4 ms·

or just have a standard smoke detector, and an external sensor that waits for the sound the smoke detector makes.

hellcow 11y ago
This seems like the right approach--airgapped with redundancy. Not only is it more dependable and secure, it's also cheaper. You already have a smoke detector, so keep the parts that work. That raises an interesting question: what other "dumb" devices can we connect to the internet safely through that same method?
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  Note that my RF method is extremely simple, dirt cheap, and has decades of field use. All kinds of industrial plants used that trick for local monitoring systems. Plus, it's strictly one-way transmission: can't hack it. Devices on receiving end are simple enough to be made as secure (or not) as you'd like.
- mindslight 11y ago
  Anything that puts out simplistic PDUs, ideally one way only. A smoke alarm sends one one-way one-bit message, which can be done with a broadcast in any medium. You could even achieve similar isolation even with an optoisolated RS-232 port if the protocol is auditable, non-general, and non-extensible. But good luck actually guaranteeing those things! Internet access is akin to Turing completeness for programming languages - seemingly beneficial, easy to accidentally obtain, and ultimately a curse.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    Your profile statement is interesting given Im going opposite route: from high-assurance security in software to learning hardware cuz software cant free us on subverted, inherently-insecure hardware. Gotta tweak tge hardware a la crash-safe.org or Cambridge's CHERI cpu to make job tractablw. Im still looking for EE's to run my tooling ideas and risk assessments by but those that help are uncommon. Send me an email if your interested in talking secure HW/SW architecture or methods.
    - ashitlerferad 11y ago
      Talk to the lowRISC folks?
      - nickpsecurity 11y ago
        That's on my TODO.
nickpsecurity 11y ago
THAT is a good idea! Good out of the box thinking! The only problem I see is that some kitchen appliances have high-pitched beeps that sound really similar. It would take some pattern recognition or something to ensure false alarms. I mean, "You're house is on fire!" is a more serious false alarm than most to get at an important meeting. ;)
azinman2 11y ago
This exists on the market now, but I can't remember the name.
lazyjones 11y ago
just make sure it's off when the TV/streaming is running...
nisse72 11y ago
You mean like this one? http://www.getroost.com/ http://www.getroost.com/ A friend has one, and tells me that when his infant daughter screams, it sometimes notifies him that the house is on fire. I wonder if she's learned to game that system...

This seems like the right approach--airgapped with redundancy. Not only is it more dependable and secure, it's also cheaper. You already have a smoke detector, so keep the parts that work. That raises an interesting question: what other "dumb" devices can we connect to the internet safely through that same method?

nickpsecurity 11y ago
Note that my RF method is extremely simple, dirt cheap, and has decades of field use. All kinds of industrial plants used that trick for local monitoring systems. Plus, it's strictly one-way transmission: can't hack it. Devices on receiving end are simple enough to be made as secure (or not) as you'd like.
mindslight 11y ago
Anything that puts out simplistic PDUs, ideally one way only. A smoke alarm sends one one-way one-bit message, which can be done with a broadcast in any medium. You could even achieve similar isolation even with an optoisolated RS-232 port if the protocol is auditable, non-general, and non-extensible. But good luck actually guaranteeing those things! Internet access is akin to Turing completeness for programming languages - seemingly beneficial, easy to accidentally obtain, and ultimately a curse.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  Your profile statement is interesting given Im going opposite route: from high-assurance security in software to learning hardware cuz software cant free us on subverted, inherently-insecure hardware. Gotta tweak tge hardware a la crash-safe.org or Cambridge's CHERI cpu to make job tractablw. Im still looking for EE's to run my tooling ideas and risk assessments by but those that help are uncommon. Send me an email if your interested in talking secure HW/SW architecture or methods.
  - ashitlerferad 11y ago
    Talk to the lowRISC folks?
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      That's on my TODO.

nickpsecurity 11y ago

THAT is a good idea! Good out of the box thinking! The only problem I see is that some kitchen appliances have high-pitched beeps that sound really similar. It would take some pattern recognition or something to ensure false alarms. I mean, "You're house is on fire!" is a more serious false alarm than most to get at an important meeting. ;)

azinman2 11y ago

This exists on the market now, but I can't remember the name.

lazyjones 11y ago

just make sure it's off when the TV/streaming is running...

nisse72 11y ago

You mean like this one? http://www.getroost.com/ http://www.getroost.com/ A friend has one, and tells me that when his infant daughter screams, it sometimes notifies him that the house is on fire. I wonder if she's learned to game that system...