster, a huge percentage of androids have critical root exploits and will NEVER be updated.
EA 11y ago
My coffee pot and your water heater are touching each other via strips of metal.
- paulsutter 11y ago
  Why was this down voted? Yes he could have made a far better post, but it is an interesting point.
  - CPLX 11y ago
    It's about as interesting as noticing that my house and your house are on the same street, if you think about it.
    - c22 11y ago
      Whenever people ask me if I'm lost I just remind them that all streets are connected and if we just keep trying novel turns we're bound to reach our destination at some point.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    I did not vote on the post, but it probably isn't true, there are all sorts of gaps in a power distribution system (at most or all transformers).
IshKebab 11y ago
I'm surprised he's surprised about this. What they claim to be doing is totally reasonable, and pretty much every IoT device works like this. There's simply no good way to get out-of-the-home communication to work reliably without having the device connect to the cloud. At least they (claim to) use NAT punching when possible. I guarantee Nest, Canary, Ring, etc. all do the same thing. HomeKit and Weave do to (although they use Apple/Google's servers which you probably trust more).
- phkahler 11y ago
  >> What they claim to be doing is totally reasonable, and pretty much every IoT device works like this. There's simply no good way to get out-of-the-home communication to work reliably without having the device connect to the cloud. None of these devices need out-of-the-home communication for the users benefit. Not even Nest.
  - zaroth 11y ago
    To change the temp on my Nest when I'm away from home there are 4 options I can see; - central control via the manufacturer (thermostat talks to nest server, my app talks to nest server) - dyndns with NAT hole punching or upnp (a way for my app to know what IP the nest is listening on and connect directly to it - a vpn from my phone to my home and the app discovers the nest as a local network device. You still need a way to make the VPN connection to your router, bringing us back to dyndns or some way to discover your IP or hope it is static - a P2P overlay network, such as what Krebs is complaining about, or more securely, a Tor hidden service.
dimman 11y ago
This sounds basically like a STUN/TURN + P2P solution which in itself _does not_ mean it's unsafe! It can be unsafe just as anything else out there if it's made unsafe. As explained by the company representative (including my own added explanations) the devices, when behind NAT, can not receive any incoming requests without setting up port forwarding in the router (this is done automatically and temporarily for outgoing requests to allow incoming respones, but thats another story). Setting up port forwarding is not a good solution so what I pressume they are doing is that they are connecting to a TURN/STUN server from the camera outwards to be able to communicate. When the application wants to connect that one also connects to this server to have the camera create a p2p link (that means direct connection between camera and the device the app is running on). If that one fails then they are relaying the data through their servers. Now there's some ceveats for the above solution. If one relies solely on encrypted channels and certificate security it should be as safe as the encryption is strong or the strength of the certificates. If not done properly, say client/peer verification is missing or the encryption chain isn't complete, then it's most likely bad. However: The single most important thing is that the _functionality itself_ and the technique used is not unsafe per se. The author makes it sound like it's a giant P2P-pool of camera devices, however this does not seem to be the case. Rather it seems to be a big network of relay servers to reduce latency for the connected devices. Big big difference there. (Then one may question the inability to turn it off or that its enabled by default, but thats another question)
- wmt 11y ago
  Maybe you should read the story again. The core focus of the criticism is directed at punching holes through firewalls by default, and in this case you cannot even disable it. "This is a concern because the P2P function built into Foscam P2P cameras is designed to punch through firewalls and can’t be switched off without applying a firmware update plus an additional patch that the company only released after repeated pleas from users on its support forum." Later he quotes Nicholas Weaver from ICSI: "Given the seemingly cavalier attitude and the almost certain lack of automatic updates, it is almost certain that these devices are remotely exploitable."
  - dimman 11y ago
rufugee 11y ago
Anyone know how the cameras specifically punch through firewall? I have a number of Apexis cameras which I believe are essentially rebranded Foscams. I set them up with static DHCP leases, placed them in a DMZ, and specifically blocked all outbound communication from those cameras to the outside world. Now I'm curious whether this would be enough if they had this p2p feature. In my case, all they seem to do is register with a Chinese based dynamic DNS service. Still, I don't need them to communicate with the outside world and would prefer to prevent it.
- soylentcola 11y ago
  I'm also interested in this. Most of the Foscams (and rebadged Foscams and similar) I've seen and used were OK once you made sure the DDNS stuff was disabled. But these were mostly the previous gen as I've moved on from Foscam for the most part and I'm not familiar with their latest IP cameras. The one thing I've noticed in general is that a lot of these IP cameras and NAS devices have DDNS or some other type of automatic forwarding on by default because users just want to plug something in and be able to access it from their iphone. The ability to do this with no more effort than pointing at a picture on a phone screen is apparently a selling point. The idea that you'd need to set up your own port forwarding or firewall rules is enough to turn a large percentage of potential buyers off to a product. It's an unfortunate situation and it's the one good case I can see being made for the whole "cloud" dependent devices like Dropcam and friends. If the only thing leaving your LAN is an encrypted stream from the camera, at least in theory it's harder for casual snoopers and Shodan tinkerers to find something sensitive to look at. Personally I prefer to have my IP cams connected to a separate LAN and record to a NAS hidden in a closet but in this day of "there's an app for that" and "plug and play" being the norm, it's interesting to see how companies sell networked devices to end users with the basic capabilities they want while not opening up home networks and sensitive data to anyone with the right search terms and the latest exploit.
- dimman 11y ago
