5 ms·

This is exactly why the use of a remote server exists in so many IoT devices. Widely deployed home APs, even in USA, come with device isolation on by default o

This is exactly why the use of a remote server exists in so many IoT devices. Widely deployed home APs, even in USA, come with device isolation on by default or even not disableable.

mwcampbell 10y ago
I'm surprised that device isolation is common on home APs. Wouldn't that break some fairly mainstream things like Chromecast?
- twr 10y ago
  Yes. In fact, the Chromecast setup apps suggest disabling isolation if it cannot be connected to. Broken multicast support also prevents setup.
api 10y ago
Is there actually a good reason for this "feature" outside of airport and coffee shop WiFi? Basically you have a 2000 mile data path to your light bulb because routers suck and networking engineers are cargo cult morons.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  IMO: this is actually a good default setting. Home-router designers should assume that things are hostile by default. Of course, it should be dead-simple to turn this off as well.
  - api 10y ago
    I pretty vehemently disagree. We should be very reluctant to systematically break good things to protect badly written junk. Let badly written junk burn. Then people will learn it's junk and stop using it or the developers and vendors will be forced to fix it.
    - robomc 10y ago
      Isn't it more like having a median barrier? It's unnecessary if everyone drives competently, but it also successfully prevents people crashing through no fault of their own. It also breaks or complicates use cases like "changing which direction you're going on the highway".
    - Godel_unicode 10y ago
      So you're in favor of Grandparents getting cryptowall from someone else connected to their WEP-encrypted wifi because screw them for using Windows XP and a cheap router? Off-switches for things like this are cool, because people who need them will find them, and people who don't won't. This is remarkably similar to defeatable traction-control; people who care enough to figure out what that button does will push it and have fun. People who don't won't and they'll be safe.
      - api 10y ago
        Yes, if this is the cost. Loss of local connectivity is not a small degradation. It's like losing floating point math from your CPU or the ability of your car to go in reverse. If we're building endpoint networks to prohibit local traffic, we are forcing a terrible architecture with terrible long-term privacy and security implications. Because of this, we will have a future where the NSA (and vendors, and advertisers, and the Chinese PLA, and ...) will literally know when you flush your toilet. In the future every interaction you have with every device in your house will be broadcast to third parties across multiple national boundaries and clouds. ... because we had to protect Windows XP machines from rare, marginal threat profiles. (Has anyone actually seen malware spread this way in the past 10 years in the wild?) The potential criminal and totalitarian applications of a cloud-powered IoT world are incredible. Look into "nudge theory" for a starting point, and then consider things like: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/02/when-you-fall-in-love-this-is-what-facebook-sees/283865/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/02/when-y... http://www.ibmbigdatahub.com/blog/power-behavioral-fingerprinting http://www.ibmbigdatahub.com/blog/power-behavioral-fingerpri... The decision of how to architect our communications infrastructure today and whether to, for example, permit local traffic could in the future determine whether or not we evolve into a borg-like totalitarian collective or a cooperative society of sovereign individuals. Communications infrastructure affects... well... how we communicate... which in turn affects every single aspect of human society and culture over very long spans of time. It's a special case of a larger phenomenon called path dependence. Small choices that you make today based on what seem like rational reasons today can have huge differences in the long term outcome of things in the distant future. While the future isn't fully knowable, sometimes conceptual reasoning from first principles can tell us what the likely outcome of a particular path might be.

This is exactly why the use of a remote server exists in so many IoT devices. Widely deployed home APs, even in USA, come with device isolation on by default or even not disableable.

mwcampbell 10y ago

I'm surprised that device isolation is common on home APs. Wouldn't that break some fairly mainstream things like Chromecast?

twr 10y ago
Yes. In fact, the Chromecast setup apps suggest disabling isolation if it cannot be connected to. Broken multicast support also prevents setup.

api 10y ago

Is there actually a good reason for this "feature" outside of airport and coffee shop WiFi? Basically you have a 2000 mile data path to your light bulb because routers suck and networking engineers are cargo cult morons.

CaptSpify 10y ago
IMO: this is actually a good default setting. Home-router designers should assume that things are hostile by default. Of course, it should be dead-simple to turn this off as well.
- api 10y ago
  I pretty vehemently disagree. We should be very reluctant to systematically break good things to protect badly written junk. Let badly written junk burn. Then people will learn it's junk and stop using it or the developers and vendors will be forced to fix it.
  - robomc 10y ago
    Isn't it more like having a median barrier? It's unnecessary if everyone drives competently, but it also successfully prevents people crashing through no fault of their own. It also breaks or complicates use cases like "changing which direction you're going on the highway".
  - Godel_unicode 10y ago
    So you're in favor of Grandparents getting cryptowall from someone else connected to their WEP-encrypted wifi because screw them for using Windows XP and a cheap router? Off-switches for things like this are cool, because people who need them will find them, and people who don't won't. This is remarkably similar to defeatable traction-control; people who care enough to figure out what that button does will push it and have fun. People who don't won't and they'll be safe.
    - api 10y ago
      Yes, if this is the cost. Loss of local connectivity is not a small degradation. It's like losing floating point math from your CPU or the ability of your car to go in reverse. If we're building endpoint networks to prohibit local traffic, we are forcing a terrible architecture with terrible long-term privacy and security implications. Because of this, we will have a future where the NSA (and vendors, and advertisers, and the Chinese PLA, and ...) will literally know when you flush your toilet. In the future every interaction you have with every device in your house will be broadcast to third parties across multiple national boundaries and clouds. ... because we had to protect Windows XP machines from rare, marginal threat profiles. (Has anyone actually seen malware spread this way in the past 10 years in the wild?) The potential criminal and totalitarian applications of a cloud-powered IoT world are incredible. Look into "nudge theory" for a starting point, and then consider things like: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/02/when-you-fall-in-love-this-is-what-facebook-sees/283865/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/02/when-y... http://www.ibmbigdatahub.com/blog/power-behavioral-fingerprinting http://www.ibmbigdatahub.com/blog/power-behavioral-fingerpri... The decision of how to architect our communications infrastructure today and whether to, for example, permit local traffic could in the future determine whether or not we evolve into a borg-like totalitarian collective or a cooperative society of sovereign individuals. Communications infrastructure affects... well... how we communicate... which in turn affects every single aspect of human society and culture over very long spans of time. It's a special case of a larger phenomenon called path dependence. Small choices that you make today based on what seem like rational reasons today can have huge differences in the long term outcome of things in the distant future. While the future isn't fully knowable, sometimes conceptual reasoning from first principles can tell us what the likely outcome of a particular path might be.