5 ms·

I think the name itself is broken. Most applications just need to be a local network of things. Having a million device thats that are difficult to audit, conf

I think the name itself is broken. Most applications just need to be a local network of things. Having a million device thats that are difficult to audit, configure and sensitive to internet and service outages is a nightmare recipe. Not sure how to solve this in an easy to fix way but it makes me miss the days of RFCs and standards. Seems like we need something higher level than z-wave, zigbee and 802.11.

CaptSpify 10y ago
I've been saying for years: I love the network of things. I hate the internet of things
- intrasight 10y ago
  Wow. First I've heard that expression. I wholeheartedly agree.
- singham 10y ago
  If it isn't connected to Internet how is it going to have new features. How is it going to take advantage of machine learning?
  - quantumhobbit 10y ago
    Maybe the current feature set is enough; it is what the customer bought after all. ML algos can be pretrained before shipment and the model baked into the device. Online training can be gamed just like search optimization games Google search; in fact it is a pretty big security hole.
  - SolarNet 10y ago
    Some internet/local network server on the network should provide software to do that. This software should be competed on separate from the network of thing devices individually (and should probably have open source interfaces and implementations; an industry consortium like the Khronos group - OpenGL, OpenCL, Vulkan, etc. - would be perfect). You could buy a pre-built box for it, it might get folded into the future all-in-1 router/modem (website) or console/TV box, you can have your laptop or old desktop do it, etc. That way there is a single authoritative device to secure and control everything with, a single device to reset if it becomes compromised, etc. Updates can be in cryptographically signed bundles from their manufacturers. And any smart algorithms can be run through the server. Arbitrary code execution on devices would be strongly discouraged by industry practice.
  - robohamburger 10y ago
    Exactly :D edit: adding actual explanation I don't think I subscribe to the idea the that we need to instrument everything to collect data for eventual ML (especially if that data is going to be privately owned). I can see why that would be appealing especially if you are a large software company involved with ads. If there really is a killer ML model for a particular IoT device then let me opt in/out and the data collecting can be anonymous, no login required. Being online should not be required for its function. edit 2: realized I did not address the point on updates Self updating devices I am more on the fence about. Ideally I would have some control over what is getting updated and when and the ability to revert things and schedule the updates. It would also be great if these devices used ssl and signatures for updates. There are horror stories of them opening up tftp and using http in the clear. If this is too hard for IoT makers get right maybe hubs are the way to go? Not sure but the fewer things phoning home via the internet on my network the better I guess.
macspoofing 10y ago
>Having a million device that's that are difficult to audit, configure and sensitive to internet and service outages is a nightmare recipe. Seems like an opportunity.
- robohamburger 10y ago
  Agreed though I suppose most players are thinking wow my vertical integrated app store style platform will be great here. Maybe that will win but it if we really want something that lives up to the hype maybe we need something as game changing as http and the internet itself was in the day? Stuff like http://mqtt.org/ http://mqtt.org/ and some of the open source projects like hass might help but it seems like we need something more. As the article says its not just security that is suffering but the over all UX sucks right now.
Puts 10y ago
A lot of times IoT is just a remote control. Bluetooth would be perfectly fine for this, instead of adding WiFi-access points to everything.

CaptSpify 10y ago

I've been saying for years: I love the network of things. I hate the internet of things

intrasight 10y ago
Wow. First I've heard that expression. I wholeheartedly agree.
singham 10y ago
If it isn't connected to Internet how is it going to have new features. How is it going to take advantage of machine learning?
- quantumhobbit 10y ago
  Maybe the current feature set is enough; it is what the customer bought after all. ML algos can be pretrained before shipment and the model baked into the device. Online training can be gamed just like search optimization games Google search; in fact it is a pretty big security hole.
- SolarNet 10y ago
  Some internet/local network server on the network should provide software to do that. This software should be competed on separate from the network of thing devices individually (and should probably have open source interfaces and implementations; an industry consortium like the Khronos group - OpenGL, OpenCL, Vulkan, etc. - would be perfect). You could buy a pre-built box for it, it might get folded into the future all-in-1 router/modem (website) or console/TV box, you can have your laptop or old desktop do it, etc. That way there is a single authoritative device to secure and control everything with, a single device to reset if it becomes compromised, etc. Updates can be in cryptographically signed bundles from their manufacturers. And any smart algorithms can be run through the server. Arbitrary code execution on devices would be strongly discouraged by industry practice.
- robohamburger 10y ago
  Exactly :D edit: adding actual explanation I don't think I subscribe to the idea the that we need to instrument everything to collect data for eventual ML (especially if that data is going to be privately owned). I can see why that would be appealing especially if you are a large software company involved with ads. If there really is a killer ML model for a particular IoT device then let me opt in/out and the data collecting can be anonymous, no login required. Being online should not be required for its function. edit 2: realized I did not address the point on updates Self updating devices I am more on the fence about. Ideally I would have some control over what is getting updated and when and the ability to revert things and schedule the updates. It would also be great if these devices used ssl and signatures for updates. There are horror stories of them opening up tftp and using http in the clear. If this is too hard for IoT makers get right maybe hubs are the way to go? Not sure but the fewer things phoning home via the internet on my network the better I guess.

macspoofing 10y ago

>Having a million device that's that are difficult to audit, configure and sensitive to internet and service outages is a nightmare recipe. Seems like an opportunity.

robohamburger 10y ago
Agreed though I suppose most players are thinking wow my vertical integrated app store style platform will be great here. Maybe that will win but it if we really want something that lives up to the hype maybe we need something as game changing as http and the internet itself was in the day? Stuff like http://mqtt.org/ http://mqtt.org/ and some of the open source projects like hass might help but it seems like we need something more. As the article says its not just security that is suffering but the over all UX sucks right now.

Puts 10y ago

A lot of times IoT is just a remote control. Bluetooth would be perfectly fine for this, instead of adding WiFi-access points to everything.