9 ms·

The problem with these devices in particular is the weak point is the user. As is the case in most attacks. Your average user says "Sure I can setup cameras" t

The problem with these devices in particular is the weak point is the user. As is the case in most attacks. Your average user says "Sure I can setup cameras" then sees "remote access" in the menu, sets it up, maybe it has some UPNP to the router and BOOM. Magic remote login without any type of mitigation.

cmdrfred 10y ago
Exactly, I have tons of IOT devices. I put them on a separate subnet that does not have a gateway to the internet then I VPN into that network to access them. Perhaps a product that makes that a simple process will solve the problem?
- RickS 10y ago
  FWIW, I would definitely be interested in paying for a service like this. I'm technical enough to care about this, but not technical enough to solve it myself. Similar to where I was before dropbox.
  - NetStrikeForce 10y ago
    My comment here might be relevant to your interests: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12765051 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12765051 It could suit your needs or we can help with custom deployments. In any case I'd like to learn more about your needs and your expectations. Can I drop you an email?
    - RickS 10y ago
      totally, it's in my profile
- NetStrikeForce 10y ago
  We partly do that at Wormhole. I say partly because you still have to be able to access one of our addresses. Port of last resort is 443/TCP, so it works on lots of tricky networks out there. The idea is that all your IOT stuff establishes a connection to this server, creating an encrypted network between them. You then add your control servers to that network and job done. You devices don't need any inbound access to talk to each other. All the connections are outbound, so no ports to open on your firewall and no risk. You could do this by yourself, but we take that hassle out of your hands. Happy to help with custom deployments too outside our main service; it's a great way of learning our customers' needs. It's hard though to have your exact setup as a service, it implies incoming VPN connections to the site where you deploy your IOT and a VPN server of sorts. Our main focus was remote teams and devs having to use remote servers, however IOT might be a killer use here. https://wormhole.network https://wormhole.network
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    Interesting, I have a few thoughts. Perhaps you could sell a preconfigured pfsense box (or make a raspberry pi image to start with) that when plugged into the customers router creates a reverse tunnel via your service as well as a WiFi hotspot. Then offer the user a very simple firewall control panel and they can choose what devices to allow to the open internet and what to keep private and accessible via some sort of authenticated channel. Thus devices that contain sensitive data or require enhanced security (cameras, private network attached storage devices, home automation) and devices that require internet access (Amazon Echo) can both be served by the service. Very nice service by the way. I have used ngrok in the past and found it invaluable for a few odd applications. I'll give it a try in future.
    - NetStrikeForce 10y ago
      Hi! Thank you for the feedback and the suggestion. It is a good idea actually. I'm considering new features in the roadmap, because at the moment I don't even offer Internet access through my system, it's just a private LAN (I'm not competing with the myriad of privacy-minded browsing VPNs out there). Adding a manageable Internet Gateway could be a nice option. Developing and deploying a software+hardware piece would be very interesting too, so there's no need to deploy agents on the remote servers or IOT devices (on most of them you probably can't) and I take the hassle out of my customer's hands to setup a e.g. Linux gateway to route traffic through the tunnel.
      - cmdrfred 10y ago
        A flexible gateway would be a great add on, I also like a private DNS server while developing. If you offered a Postfix forwarder and static, clean IP addresses, you could attract home users who wish to host their own email but are behind dynamic residential connections (like me, I use a digital ocean droplet currently for that purpose).
        NetStrikeForce 10y ago
        Thank you again, you're feedback is great!
- voltagex_ 10y ago
  I've been thinking about how you'd design a UI for that, that was easy to use. Maybe a separate wifi network that IOT devices go on to, and then a web app that knows devices with XYZ MAC are LIFX bulbs and shouldn't be able to talk to the smart TV, but that phones on the network should be able to jump the subnet and talk to the bulbs.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    You can make it semi-automated in a way. I believe the first 6 characters of the mac address are the vendor id, I'd get the DHCP server to assign different vendors into different isolated vlans but with short leases at first and then allow you to merge them, assign permissions and move them around. Call it "learning mode". It won't be perfect but you can also augment it with human created presets.
- mannykannot 10y ago
  The problem with any solution is getting it used widely enough to make a difference. We seem to have an unlimited predilection for making the same mistakes repeatedly, even though we could avoid them.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