  Hole punching is nothing spectacular, let me explain simply: You're on your computer connected to a regular home router. You hit google.com in your browser. What happens is that you create an outgoing request towards google.com port 443 (TLS/HTTPS). The router opens up a temporary firewall rule allowing responses from google.com port 443. (Without it you wouldn't get any response) Holepunching is simply using that fact, your device A and B shares their external IP:port with eachother (outside of STUN/TURN scope) and then does a simple connect() to eachothers external ip:port. When A does connect(B_IP:B_port) it opens up for B to respond to that channel, and since B is doing connect(A_IP:A_PORT) his request will be let through and they can connect to eachother. A direct connection, a P2P (peer to peer) connection between those two clients, no one else. Imagine it as a temporary port forwarding that's most importantly limited to one specific IP and PORT that can use it: the other device. (There's some technical limitations to this like the type of NAT/firewall you have, but for the simple home router the above usually works.)
compactmani 11y ago
I know IoT sounds scary and privacy invasive (it is), but in reality, most of the IoT devices are not dependent on the internet. For example, my toaster, refrigerator, washing machine, dish washer, coffee machine, TV would never benefit at all from using the internet, so I would never connect them. The only device that actually benefits from the internet is a computer, and maybe a mobile phone (because there is this app craze). The rest I predict will fade when consumers discover the devices were fine the way they were.
- nissehulth 11y ago
  Are you sure about the TV? Personally, I think streaming services are great. Granted, most "smart TVs" aren't actually that smart, but still useful.
  - kennydude 11y ago
    Smart TV's get out of date quickly and are useless. Why else do you think people have been plugging things into the back of them for years now? Boxes which can be easily replaced and still work
    - soylentcola 11y ago
      Sure, and I tend to agree. It's the same reason I was never interested in an all-in-one desktop computer where the actual computer is integrated into the monitor. I want to be able to upgrade or swap out one without binning the whole thing. That said, I was recently in the market for a new TV and the models with the best image quality in my price range didn't offer a non "smart" version for less money or even the same price. As a result, I've got a TV with AndroidTV built in and it's actually a lot nicer than having to cast everything from my phone or PC to Chromecast (although that functionality is also built in). Now, granted, when the AndroidTV bits become outdated as they surely will before the actual display does, I'll be back to plugging external devices into it but for now, there's definitely a lot of benefits to plugging that ethernet cable into the back of it.
AdmiralAsshat 11y ago
I think the bigger problem is that not enough people fear the Internet of Things.
xg15 11y ago
Meanwhile, if the same camera would only phone home to <manufacturer>.com and all the peer-to-peer stuff would be handled at the manufacturer's servers, there were probably no outrage at all...
- frandroid 11y ago
  By definition, if it phones home, it defeats the purpose of a P2P network.
  - xg15 11y ago
    Well, that was kinda the point. I agree with the stance of this post that this demonstrates the dangers of the internet of things. But I think it's misleading (and a little funny) that it's the p2p aspect that causes all the outrage. You could move all the p2p stuff from the device to a central, manufacturer-controlled proxy, relabel the p2p connections "3rd party APIs" and suddenly your former security nightmare has transformed into an ordinary, industry-standard IoT product, even though the data that gets transmitted is exactly the same... Instead the focus should be on what data is transmitted at all, but that is an old, well-known problem of course...
acomjean 11y ago
I worked in a company that provided remote power monitoring. We put a box in your circut breaker panel and monitor your power use. Its kinda neat, but way more intrusive than I imagined. It didn't occur to me how much you can learn until looking at power consumption home page of our demo house when the owner was on vacation (owner = boss). All the circuits are flat. A manager at the company who installed it too, came hold and told his wife "I see you came home at 3". He knew because he could watch the power come on. We could count loads of laundry done and watch the sun rise from solar panel output. Then there is the awkward conversations when you know the dog walker didn't walk as long as they said they did. I was glad the company transitioned to monitoring businesses, but I left after a few years for unrelated reasons.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Trust, but verify. I like the idea of knowing when the teenager actually got home, or how much the dog walker is stiffing me.
  - dangerlibrary 11y ago
    Do you like the idea of service providers being able to monitor those things about you? How about the fact that by providing the data to a third party you've abandoned your expectation of privacy re: when and what you do within your own home?
  - marshray 11y ago
    What you don't seem to get is that the default scenarios for IoT are other organizations monitoring you. You're not the one in control of this data.
  - hospes 11y ago
    Only in this case you are not the one who knows. Your electricity provider is the one who knows when your teenager kids got home and if your dog walker is stiffing you.
- flashman 11y ago
  This dad used remote power monitoring to bust his daughter throwing a party at home while she was supposed to be staying with family: http://www.rowetel.com/blog/?p=2381 http://www.rowetel.com/blog/?p=2381
mark_l_watson 11y ago
I am losing my enthusiasm for IoT because of concerns over how strong the security and privacy will be. It is not just concern over governments' desire to backdoor and monitor: I think there are valid concerns that organized crime will also exploit weak security in IoT devices.
gardano 11y ago
Question borne of ignorance: Have any of these vendors opened themselves up for any legal liability for these shenanigans? Also, if some small developer wrote a mobile app to control such devices, would they also see themselves liable?
exodust 11y ago
Not an expert but I like my IP cameras. Most people won't want to setup DDNS through their router with a service such as DynDNS (expensive at $40 per year). So the IP camera manufacturers offer DDNS as part of the product. Register the device, and you're up and running with the live camera feed appearing on your phone. Increasingly the cameras have 2-way mic capability, so it's actually very cool to access it from your phone. It's possible some of the fear is coming from not understanding the connections taking place as part of the DDNS. The actual video stream does not need to be uploaded to the manufacturer, unless they offer media management, backup etc and you've opted in. I prefer saving the video triggered from motion sensors etc to a local NAS.
zaroth 11y ago
This is a perfect use case for Tor hidden services. They punch the NAT, they encrypt, there's a robust discovery network, and the entire setup could be either scanning a QR code from the app on the phone or delivered over Bluetooth or local LAN or hypersonically or even clicking a link in an email the device sends you directly via SMTP (prepare to check your Spam folder). I believe the latest gen hidden service descriptors also effectively authenticate as well because the unique domain is kept secret and has enough entropy. I'm not sure if it's quite as simple as hash(domain) is public and the preimage is used as a key, but something like that. I thought this article was going to be about the camera emailing snapshots back to China we talked about a few weeks back. A bit disappointed that it's mostly FUD over simple IP discovery with perhaps some STUN/TURN added in. So, in that regard using Tor instead may not help. However IMO anything that makes .onion become mainstream is a very good thing.
