3 ms·

I think this is approaching the problem from the wrong direction. My issue with IoT stuff isn't that it's on my WiFi network. That's great, that means I can in

I think this is approaching the problem from the wrong direction. My issue with IoT stuff isn't that it's on my WiFi network. That's great, that means I can interact with it easily. My issue is that it's communicating with (and often, ultimately, controlled by) a mothership that is somewhere out there on the internet, that I'm not in control of and can't interact with easily. Having the devices communicating with the mothership using mobile data just takes even more control away from the device owner, which is a step backwards IMO. The way to make these things secure is to have them on the WiFi network but not speaking to the outside internet, except where explicitly enabled by the owner.

pythonaut_16 9y ago
What do you think the answer is? Building truly serverless protocols that are content to just live on the WiFi network? That seems like it would require lots of broadcasts on the network which could get congested quickly. Maybe some kind of standard local server you could run with an easy module API for adding new kinds of devices? Is that what things like Samsung's smart things hub already does?
- jstanley 9y ago
  Serverless protocols are ideal, but short of that, just running a local server inside the network is fine.
- _delirium 9y ago
  In principle things like Amazon Alexa or Google Home could serve as that kind of local server, and already have fairly good deployment. But I'd guess their manufacturers aren't likely to be very interested in supporting a non-cloud, local-operation approach.
- penagwin 9y ago
  I imagine a device, it could likely run android let's say. That runs "apps" which are really servers - such as philips hues. You interface via your phone/pc? Consumes would be presented with a QR code on the packaging, and it would take them to the "appstore" for the device
- fenwick67 9y ago
  Why would my phone sending commands directly to my lightbulb on the WLAN take up more bandwidth than sending a HTTP request up to the mothership and the lightbulb subscribing to a MQTT channel?
- Spooky23 9y ago
  It's not too hard to build distributed server appliances these days. My household is an Apple house, and I have an AppleTV that is a hub for my homekit devices. It's ridiculous that every webcam, doorbell, etc requires persistent internet connectivity and cloud hosting of whatever. It's a legal risk (I don't want persistent surveillance of my door in the custody of a third party), financial risk (Eero just laid off 40 people, will my wifi work next year?), and general lousy idea imo.
da_chicken 9y ago
It also still increases the attack surface of the home by exposing your devices to a third party's network. You're now relying on the security of the network at the vendor to protect your device. What happens when they get hacked? The question doesn't really change just because there's an APN instead of being being a firewall on WiFi. What happens when there's a vulnerability in the network adapter? Ultimately Why do I, the device owner, want my TV on Samsung's network? Why do I, the device owner, want my microwave on GE's network? And, no, "software updates" isn't going to sell anybody on anything because current appliances already work without getting software updates. The only new reason many of these devices would need updates is because they're insecure devices on an Internet-connected network that need to communicate with the Internet. So they're connected to the Internet only to get updates to fix bugs and vulnerabilities with their ability communicate on the Internet. Are they paying Joseph Heller's estate for this idea? And what happens to bandwidth? Let's say it takes off and everybody has 20 to 50 NoT devices. So everybody within 30 miles of a cell tower has 20 to 50 devices that want to connect? Some those devices are almost certainly going to be excessively chatty or poorly implemented, given the quality of most software. What happens when Samsung and LG release the new firmware update for their newest line of microwaves, washing machines, and refrigerators? Suddenly 20% of all house holds are trying to download 2 GB of data over the air?

pythonaut_16 9y ago

What do you think the answer is? Building truly serverless protocols that are content to just live on the WiFi network? That seems like it would require lots of broadcasts on the network which could get congested quickly. Maybe some kind of standard local server you could run with an easy module API for adding new kinds of devices? Is that what things like Samsung's smart things hub already does?

jstanley 9y ago
Serverless protocols are ideal, but short of that, just running a local server inside the network is fine.
_delirium 9y ago
In principle things like Amazon Alexa or Google Home could serve as that kind of local server, and already have fairly good deployment. But I'd guess their manufacturers aren't likely to be very interested in supporting a non-cloud, local-operation approach.
penagwin 9y ago
I imagine a device, it could likely run android let's say. That runs "apps" which are really servers - such as philips hues. You interface via your phone/pc? Consumes would be presented with a QR code on the packaging, and it would take them to the "appstore" for the device
fenwick67 9y ago
Why would my phone sending commands directly to my lightbulb on the WLAN take up more bandwidth than sending a HTTP request up to the mothership and the lightbulb subscribing to a MQTT channel?
Spooky23 9y ago
It's not too hard to build distributed server appliances these days. My household is an Apple house, and I have an AppleTV that is a hub for my homekit devices. It's ridiculous that every webcam, doorbell, etc requires persistent internet connectivity and cloud hosting of whatever. It's a legal risk (I don't want persistent surveillance of my door in the custody of a third party), financial risk (Eero just laid off 40 people, will my wifi work next year?), and general lousy idea imo.

da_chicken 9y ago

It also still increases the attack surface of the home by exposing your devices to a third party's network. You're now relying on the security of the network at the vendor to protect your device. What happens when they get hacked? The question doesn't really change just because there's an APN instead of being being a firewall on WiFi. What happens when there's a vulnerability in the network adapter? Ultimately Why do I, the device owner, want my TV on Samsung's network? Why do I, the device owner, want my microwave on GE's network? And, no, "software updates" isn't going to sell anybody on anything because current appliances already work without getting software updates. The only new reason many of these devices would need updates is because they're insecure devices on an Internet-connected network that need to communicate with the Internet. So they're connected to the Internet only to get updates to fix bugs and vulnerabilities with their ability communicate on the Internet. Are they paying Joseph Heller's estate for this idea? And what happens to bandwidth? Let's say it takes off and everybody has 20 to 50 NoT devices. So everybody within 30 miles of a cell tower has 20 to 50 devices that want to connect? Some those devices are almost certainly going to be excessively chatty or poorly implemented, given the quality of most software. What happens when Samsung and LG release the new firmware update for their newest line of microwaves, washing machines, and refrigerators? Suddenly 20% of all house holds are trying to download 2 GB of data over the air?