3 ms·
From the security we've seen in these devices, I'm assuming that would be both a financial and technical no-go. The standard practice appears to be buying a mi
by Bartweiss 10y ago
From the security we've seen in these devices, I'm assuming that would be both a financial and technical no-go. The standard practice appears to be buying a minimum-cost board and loading it up with some stolen open-source software - sensible hot-swapping would be far too demanding for that.
(But yes, that really should be the case. It could also support elegant failures back to the previous firmware version.)
- dom0 10y agoIoT devices seem to be the result of putting web people in charge of embedded development. Not to defend emb. devs... some truly horrendous stuff out there as well.
- krallja 10y agoI think it's the opposite; they put the embedded developers, who (rightly) have no sense of the insane challenge of doing security, in charge of talking to the Web.
- vonmoltke 10y agoI disagree with that characterization. Engineers working on connected devices, Web or not, should be cognizant of security issues. That many aren't I see as a problem. For that matter, I don't think most web developers have a proper sense of security challenges, either.
- dTal 10y agoDoes it have to be either/or? You need both types of developers, and they have to talk to each other, and you have finite hiring resources. These are very different cultures, and the failure mode is either broken system software, which will get noticed and fixed, or broken security, which likely won't.