jjuhl 11y ago
Related: "I bought some awful light bulbs so you don't have to" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11171839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11171839
fixermark 11y ago
The zen of the Internet is this: it minimizes the significance of physical location from the interaction equation. This seems small, but is in fact huge: as any high school social studies student can tell you, most of human history is a story of "Location, location, location." This is the huge feature that the Internet of Things is built upon, but sadly, far too few players in this market have yet accepted the full ramifications of the feature---while all the devices you own are now functionally within speaking distance of each other, every criminal on the planet is also now within speaking distance of them. Hopefully, more manufacturers will wise up to this concern. Until then, I'm rolling my own IoT solutions.
dominotw 11y ago
People don't 'fear' IOT, they just don't care about it. I am yet to see a single IOT device with would compel a non-techy-nerd to buy it. IOT is stupid as it stands now.
dchmiel 11y ago
For those trying to build privacy and security into their products is there some resources for what should be done before putting a product out? I have seen a list from Brian Knopf for some preliminary criteria in an article.(1) I am always looking for more standards or advice on how to create a useful product that doesn't expose the user especially marginal gain products. I mean why give up all the privacy and security just to control our lights? The gain is small but the harm is very large. 1. http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/01/how-to-search-the-internet-of-things-for-photos-of-sleeping-babies/2/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/01/how-to-search-the-in... EDIT: Grammar
quadrangle 11y ago
https://twitter.com/internetofshit https://twitter.com/internetofshit
njharman 11y ago
Network webcams aren't even close to what iot will be. They are 1990s gopher servers compared to today's WWW. And the fear mongering(ooh Chinese, be scared! Must be worse than all American company/gov soon same.) Scenario presented is by far not one of the scary scenarios that ubiqitous, constant, and networked sensors of all types make possible.
pencilcode 11y ago
The IoT startups are trying to get market share right now so they don't care at all about security. About a year ago I went to an IoT startup interview and asked if they used ssl when transferring data to and from the devices. Answer: at this stage it doesn't justify the investment, we're on vc money now and we need to get clients first.. It's going to get crazy when this becomes a real fad..
noonespecial 11y ago
> Now imagine that the geek gear you bought doesn’t actually let you block this P2P communication without some serious networking expertise or hardware surgery that few users would attempt. They forgot the part where my government keeps trying to make it illegal to fix it even if I know how.
clock_tower 11y ago
With all the talk of phoning home to particular manufacturer networks in this thread, does anyone know what happens when an IoT manufacturer goes bankrupt? Are their devices left as useless bricks?
djhn 11y ago
So apparently everyone on HN agrees IoT is bad. Who can make/ or has made a reasonable argument defending this progress? Why is this progress happening?
hackuser 11y ago
The typical end user has no hope of sniffing their network traffic, analyzing it, and configuring their firewall to block undesired transmissions. I don't have the time to do it myself. We need a hosted VPN service that provides a user-friendly firewall that defaults to deny all and offers a whitelist. Does that exist?
hackuser 11y ago
As we increase the mass surveillance of our citizens, consider what a certain U.S. Presidential candidate - who advocates religious and ethnic discrimination, torture, reduction of press freedoms etc. - would do with that power. Consider what it would be like to be Muslim, constantly under threat of official and unofficial discrimination in many Western countries, and have this surveillance everywhere around you, in your home, on your phone, etc.
giancarlostoro 11y ago
On the other hand DIY IoT doesn't sound as scary so long as your Raspberry Pi or Arduino board don't phone home.
brbsix 11y ago
Every time I read a headline like this, I can just picture a raving Alex Jones "They want to spy on you through your dishwasher! They want to look at your naked daughter! Ahhhhhhh it makes me so sick!". Unfortunately this is one of those issues that he is right about.[0] [0]: http://www.wired.com/2012/03/petraeus-tv-remote/ http://www.wired.com/2012/03/petraeus-tv-remote/
nibs 11y ago
I know this is in the context of "consumers", but is that how most people see Internet of Things? I thought IoT was more of a name for business applications, or the trend in general, rather than the category of device. I thought that "smart (appliance)" was how the devices are sold to "consumers", and that Internet of Things referred to a trend that mostly means businesses using internet-connected devices to simplify IT and get information about assets. In that context, it doesn't seem like people are afraid as they are just skeptical and curious about what value it could provide. It is a strange future indeed if fridges that enforce thought crime fall into the same category of technology as a plant floor weight sensor. At that point, they just become "things" again.
guelo 11y ago
This would be a good place to mention Silk Labs' Sense. They're an ex-Mozilla team designing an IoT platform with privacy baked in from the ground up. They recently launched a successful Kickstarter, https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/gal/sense-personalized-intelligence-for-your-connected https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/gal/sense-personalized-...
gloves 11y ago
It's only when companies take security in IoT devices seriously are we likely to see any meaningful progress in the sector. Security is an afterthought right now for companies who design products, but don't necessarily have the expertise in security to counter those who wish to hack their products. The reality is security today is as important part of the initial design in IoT products, as look and functions of the product is.
gloves 11y ago
There was a talk at an event I work for (that's the full disclosure done) on building security into the IoT. It was made by a Hardware Manager of the original iPhone, a patent holder for NEST and is now CEO at Electric Imp. In short, he argued that security has to be layered into every stage of the design process. The current paradigm is to make something and try to retrofit security features into it. http://iot.thebln.com/2016/02/building-security-into-iot-internet-of-things-forum-electric-imp/ http://iot.thebln.com/2016/02/building-security-into-iot-int...

