4 ms·
You guys are crazy. A probably small creative team simply made an error while building a camera in good faith that was abused by criminals. Who is the victim he
by socmag 10y ago
You guys are crazy. A probably small creative team simply made an error while building a camera in good faith that was abused by criminals. Who is the victim here?
What's all this crap about simple fun web cameras as "Bad Actors"... In fact the use of the term "Actor" as applied to a pretty dumb piece of electronics is pretty creepy in itself. What are we trying to do here?
The term "State Actor" is fairly new in terms of popular usage. Thanks to CNN and media, we are being trained to know this word in a particular context.
Now, we are being trained to place dumb pieces of electronics in the same bucket as Russia and China. LOL
I'm sure there wasn't a meeting where the camera manufacturer execs set around a table and said let's make these things blow up the world.
And you know, even if there was, the shame lies on the fact that we don't have better edge level security that can detect and shut down abnormal traffic patterns close to source.
There is some fairly low hanging fruit here. Routers and gateways with pretty damn simple algorithms could detect and prevent these types of attacks if they were available.
The network should protect itself against "Bad Actors", because... trillions of devices are a coming, and we can't expect them all to be certified to protect the network. The concept itself is completely absurd.
Fat better to improve the infrastructure than to impose per device level policies. It's the IETF that needs to step up. Not the guys in a garage who couldn't code.
Sure maybe they could have done a better job, but from the level of programming we are currently at it is an absolute certainty that this will happen again whether we like it or not.
- SrslyJosh 10y ago> A probably small creative team simply made an error while building a camera in good faith that was abused by criminals. Who is the victim here? Everyone who's been affected by the DDOS. Manufacturers are responsible for the security of their devices. If you ship something that's vulnerable, it's you to fix it. If there are damages, those come out of your pocket. > It's the IETF that needs to step up. Not the guys in a garage who couldn't code. No. If you're a guy in a garage who can't code, you shouldn't be writing code, let alone shipping devices. Are you for real, or some kind of astroturf account?
- weaksauce 10y ago> Routers and gateways with pretty damn simple algorithms could detect and prevent these types of attacks I am not sure it's that simple really. the whole point of ddos is that it's distributed so that each node doesn't need to do a whole lot of traffic(and filtering out the traffic at the other side is really hard because of the distributed nature of it). the main reason this stuff happens is that security is not a feature that most people care about and won't pay for it because they are ignorant of how the system works. The managers decide not to make security a priority.
- audeyisaacs 10y agoI'm with you here. I can't understand why people are calling for regulations on IoT devices. Instead, how about ISP supplied modems/routers have sensible defaults(and have the admin password reset). Much more cost effective. Regulating IoT is going to be impossible when tiny little devices can be shipped undeclared. Even if it could be policed effectively it would destroy the economics of some of these cheaper devices.