redleggedfrog 10y ago
The real problem here, and this isn't going to be a popular position, is that you're relying on the internet for important things. The original engineering and architecture of the the internet (and the web) was not intended to create something you put all your eggs in. It was for sharing information, not building your mission critical business operations on. Right now, if you dumped your business into a cloud service you're mostly dead in the water. But those who have local infrastructure can keep working. As people have been noting here, centralization is bad.
- fzzzy 10y ago
  Actually, the original engineering and architecture of the internet was intended to provide reliable command & control in the event of a nuclear war. A network of last resort. I can't think of anything more mission critical than that.
  - cognivore 10y ago
    ARPANET is nothing like the monstrosity we have today.
  - late2part 10y ago
    No, it wasn't. That's a myth, disturbed in many sources, including [1]. Also in [2]: Many people have heard that the Internet began with some military computers in the Pentagon called Arpanet in 1969. The theory goes on to suggest that the network was designed to survive a nuclear attack. However, whichever definition of what the Internet is we use, neither the Pentagon nor 1969 hold up as the time and place the Internet was invented. A project which began in the Pentagon that year, called Arpanet, gave birth to the Internet protocols sometime later (during the 1970's), but 1969 was not the Internet's beginnings. Surviving a nuclear attack was not Arpanet's motivation, nor was building a global communications network. Bob Taylor, the Pentagon official who was in charge of the Pentagon's Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (or Arpanet) program, insists that the purpose was not military, but scientific. The nuclear attack theory was never part of the design. Nor was an Internet in the sense we know it part of the Pentagon's 1969 thinking. Larry Roberts, who was employed by Bob Taylor to build the Arpanet network, states that Arpanet was never intended to link people or be a communications and information facility. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Where-Wizards-Stay-Up-Late/dp/0684832674 https://www.amazon.com/Where-Wizards-Stay-Up-Late/dp/0684832... [2] http://www.nethistory.info/History%20of%20the%20Internet/beginnings.html http://www.nethistory.info/History%20of%20the%20Internet/beg...
eric_h 10y ago
Indeed. My mom got an internet connected "security camera" kit (for cheap from one of the big wholesalers, can't remember the manufacturer) and asked me to set it up. The hardware was nice, cameras did a reliable 1080p full color, but the whole reason my mom wanted it was so she could check in while she and my dad were traveling (and also sneak a peek at her bird feeders while she was away; avid birder, that one). So, I hooked that thing up to the network and did a port scan on it... First noticed - it's listening to port 22, auth is a googleable default password. It supports UPnP to punch a hole through the NAT and serve up video on another port. OS on the server box is some slightly customized version of linux with an _old_ kernel. So I said, "Sure mom, I can set this up for you. We're going to need to get you a new firewall, it'll probably be easiest to put a *nix box in front of your wifi access point, then we can set up a tunnel between the isolated camera server and a locked down outside server that only you have access to so we can be sure that no one else is looking at those cameras. Should only take me a few hours, and we'll need to buy a box to run the firewall, and then a small monthly fee to keep the internet accessible server running" Her response, "but it says on the box that it's easy to setup for outside access!". Mine: "It's easy to setup for everyone to access, much more involved if you want to make sure it's only you who has access". Admittedly, it did have some authentication for accessing the video streams, but I didn't trust that thing as far as I could throw it; I'm glad she decided not to go through the trouble of getting it working (but mostly because I'm lazy and didn't want to have to setup and support that damn thing). I can only imagine that the people who bought that device and didn't have a security paranoid person to help them set it up are all contributing to this most recent DDoS attack.
- merb 10y ago
  Her response, "but it says on the box that it's easy to setup for outside access!". Mine: "It's easy to setup for everyone to access, much more involved if you want to make sure it's only you who has access" well that was a pretty clever answer, I needed to laught about that :D Basically the commercial was right :D "easy to setup for outside access" that didn' implied a single person ^^
- paulddraper 10y ago
  > Admittedly, it did have some authentication for accessing the video streams, but I didn't trust that thing as far as I could throw it So...you wanted to have authentication and it has authentication...I must be missing something.
patcon 10y ago
heh. move over user-centered design, user-centered malign is making a come-back :)

cmdrfred 10y ago

Exactly, I have tons of IOT devices. I put them on a separate subnet that does not have a gateway to the internet then I VPN into that network to access them. Perhaps a product that makes that a simple process will solve the problem?