404 points by wtbob 11y ago

fblp 11y ago

Open source software like https://kerberos.io/ https://kerberos.io/ enables many standard USB cameras to become wifi cameras. It'd be great to see things like this become a consumer product, there's no reason surveillance software should be propriety.

tjohns 11y ago

Between IoT and the deployment of IPv6 (meaning no more automatic NAT firewalling), I feel like we need to take a fresh look at how home routers are designed. I'd love to see products that provide a user-friendly way to help me audit what my network is doing, and create firewall rules for different classes of devices. For example, if you're running a DVR server, the camera mentioned in this article probably shouldn't have been granted Internet access. While some routers have basic firewall support, it's really rudimentary and nowhere near sufficient when you have several dozen (or more) relatively unknown devices on your network. And definitely not user-friendly enough for most home users.

ihsw 11y ago
Even if we get a user-friendly way to authorize outbound network access, users will still just click "Allow" and "Accept" to make the notifications go away. I am wholeheartedly open to maintaining a whitelist for all of what's trying to reach out of my home network, but the sheer magnitude of domains being queried makes it unfeasible.
computator 11y ago
> help me audit what my network is doing, and create firewall rules We need be a better solution than this! I already dread having to configure and tweak firewalls every time I add a new device or install a new application. Even with the most user-friendly firewall in the world, we'll still end up in a world where 99% of users don't do anything and have no security/privacy. And the 1% of technical users will end up breaking basic functionality because they blocked something that the manufacturer of the device or app deemed to be an essential connection. Thinking out of the box for a moment: If you install a camera, suppose your router automatically encrypted everything coming out of the camera such that it could only be decrypted on your smartphone, or whatever you're using to view the feed from your camera. The encryption, decryption, and keys are completely independent of and outside of the control of camera manufacturer. The encryption is unavoidable; even if they get a secret feed of the video, they cannot decrypt it. Instead of the router, perhaps it's the device driver that does the encryption. The point is that this is something automatically done whenever you plug in a camera and which the camera manufacturer cannot subvert. (This idea is for cameras and such. For other kinds of IoT devices, this particular idea may or may not help.)
pdkl95 11y ago
> no more automatic NAT firewalling NAT != firewall IPv6 doesn't take away your stateful firewall, and NAT isn't providing ANY security. Your private IP addresses are betrayed all the time by your browser (and TCP option headers). NAT has done an incredible amount of damage to the internet; it prevented the development of true peer-to-peer software and forced everything to centralize. The solution - even for IoT in the few places IoT isn't a surveillance scam - is to remove NAT by using IPv6.
- jerf 11y ago
  I don't think anyone was claiming what you seem to be arguing against; the point was merely that even the accidental and minimal security brought on by being unable to externally address internal networks is going away with IPv6. It was never "real" security, but it did make it materially harder to breach into someone's network. Of course it's also going away with all the IoT things actively reaching out, since every external connection made without care is also an avenue for attack. ("Oh, you want your firmware update little camera? Have I got an unsigned blob for you! You're gonna love this update.")
- arca_vorago 11y ago
  I am a sysadmin who has been slowly preparing for IPv6 as an eventuality, and have read quite a bit on it, though I admit there is much more to learn. That being said, and knowing that the industry says otherwise, I disagree on the seemingly accepted state that we should get rid of nat for ipv6, for a few key reasons. 1. Yes, browsers and other things will leak your private ip space sometimes, but nat does indeed provide a level of security simply due to complications in routing issues for attackers. Its certainly only a base layer, but it does help. 2. In many situations, we dont want devices on the internet at all, and on private only networks. This is doable with site private, but that brings me to 3. There is a lack of clearly communicated best practices for the industry. To the pont that adoption is almost nill. I recently had a private network setup via ATT, and they said I was the first customer on that network type to request ipv6... 4. Knowing how heavily the NSA was involved in ipv6 (in particular ipv6 ipsec), I have my concerns about the protocol itself, albiet as of yet unverified doubts. The corruption of NIST committees is a very serious thing to me. 5. As the admin, I want to be able to see non encrypted traffic and metdata traversing my exit points. I am having a harder and harder time diagnosing IPv6 because of how often it wants to tunnel to some ipv4 address that I dont trust (read: microsoft). I know that all these points are fairly weak and suspect to criticism, but what gets me is that I dont hear this discussion. Instead I just hear either how ipv6 is god and you should embrace its loving arms, or I see people just sticking their head in the sand who say, I dont like it so Im going to ignore it and hold on to my ipv4 blocks until they make me. Im open to conversations on the topic, and my list is larger but Im on mobile and late for fixing some ipv4 networking issues .
drvdevd 11y ago
This line stood out to me (especially after reading the protocol explanation points from a manufacturer just above): "I’m baffled as to why such a well-known brand as Foscam would enable P2P communications on a product that is primarily used to monitor and secure homes and offices." Well the first answer that came to mind for me was NAT. There's a reason you'll see both botnets and (commodity, cheap) security cameras generating P2P traffic: NAT. NAT+IPV4 is a problem that adds complexity and less usability at the cost of security. It's a clear bolt-on design that consumers have tolerated probably for longer than we should have. I think ISPs have mostly created this problem in being slow to adopt something else. I would also agree that we have a basic usability problem in home routers and pretty much the entire concept of firewalls when it comes to normal users. How do you explain egress traffic filtering to someone who just wants to control their thermostat from their phone and stuff?
Integer 11y ago
The Turris Omnia router project has the Majordomo component, which sounds somewhat similar to what you have in mind.

