6 ms·

What the article doesn't mention: IoT devices are harmful not only because they are vulnerable. They can be used to collect data on users. Every enterprise aims

What the article doesn't mention: IoT devices are harmful not only because they are vulnerable. They can be used to collect data on users. Every enterprise aims to get as much profit as possible; collecting users' data and selling them later obviously gets you more profit than not collecting. Why would a thermometer need to connect to the Internet in the first place? It is absolutely unnecessary. The software could be installed on a server in a local network or even inside the thermometer itself. I think the reason why these devices require an Internet connection is that vendors just want to lock user to their servers and collect "anonymous statistics" from them.

zdragnar 9y ago
It could just be ease of maintenance; if a server on AWS goes down, you can fix it from anywhere, or fall back on blaming Amazon. If an on-site server goes down, odds are you might need to go on site, especially if the whole thing is separated from the internet to avoid leaking "anonymous statistics."
- codedokode 9y ago
  Those IoT devices are getting more and more computing power. They can run the server software (like Web UI) on the device itself. For example, they can serve static SPA that would connect back to the device via Websocket. So you don't need a sophisticated web server and can do most computations in a browser.
  - jjeaff 9y ago
    But then it can either only be accessed within the same subnet, or you are going to have to do some port forwarding. Which is too much to ask for 99% of users.
  - zdragnar 9y ago
    It's not terribly useful for each fish tank thermometer (or whatever) to run its own server and webui, since what you're probably interested in is "are all of my things behaving as expected". Having that data be centralized- on site or off- is where a web UI can be most useful. A friend of mine rolled his own version of this for his house, helping him optimize how the furnace / ac units operate, etc. It would've been way more painful to go to each devices UI individually.
    - Spooky23 9y ago
      Why not? That server could have an api for a management device to discover and manage it as well.
      - jsjohnst 9y ago
        Especially if it’s a SPA, the same API (with minimal changes) that drives the web UI could be available to others on the network.
      - zdragnar 9y ago
        That does make sense, http or otherwise. And yes, technically feasible for each devices to serve up their own SPA, though I still fail to see why one would want to go to individual sites when a centralized interface for looking at the units both individually and as a group would be more efficient. To each their own, I guess.
        Spooky23 9y ago
        Right now you are beholden to the Amazon, Apple or vertically integrated solution to access your IoT devices. My thermostat cost $10 75 years ago. I would prefer that a $200 thermostat have a life longer than the technology platform.
fiddlerwoaroof 9y ago
> Why would a thermometer need to connect to the Internet in the first place? It is absolutely unnecessary. It’s strictly unnecessary, but it’s a bit convenient for NAT-piercing and enabling remote monitoring and management. It’s like everything else: there’s a trade off between certain conveniences and security/privacy. For some people, the line is strongly on the side of security and for others, the line is more favorable to convenience.
- onion2k 9y ago
  there’s a trade off between certain conveniences and security/privacy The trade isn't between convenience and security. It's between convenience and the result of a security breach. "more security" is abstract and hard to understand; "lowering the probability of this bad thing happening" is much, much easier. In this case the casino owners had to choose between "remote monitoring of the fishtank" and "a way for hackers to access the internal network and all the bad things that could result from that", and they chose the fishtank.
userbinator 9y ago
This reminds me of "cloud cameras" which seem to be getting more and more popular, and the absurdity of the whole situation. Years ago, the standard was "IP cameras" which you basically connected to directly and they would stream video to you. Now these cameras stream video to some remote server, so the output from a camera which might be sitting only tens of meters away, goes maybe thousands of miles out into the Internet, crossing a geopolitical border or several, before coming back in. IMHO it's absolutely disgustingly inefficient in addition to all the privacy risks. Of course the makers claim this is so you can watch from anywhere, but a lot of those old "dumb"(?) IP cameras could be configured to upload video to a remote server if you wanted, and one under your control. Relatedly, the musings of a coworker who wondered why IM'ing someone sitting less than 10ft away in the office should even require a working Internet connection --- because his message gets sent far away and then back, in a horrificly wasteful loop, instead of going directly from computer to computer within the LAN.
- davidcbc 9y ago
  >Of course the makers claim this is so you can watch from anywhere, but a lot of those old "dumb"(?) IP cameras could be configured to upload video to a remote server if you wanted, and one under your control. The average consumer doesn't have a remote server or the knowledge to set one up.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - csydas 9y ago
    > The average consumer doesn't have a remote server or the knowledge to set one up. Which is fine to say, but doesn't really address the main issue of the IoT Cameras and honestly comes off as exploitative as an excuse. Just because something provides a convenient service does not mean it should get a free pass on basic and reasonable security precautions, nor should it be able to exfiltrate data, much less in a lazy way. To be 100% clear, I'm not meaning to put words in the parent's mouth; I understand that the statement is just a factual statement that most people don't know how to set up a remote server. However, small SOC boards have never been cheaper and continue to grow cheaper; a "remote server" to feed data to can be bundled easily at extremely low cost to the manufacturer, let the user provide their own storage, and then work on making the discovery experience elegant. (Plug in the cameras and the SOC box close to one another. Plug the SOC Box into a monitor/TV. Follow the on-screen prompts to discover the local WiFi and Cameras and connect all of them) Apple has found ways to make their wireless vision almost complete; setting up remote printers, connecting via Airdrop, etc, is all fairly close to elegant with some minor bumps. Xiaomi's line of hardware ties in neatly to Mi-Life fairly well also and discovery is easy (though the actual connectivity is in dire need of work). The idea that consumers need to let their data be exfiltrated due to lack of knowledge is silly; there are numerous examples on how to do it right, and the tech has never been more ready.
fencepost 9y ago
Why would a thermometer need to connect to the Internet in the first place? It is absolutely unnecessary. The software could be installed on a server in a local network or even inside the thermometer itself. Seriously? This is not obvious? What's the upper bound on the number of aquariums that a large facility might have as decor, decorative dividers, etc? 10? 50? 200? More? At a commercial scale having people go to each one is no more viable than Google using web managed network switches would be, or than using individual residential thermostats in a large office building. It might be possible, but it would be slow and error prone. Installing an in house server would be no better, but for different reasons of getting IT involved either for the server or for local software on a PC (locked down possibly and unable to install or run unrecognized apps). "Hi, this is Bob in maintenance, we'd like to install some software that will scan the network for" "NO." "But the fish!" "NO." For that matter had these been properly segregated on an "IoT" network neither of those would have worked well anyway. If you're handling financial data like that in a regulated environment, nothing from the IoT network should be able to reach to protected systems. There's a case for the protected network to be able to reach to IoT, but there are also reasons to not allow it. Frankly, having devices like that able to reach out to a cloud management system makes a lot of sense for both the client and vendor (subscriptions, lock-in, etc). The problem is allowing them on a supposedly secure network. Edit: added "residential thermostats" because it seems more appropriate here than my initial example
matthew-wegner 9y ago
RE: Thermostat I live in Phoenix, and regularly set my thermostat en route to my house after being gone awhile. I have scripts that set it to away automatically when my phone leaves the network. It saves me quite a lot of power yearly. (I feel guilty for contributing to these sorts of pedantic HN threads, but there you go)
- animal531 9y ago
  At least yours is a very decent example of where it is handy.
avip 9y ago
Really? And who will support that on-premise "thermo-server"? Who'll security update it? run sw upgrades? Solve misconfigured networks? Replace a faulty network adapter?