RickS 10y ago
FWIW, I would definitely be interested in paying for a service like this. I'm technical enough to care about this, but not technical enough to solve it myself. Similar to where I was before dropbox.
- NetStrikeForce 10y ago
  My comment here might be relevant to your interests: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12765051 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12765051 It could suit your needs or we can help with custom deployments. In any case I'd like to learn more about your needs and your expectations. Can I drop you an email?
  - RickS 10y ago
    totally, it's in my profile
NetStrikeForce 10y ago
We partly do that at Wormhole. I say partly because you still have to be able to access one of our addresses. Port of last resort is 443/TCP, so it works on lots of tricky networks out there. The idea is that all your IOT stuff establishes a connection to this server, creating an encrypted network between them. You then add your control servers to that network and job done. You devices don't need any inbound access to talk to each other. All the connections are outbound, so no ports to open on your firewall and no risk. You could do this by yourself, but we take that hassle out of your hands. Happy to help with custom deployments too outside our main service; it's a great way of learning our customers' needs. It's hard though to have your exact setup as a service, it implies incoming VPN connections to the site where you deploy your IOT and a VPN server of sorts. Our main focus was remote teams and devs having to use remote servers, however IOT might be a killer use here. https://wormhole.network https://wormhole.network
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  Interesting, I have a few thoughts. Perhaps you could sell a preconfigured pfsense box (or make a raspberry pi image to start with) that when plugged into the customers router creates a reverse tunnel via your service as well as a WiFi hotspot. Then offer the user a very simple firewall control panel and they can choose what devices to allow to the open internet and what to keep private and accessible via some sort of authenticated channel. Thus devices that contain sensitive data or require enhanced security (cameras, private network attached storage devices, home automation) and devices that require internet access (Amazon Echo) can both be served by the service. Very nice service by the way. I have used ngrok in the past and found it invaluable for a few odd applications. I'll give it a try in future.
  - NetStrikeForce 10y ago
    Hi! Thank you for the feedback and the suggestion. It is a good idea actually. I'm considering new features in the roadmap, because at the moment I don't even offer Internet access through my system, it's just a private LAN (I'm not competing with the myriad of privacy-minded browsing VPNs out there). Adding a manageable Internet Gateway could be a nice option. Developing and deploying a software+hardware piece would be very interesting too, so there's no need to deploy agents on the remote servers or IOT devices (on most of them you probably can't) and I take the hassle out of my customer's hands to setup a e.g. Linux gateway to route traffic through the tunnel.
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      A flexible gateway would be a great add on, I also like a private DNS server while developing. If you offered a Postfix forwarder and static, clean IP addresses, you could attract home users who wish to host their own email but are behind dynamic residential connections (like me, I use a digital ocean droplet currently for that purpose).
      - NetStrikeForce 10y ago
        Thank you again, you're feedback is great!
voltagex_ 10y ago
I've been thinking about how you'd design a UI for that, that was easy to use. Maybe a separate wifi network that IOT devices go on to, and then a web app that knows devices with XYZ MAC are LIFX bulbs and shouldn't be able to talk to the smart TV, but that phones on the network should be able to jump the subnet and talk to the bulbs.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  You can make it semi-automated in a way. I believe the first 6 characters of the mac address are the vendor id, I'd get the DHCP server to assign different vendors into different isolated vlans but with short leases at first and then allow you to merge them, assign permissions and move them around. Call it "learning mode". It won't be perfect but you can also augment it with human created presets.
mannykannot 10y ago
The problem with any solution is getting it used widely enough to make a difference. We seem to have an unlimited predilection for making the same mistakes repeatedly, even though we could avoid them.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

redleggedfrog 10y ago

The real problem here, and this isn't going to be a popular position, is that you're relying on the internet for important things. The original engineering and architecture of the the internet (and the web) was not intended to create something you put all your eggs in. It was for sharing information, not building your mission critical business operations on. Right now, if you dumped your business into a cloud service you're mostly dead in the water. But those who have local infrastructure can keep working. As people have been noting here, centralization is bad.