bane 11y ago

What concerns me, as somebody who has absolutely zero interest in internet connected thermostats or fridges or whatever, is that as IoT devices become more and more ubiquitous, I'll probably still end up with some kind of quasi-surveillance garbage in my house. Either because I didn't mean to purchase it, or because there was no alternative because in the future every under-sink garbage disposal requires a wi-fi connection or some nonsense. Due to smart phones, computers and tablets, I already have all my internet habits being recorded, and half a dozen cameras and microphones all over the house. Whats just as concerning is how many quasi-legitimate service providers, for reasons of people desperately trying to secure themselves from bad actors, end up finding technical solutions that are indistinguishable from malware and other kinds of network attacks/exfil techniques. Argh, this is a stupid future, I want to go back and try again.

reviseddamage 11y ago
From 1950: "What concerns me, as somebody who has absolutely zero interest in computers or electronics or whatever, is that as electronic devices become more and more ubiquitous, I'll probably still end up with some kind of quasi-electronic garbage in my house. Either because I didn't mean to purchase it, or because there was no alternative because in the future every under-sink washing apparatus requires electronic connection or some nonsense.
- function_seven 11y ago
  What point are you trying to make here? I don't see the parallels between OP's comment and yours.
Umn44 11y ago
" is that as IoT devices become more and more ubiquitous, I'll probably still end up with some kind of quasi-surveillance garbage in my house." This is the natural result of free market capitalism and private property, property owners (corporations) want to protect it and their profits from the plebians. So they buy the governments and strip plebians of their rights. Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought. Science on reasoning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ The (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY Brezinski at a press conference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWTIZBCQ79g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWTIZBCQ79g Major powers, and imposing control over the awakened masses. https://youtu.be/4usbR_kKCDs?t=397 https://youtu.be/4usbR_kKCDs?t=397

iofj 11y ago

There are many features that a P2P network would enable for this sort of hardware that would require large central infrastructure if done any other way. Probably, it's either something like this or paying a subscription fee for these devices, as having them use other local hardware infrastructure is a non-starter. I'd love a device like this that does P2P and lets me build meeting rooms across the different P2P devices. Just something that looks like a webcam, or like this, plug into the TV, and maybe have a button to start a meeting. That it gives access to my home network, oh well. I let anyone who visits more than once on my home network anyway, and also devices by a dozen manufacturers that I know aren't secure.

trm42 11y ago

Maybe there should be some kind of IoT security standards or maybe some Security Company testing and handling "Secure IoT device" rubber stamps to every tested and compliant device? This is because every company that has been making "Things" for the last 5-100 years are now thinking about making IoT devices without understanding anything about Internet or Security. The Nissan Leaf or that toy maker Vtech cases are good examples of this. A Quick starter for the rubber stamp list: 1. Authenticate every request 2. Use encryption in every phase (transport, passwords etc) 3. Really, handle basic Web security 4. Be really, really protective about your customers data in every way 5. Don't sell the data without consent from the customer

jerf 11y ago
Step 0: Do a cost/benefits analysis of your network connectivity, taking into account the risks of doing it wrong and the expense of doing it right, plus the support pain of doing it right but still having to deal with dodgy home network support calls, and figure out if it's even worth it. Networked cameras do make sense to me, but a lot of the IoT stuff I see, if one really takes into account the full range of costs and benefits, are quite absurd propositions.
CaptSpify 11y ago
Although I agree with your premise, I don't know if it would work out. Look at PCI compliance nowadays: it's all bullshit. PCI is really there for the bank to pass the buck when something goes wrong. It pretends that it's making things more secure, but IME, it does not. I don't know the answer to this problem though
- trm42 11y ago
  Don't have any experience with PCI compliance but I assume this kind of stuff _should_ remove the most idiotic security holes.
  - CaptSpify 11y ago
    You'd think so, and it's supposed to. IME: As long as your not audited, nobody cares. I know of a place that was PCI approved for over 3 years that was doing every single item on the "do not do list". Since they weren't audited, nobody cared.

elorant 11y ago

What we really need is a universal IoT OS. Something like Android for devices. Then we can enforce the same set of safety rules that apply for smartphones and have some relative ease of mind. Otherwise it's gonna be hell because on top of everything we'd have to deal with manufacturer's incompetence to build decent software.

kristiandupont 11y ago
Well, even though I am not sure it would (because that OS would surely allow http requests, right?), there is no incentive for manufacturers to use such an OS, at least yet. I can't really think of anything that would change this situation -- although IoT devices will get more sophisticated, they will likely remain quite single-purpose, with webapps or mobile apps serving as the UI, so there isn't going to be much to gain from a large common code base.
roymurdock 11y ago
The IoT encompasses a huge number of heterogeneous devices - for consumer electronics you have webcams, smart TVs, wearables, smart white goods, thermostats, etc. - all with vastly different hardware that requires varying levels of complexity at the OS level. On top of that, the space is very immature and a huge nascent market, so you have all the big players trying to beat each other out for a large slice of the pie - Alphabet, Apple, Amazon, Intel+Qualcomm+Microsoft+Samsung (OCF Alliance), etc. What you really need is a strong vendor with a compelling security story who you can credibly trust to create good devices with a lot of thought on end-to-end security...any guesses who that might be?
throwaway2048 11y ago
Android is nothing short of an utter security disaster, a huge percentage of androids have critical root exploits and will NEVER be updated.

