4 ms·

Those three points are explicitly meant to be "for users". Your counterarguments address implementation issues, but the advice given to implementors is consist

Those three points are explicitly meant to be "for users". Your counterarguments address implementation issues, but the advice given to implementors is consistent with your arguments: "No less important is that vendors should improve and enhance their security approach to ensure their devices are adequately protected and, as a result, their users [...]"

Klathmon 9y ago
>Those three points are explicitly meant to be "for users". But my point is that their article explicitly shows that those 3 points are pointless for users. A user's only defense against the attacks show in the article is to not buy or stop using those devices. And until security researchers are willing to let users know if their devices are insecure, it's only going to get worse. It's strangely analogous to "abstinence" as a form of birth control. Telling people who want IoT devices to just not use them isn't a valid answer. Show them good examples of well designed devices, point out the worst offenders by name and explicitly, and show what users can do to research and avoid devices like them. Talking about how your serial might be used as a form of authentication, and to keep up to date on IoT vulnerabilities that they themself won't publish doesn't do anyone any good.
- ckastner 9y ago
  > But my point is that their article explicitly shows that those 3 points are pointless for users. It's pointless with that device. The 3 points are general advice, and changing a default password, for example, is definitely sound advice. > Telling people who want IoT devices to just not use them isn't a valid answer Where are you getting this from? There's an entire section in the article ("Get Ready") with suggestions on how to securely use IoT devices. There's no mention of not using them. > and show what users can do to research and avoid devices like them. That is the entire point of the article.

Klathmon 9y ago

>Those three points are explicitly meant to be "for users". But my point is that their article explicitly shows that those 3 points are pointless for users. A user's only defense against the attacks show in the article is to not buy or stop using those devices. And until security researchers are willing to let users know if their devices are insecure, it's only going to get worse. It's strangely analogous to "abstinence" as a form of birth control. Telling people who want IoT devices to just not use them isn't a valid answer. Show them good examples of well designed devices, point out the worst offenders by name and explicitly, and show what users can do to research and avoid devices like them. Talking about how your serial might be used as a form of authentication, and to keep up to date on IoT vulnerabilities that they themself won't publish doesn't do anyone any good.

ckastner 9y ago
> But my point is that their article explicitly shows that those 3 points are pointless for users. It's pointless with that device. The 3 points are general advice, and changing a default password, for example, is definitely sound advice. > Telling people who want IoT devices to just not use them isn't a valid answer Where are you getting this from? There's an entire section in the article ("Get Ready") with suggestions on how to securely use IoT devices. There's no mention of not using them. > and show what users can do to research and avoid devices like them. That is the entire point of the article.