3 ms·
We're reaching a point where it really doesn't matter why a given company isn't capable of making a bulletproof software addition to their hardware. When cars w
by delecti 10y ago
We're reaching a point where it really doesn't matter why a given company isn't capable of making a bulletproof software addition to their hardware. When cars were giant steel death traps, car safety standards improved. You probably couldn't sell most 50's era cars today because of it.
Similarly, I don't think it's unreasonable to hold IoT manufacturers accountable for releasing blatant security vulnerabilities into the wild (like that webcam that DDoS'd all those sites).
This isn't an "aww, growing pains" kinda moment of care for the poor budding IoT industry. They need to realize that they must be held accountable.
Edit: "bulletproof" isn't even what's being asked, but putting some thought into the security of their IoT devices is something we must demand of manufacturers
- Bartweiss 10y agoHonestly, my biggest objection is that there's so much nearly pointless IoT stuff out there. If a product desperately needs network connectivity, but is still prohibitively expensive to secure, I'm sympathetic. (Not forgiving, mind, but I understand the difficulty.) But when you're releasing a wifi teakettle, or a networked lightswitch that's talking to one other switch 5 feet away? At that point I think there's basically no excuse at all. Teakettles work great as is, adding insecure network support creates a product substantially worse than one without any software at all. More theoretically, I can imagine an IoT product so good that they should just pay for the externalities they cause and keep manufacturing. But most insecure products out there today are creating far more externality than value, and wouldn't exist if they had to deal with the harm they cause.