EA 11y ago

My coffee pot and your water heater are touching each other via strips of metal.

paulsutter 11y ago
Why was this down voted? Yes he could have made a far better post, but it is an interesting point.
- CPLX 11y ago
  It's about as interesting as noticing that my house and your house are on the same street, if you think about it.
  - c22 11y ago
    Whenever people ask me if I'm lost I just remind them that all streets are connected and if we just keep trying novel turns we're bound to reach our destination at some point.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  I did not vote on the post, but it probably isn't true, there are all sorts of gaps in a power distribution system (at most or all transformers).

IshKebab 11y ago

I'm surprised he's surprised about this. What they claim to be doing is totally reasonable, and pretty much every IoT device works like this. There's simply no good way to get out-of-the-home communication to work reliably without having the device connect to the cloud. At least they (claim to) use NAT punching when possible. I guarantee Nest, Canary, Ring, etc. all do the same thing. HomeKit and Weave do to (although they use Apple/Google's servers which you probably trust more).

phkahler 11y ago
>> What they claim to be doing is totally reasonable, and pretty much every IoT device works like this. There's simply no good way to get out-of-the-home communication to work reliably without having the device connect to the cloud. None of these devices need out-of-the-home communication for the users benefit. Not even Nest.
- zaroth 11y ago
  To change the temp on my Nest when I'm away from home there are 4 options I can see; - central control via the manufacturer (thermostat talks to nest server, my app talks to nest server) - dyndns with NAT hole punching or upnp (a way for my app to know what IP the nest is listening on and connect directly to it - a vpn from my phone to my home and the app discovers the nest as a local network device. You still need a way to make the VPN connection to your router, bringing us back to dyndns or some way to discover your IP or hope it is static - a P2P overlay network, such as what Krebs is complaining about, or more securely, a Tor hidden service.

dimman 11y ago

This sounds basically like a STUN/TURN + P2P solution which in itself _does not_ mean it's unsafe! It can be unsafe just as anything else out there if it's made unsafe. As explained by the company representative (including my own added explanations) the devices, when behind NAT, can not receive any incoming requests without setting up port forwarding in the router (this is done automatically and temporarily for outgoing requests to allow incoming respones, but thats another story). Setting up port forwarding is not a good solution so what I pressume they are doing is that they are connecting to a TURN/STUN server from the camera outwards to be able to communicate. When the application wants to connect that one also connects to this server to have the camera create a p2p link (that means direct connection between camera and the device the app is running on). If that one fails then they are relaying the data through their servers. Now there's some ceveats for the above solution. If one relies solely on encrypted channels and certificate security it should be as safe as the encryption is strong or the strength of the certificates. If not done properly, say client/peer verification is missing or the encryption chain isn't complete, then it's most likely bad. However: The single most important thing is that the _functionality itself_ and the technique used is not unsafe per se. The author makes it sound like it's a giant P2P-pool of camera devices, however this does not seem to be the case. Rather it seems to be a big network of relay servers to reduce latency for the connected devices. Big big difference there. (Then one may question the inability to turn it off or that its enabled by default, but thats another question)

wmt 11y ago
Maybe you should read the story again. The core focus of the criticism is directed at punching holes through firewalls by default, and in this case you cannot even disable it. "This is a concern because the P2P function built into Foscam P2P cameras is designed to punch through firewalls and can’t be switched off without applying a firmware update plus an additional patch that the company only released after repeated pleas from users on its support forum." Later he quotes Nicholas Weaver from ICSI: "Given the seemingly cavalier attitude and the almost certain lack of automatic updates, it is almost certain that these devices are remotely exploitable."
- dimman 11y ago

rufugee 11y ago

Anyone know how the cameras specifically punch through firewall? I have a number of Apexis cameras which I believe are essentially rebranded Foscams. I set them up with static DHCP leases, placed them in a DMZ, and specifically blocked all outbound communication from those cameras to the outside world. Now I'm curious whether this would be enough if they had this p2p feature. In my case, all they seem to do is register with a Chinese based dynamic DNS service. Still, I don't need them to communicate with the outside world and would prefer to prevent it.

soylentcola 11y ago
I'm also interested in this. Most of the Foscams (and rebadged Foscams and similar) I've seen and used were OK once you made sure the DDNS stuff was disabled. But these were mostly the previous gen as I've moved on from Foscam for the most part and I'm not familiar with their latest IP cameras. The one thing I've noticed in general is that a lot of these IP cameras and NAS devices have DDNS or some other type of automatic forwarding on by default because users just want to plug something in and be able to access it from their iphone. The ability to do this with no more effort than pointing at a picture on a phone screen is apparently a selling point. The idea that you'd need to set up your own port forwarding or firewall rules is enough to turn a large percentage of potential buyers off to a product. It's an unfortunate situation and it's the one good case I can see being made for the whole "cloud" dependent devices like Dropcam and friends. If the only thing leaving your LAN is an encrypted stream from the camera, at least in theory it's harder for casual snoopers and Shodan tinkerers to find something sensitive to look at. Personally I prefer to have my IP cams connected to a separate LAN and record to a NAS hidden in a closet but in this day of "there's an app for that" and "plug and play" being the norm, it's interesting to see how companies sell networked devices to end users with the basic capabilities they want while not opening up home networks and sensitive data to anyone with the right search terms and the latest exploit.
dimman 11y ago
Hole punching is nothing spectacular, let me explain simply: You're on your computer connected to a regular home router. You hit google.com in your browser. What happens is that you create an outgoing request towards google.com port 443 (TLS/HTTPS). The router opens up a temporary firewall rule allowing responses from google.com port 443. (Without it you wouldn't get any response) Holepunching is simply using that fact, your device A and B shares their external IP:port with eachother (outside of STUN/TURN scope) and then does a simple connect() to eachothers external ip:port. When A does connect(B_IP:B_port) it opens up for B to respond to that channel, and since B is doing connect(A_IP:A_PORT) his request will be let through and they can connect to eachother. A direct connection, a P2P (peer to peer) connection between those two clients, no one else. Imagine it as a temporary port forwarding that's most importantly limited to one specific IP and PORT that can use it: the other device. (There's some technical limitations to this like the type of NAT/firewall you have, but for the simple home router the above usually works.)