fzzzy 10y ago
Actually, the original engineering and architecture of the internet was intended to provide reliable command & control in the event of a nuclear war. A network of last resort. I can't think of anything more mission critical than that.
- cognivore 10y ago
  ARPANET is nothing like the monstrosity we have today.
- late2part 10y ago
  No, it wasn't. That's a myth, disturbed in many sources, including [1]. Also in [2]: Many people have heard that the Internet began with some military computers in the Pentagon called Arpanet in 1969. The theory goes on to suggest that the network was designed to survive a nuclear attack. However, whichever definition of what the Internet is we use, neither the Pentagon nor 1969 hold up as the time and place the Internet was invented. A project which began in the Pentagon that year, called Arpanet, gave birth to the Internet protocols sometime later (during the 1970's), but 1969 was not the Internet's beginnings. Surviving a nuclear attack was not Arpanet's motivation, nor was building a global communications network. Bob Taylor, the Pentagon official who was in charge of the Pentagon's Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (or Arpanet) program, insists that the purpose was not military, but scientific. The nuclear attack theory was never part of the design. Nor was an Internet in the sense we know it part of the Pentagon's 1969 thinking. Larry Roberts, who was employed by Bob Taylor to build the Arpanet network, states that Arpanet was never intended to link people or be a communications and information facility. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Where-Wizards-Stay-Up-Late/dp/0684832674 https://www.amazon.com/Where-Wizards-Stay-Up-Late/dp/0684832... [2] http://www.nethistory.info/History%20of%20the%20Internet/beginnings.html http://www.nethistory.info/History%20of%20the%20Internet/beg...

eric_h 10y ago

Indeed. My mom got an internet connected "security camera" kit (for cheap from one of the big wholesalers, can't remember the manufacturer) and asked me to set it up. The hardware was nice, cameras did a reliable 1080p full color, but the whole reason my mom wanted it was so she could check in while she and my dad were traveling (and also sneak a peek at her bird feeders while she was away; avid birder, that one). So, I hooked that thing up to the network and did a port scan on it... First noticed - it's listening to port 22, auth is a googleable default password. It supports UPnP to punch a hole through the NAT and serve up video on another port. OS on the server box is some slightly customized version of linux with an _old_ kernel. So I said, "Sure mom, I can set this up for you. We're going to need to get you a new firewall, it'll probably be easiest to put a *nix box in front of your wifi access point, then we can set up a tunnel between the isolated camera server and a locked down outside server that only you have access to so we can be sure that no one else is looking at those cameras. Should only take me a few hours, and we'll need to buy a box to run the firewall, and then a small monthly fee to keep the internet accessible server running" Her response, "but it says on the box that it's easy to setup for outside access!". Mine: "It's easy to setup for everyone to access, much more involved if you want to make sure it's only you who has access". Admittedly, it did have some authentication for accessing the video streams, but I didn't trust that thing as far as I could throw it; I'm glad she decided not to go through the trouble of getting it working (but mostly because I'm lazy and didn't want to have to setup and support that damn thing). I can only imagine that the people who bought that device and didn't have a security paranoid person to help them set it up are all contributing to this most recent DDoS attack.

merb 10y ago
Her response, "but it says on the box that it's easy to setup for outside access!". Mine: "It's easy to setup for everyone to access, much more involved if you want to make sure it's only you who has access" well that was a pretty clever answer, I needed to laught about that :D Basically the commercial was right :D "easy to setup for outside access" that didn' implied a single person ^^
paulddraper 10y ago
> Admittedly, it did have some authentication for accessing the video streams, but I didn't trust that thing as far as I could throw it So...you wanted to have authentication and it has authentication...I must be missing something.

patcon 10y ago

heh. move over user-centered design, user-centered malign is making a come-back :)