compactmani 11y ago

I know IoT sounds scary and privacy invasive (it is), but in reality, most of the IoT devices are not dependent on the internet. For example, my toaster, refrigerator, washing machine, dish washer, coffee machine, TV would never benefit at all from using the internet, so I would never connect them. The only device that actually benefits from the internet is a computer, and maybe a mobile phone (because there is this app craze). The rest I predict will fade when consumers discover the devices were fine the way they were.

nissehulth 11y ago
Are you sure about the TV? Personally, I think streaming services are great. Granted, most "smart TVs" aren't actually that smart, but still useful.
- kennydude 11y ago
  Smart TV's get out of date quickly and are useless. Why else do you think people have been plugging things into the back of them for years now? Boxes which can be easily replaced and still work
  - soylentcola 11y ago
    Sure, and I tend to agree. It's the same reason I was never interested in an all-in-one desktop computer where the actual computer is integrated into the monitor. I want to be able to upgrade or swap out one without binning the whole thing. That said, I was recently in the market for a new TV and the models with the best image quality in my price range didn't offer a non "smart" version for less money or even the same price. As a result, I've got a TV with AndroidTV built in and it's actually a lot nicer than having to cast everything from my phone or PC to Chromecast (although that functionality is also built in). Now, granted, when the AndroidTV bits become outdated as they surely will before the actual display does, I'll be back to plugging external devices into it but for now, there's definitely a lot of benefits to plugging that ethernet cable into the back of it.

AdmiralAsshat 11y ago

I think the bigger problem is that not enough people fear the Internet of Things.

xg15 11y ago

Meanwhile, if the same camera would only phone home to <manufacturer>.com and all the peer-to-peer stuff would be handled at the manufacturer's servers, there were probably no outrage at all...

frandroid 11y ago
By definition, if it phones home, it defeats the purpose of a P2P network.
- xg15 11y ago
  Well, that was kinda the point. I agree with the stance of this post that this demonstrates the dangers of the internet of things. But I think it's misleading (and a little funny) that it's the p2p aspect that causes all the outrage. You could move all the p2p stuff from the device to a central, manufacturer-controlled proxy, relabel the p2p connections "3rd party APIs" and suddenly your former security nightmare has transformed into an ordinary, industry-standard IoT product, even though the data that gets transmitted is exactly the same... Instead the focus should be on what data is transmitted at all, but that is an old, well-known problem of course...

acomjean 11y ago

I worked in a company that provided remote power monitoring. We put a box in your circut breaker panel and monitor your power use. Its kinda neat, but way more intrusive than I imagined. It didn't occur to me how much you can learn until looking at power consumption home page of our demo house when the owner was on vacation (owner = boss). All the circuits are flat. A manager at the company who installed it too, came hold and told his wife "I see you came home at 3". He knew because he could watch the power come on. We could count loads of laundry done and watch the sun rise from solar panel output. Then there is the awkward conversations when you know the dog walker didn't walk as long as they said they did. I was glad the company transitioned to monitoring businesses, but I left after a few years for unrelated reasons.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
Trust, but verify. I like the idea of knowing when the teenager actually got home, or how much the dog walker is stiffing me.
- dangerlibrary 11y ago
  Do you like the idea of service providers being able to monitor those things about you? How about the fact that by providing the data to a third party you've abandoned your expectation of privacy re: when and what you do within your own home?
- marshray 11y ago
  What you don't seem to get is that the default scenarios for IoT are other organizations monitoring you. You're not the one in control of this data.
- hospes 11y ago
  Only in this case you are not the one who knows. Your electricity provider is the one who knows when your teenager kids got home and if your dog walker is stiffing you.
flashman 11y ago
This dad used remote power monitoring to bust his daughter throwing a party at home while she was supposed to be staying with family: http://www.rowetel.com/blog/?p=2381 http://www.rowetel.com/blog/?p=2381

mark_l_watson 11y ago

I am losing my enthusiasm for IoT because of concerns over how strong the security and privacy will be. It is not just concern over governments' desire to backdoor and monitor: I think there are valid concerns that organized crime will also exploit weak security in IoT devices.

gardano 11y ago

Question borne of ignorance: Have any of these vendors opened themselves up for any legal liability for these shenanigans? Also, if some small developer wrote a mobile app to control such devices, would they also see themselves liable?

exodust 11y ago

Not an expert but I like my IP cameras. Most people won't want to setup DDNS through their router with a service such as DynDNS (expensive at $40 per year). So the IP camera manufacturers offer DDNS as part of the product. Register the device, and you're up and running with the live camera feed appearing on your phone. Increasingly the cameras have 2-way mic capability, so it's actually very cool to access it from your phone. It's possible some of the fear is coming from not understanding the connections taking place as part of the DDNS. The actual video stream does not need to be uploaded to the manufacturer, unless they offer media management, backup etc and you've opted in. I prefer saving the video triggered from motion sensors etc to a local NAS.

zaroth 11y ago

This is a perfect use case for Tor hidden services. They punch the NAT, they encrypt, there's a robust discovery network, and the entire setup could be either scanning a QR code from the app on the phone or delivered over Bluetooth or local LAN or hypersonically or even clicking a link in an email the device sends you directly via SMTP (prepare to check your Spam folder). I believe the latest gen hidden service descriptors also effectively authenticate as well because the unique domain is kept secret and has enough entropy. I'm not sure if it's quite as simple as hash(domain) is public and the preimage is used as a key, but something like that. I thought this article was going to be about the camera emailing snapshots back to China we talked about a few weeks back. A bit disappointed that it's mostly FUD over simple IP discovery with perhaps some STUN/TURN added in. So, in that regard using Tor instead may not help. However IMO anything that makes .onion become mainstream is a very good thing.

jjuhl 11y ago

Related: "I bought some awful light bulbs so you don't have to" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11171839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11171839

fixermark 11y ago

The zen of the Internet is this: it minimizes the significance of physical location from the interaction equation. This seems small, but is in fact huge: as any high school social studies student can tell you, most of human history is a story of "Location, location, location." This is the huge feature that the Internet of Things is built upon, but sadly, far too few players in this market have yet accepted the full ramifications of the feature---while all the devices you own are now functionally within speaking distance of each other, every criminal on the planet is also now within speaking distance of them. Hopefully, more manufacturers will wise up to this concern. Until then, I'm rolling my own IoT solutions.

dominotw 11y ago

People don't 'fear' IOT, they just don't care about it. I am yet to see a single IOT device with would compel a non-techy-nerd to buy it. IOT is stupid as it stands now.

dchmiel 11y ago

For those trying to build privacy and security into their products is there some resources for what should be done before putting a product out? I have seen a list from Brian Knopf for some preliminary criteria in an article.(1) I am always looking for more standards or advice on how to create a useful product that doesn't expose the user especially marginal gain products. I mean why give up all the privacy and security just to control our lights? The gain is small but the harm is very large. 1. http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/01/how-to-search-the-internet-of-things-for-photos-of-sleeping-babies/2/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/01/how-to-search-the-in... EDIT: Grammar

quadrangle 11y ago

https://twitter.com/internetofshit https://twitter.com/internetofshit

njharman 11y ago

Network webcams aren't even close to what iot will be. They are 1990s gopher servers compared to today's WWW. And the fear mongering(ooh Chinese, be scared! Must be worse than all American company/gov soon same.) Scenario presented is by far not one of the scary scenarios that ubiqitous, constant, and networked sensors of all types make possible.

pencilcode 11y ago

The IoT startups are trying to get market share right now so they don't care at all about security. About a year ago I went to an IoT startup interview and asked if they used ssl when transferring data to and from the devices. Answer: at this stage it doesn't justify the investment, we're on vc money now and we need to get clients first.. It's going to get crazy when this becomes a real fad..

noonespecial 11y ago

> Now imagine that the geek gear you bought doesn’t actually let you block this P2P communication without some serious networking expertise or hardware surgery that few users would attempt. They forgot the part where my government keeps trying to make it illegal to fix it even if I know how.

clock_tower 11y ago

With all the talk of phoning home to particular manufacturer networks in this thread, does anyone know what happens when an IoT manufacturer goes bankrupt? Are their devices left as useless bricks?

djhn 11y ago

So apparently everyone on HN agrees IoT is bad. Who can make/ or has made a reasonable argument defending this progress? Why is this progress happening?

hackuser 11y ago

The typical end user has no hope of sniffing their network traffic, analyzing it, and configuring their firewall to block undesired transmissions. I don't have the time to do it myself. We need a hosted VPN service that provides a user-friendly firewall that defaults to deny all and offers a whitelist. Does that exist?

hackuser 11y ago

As we increase the mass surveillance of our citizens, consider what a certain U.S. Presidential candidate - who advocates religious and ethnic discrimination, torture, reduction of press freedoms etc. - would do with that power. Consider what it would be like to be Muslim, constantly under threat of official and unofficial discrimination in many Western countries, and have this surveillance everywhere around you, in your home, on your phone, etc.

giancarlostoro 11y ago

On the other hand DIY IoT doesn't sound as scary so long as your Raspberry Pi or Arduino board don't phone home.

brbsix 11y ago

Every time I read a headline like this, I can just picture a raving Alex Jones "They want to spy on you through your dishwasher! They want to look at your naked daughter! Ahhhhhhh it makes me so sick!". Unfortunately this is one of those issues that he is right about.[0] [0]: http://www.wired.com/2012/03/petraeus-tv-remote/ http://www.wired.com/2012/03/petraeus-tv-remote/

nibs 11y ago

I know this is in the context of "consumers", but is that how most people see Internet of Things? I thought IoT was more of a name for business applications, or the trend in general, rather than the category of device. I thought that "smart (appliance)" was how the devices are sold to "consumers", and that Internet of Things referred to a trend that mostly means businesses using internet-connected devices to simplify IT and get information about assets. In that context, it doesn't seem like people are afraid as they are just skeptical and curious about what value it could provide. It is a strange future indeed if fridges that enforce thought crime fall into the same category of technology as a plant floor weight sensor. At that point, they just become "things" again.

guelo 11y ago

This would be a good place to mention Silk Labs' Sense. They're an ex-Mozilla team designing an IoT platform with privacy baked in from the ground up. They recently launched a successful Kickstarter, https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/gal/sense-personalized-intelligence-for-your-connected https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/gal/sense-personalized-...

gloves 11y ago

It's only when companies take security in IoT devices seriously are we likely to see any meaningful progress in the sector. Security is an afterthought right now for companies who design products, but don't necessarily have the expertise in security to counter those who wish to hack their products. The reality is security today is as important part of the initial design in IoT products, as look and functions of the product is.

gloves 11y ago

There was a talk at an event I work for (that's the full disclosure done) on building security into the IoT. It was made by a Hardware Manager of the original iPhone, a patent holder for NEST and is now CEO at Electric Imp. In short, he argued that security has to be layered into every stage of the design process. The current paradigm is to make something and try to retrofit security features into it. http://iot.thebln.com/2016/02/building-security-into-iot-internet-of-things-forum-electric-imp/ http://iot.thebln.com/2016/02/building-security-into-iot-int...