zdragnar 9y ago

It could just be ease of maintenance; if a server on AWS goes down, you can fix it from anywhere, or fall back on blaming Amazon. If an on-site server goes down, odds are you might need to go on site, especially if the whole thing is separated from the internet to avoid leaking "anonymous statistics."

codedokode 9y ago
Those IoT devices are getting more and more computing power. They can run the server software (like Web UI) on the device itself. For example, they can serve static SPA that would connect back to the device via Websocket. So you don't need a sophisticated web server and can do most computations in a browser.
- jjeaff 9y ago
  But then it can either only be accessed within the same subnet, or you are going to have to do some port forwarding. Which is too much to ask for 99% of users.
- zdragnar 9y ago
  It's not terribly useful for each fish tank thermometer (or whatever) to run its own server and webui, since what you're probably interested in is "are all of my things behaving as expected". Having that data be centralized- on site or off- is where a web UI can be most useful. A friend of mine rolled his own version of this for his house, helping him optimize how the furnace / ac units operate, etc. It would've been way more painful to go to each devices UI individually.
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    Why not? That server could have an api for a management device to discover and manage it as well.
    - jsjohnst 9y ago
      Especially if it’s a SPA, the same API (with minimal changes) that drives the web UI could be available to others on the network.
    - zdragnar 9y ago
      That does make sense, http or otherwise. And yes, technically feasible for each devices to serve up their own SPA, though I still fail to see why one would want to go to individual sites when a centralized interface for looking at the units both individually and as a group would be more efficient. To each their own, I guess.
      - Spooky23 9y ago
        Right now you are beholden to the Amazon, Apple or vertically integrated solution to access your IoT devices. My thermostat cost $10 75 years ago. I would prefer that a $200 thermostat have a life longer than the technology platform.

fiddlerwoaroof 9y ago

> Why would a thermometer need to connect to the Internet in the first place? It is absolutely unnecessary. It’s strictly unnecessary, but it’s a bit convenient for NAT-piercing and enabling remote monitoring and management. It’s like everything else: there’s a trade off between certain conveniences and security/privacy. For some people, the line is strongly on the side of security and for others, the line is more favorable to convenience.

onion2k 9y ago
there’s a trade off between certain conveniences and security/privacy The trade isn't between convenience and security. It's between convenience and the result of a security breach. "more security" is abstract and hard to understand; "lowering the probability of this bad thing happening" is much, much easier. In this case the casino owners had to choose between "remote monitoring of the fishtank" and "a way for hackers to access the internal network and all the bad things that could result from that", and they chose the fishtank.

userbinator 9y ago

This reminds me of "cloud cameras" which seem to be getting more and more popular, and the absurdity of the whole situation. Years ago, the standard was "IP cameras" which you basically connected to directly and they would stream video to you. Now these cameras stream video to some remote server, so the output from a camera which might be sitting only tens of meters away, goes maybe thousands of miles out into the Internet, crossing a geopolitical border or several, before coming back in. IMHO it's absolutely disgustingly inefficient in addition to all the privacy risks. Of course the makers claim this is so you can watch from anywhere, but a lot of those old "dumb"(?) IP cameras could be configured to upload video to a remote server if you wanted, and one under your control. Relatedly, the musings of a coworker who wondered why IM'ing someone sitting less than 10ft away in the office should even require a working Internet connection --- because his message gets sent far away and then back, in a horrificly wasteful loop, instead of going directly from computer to computer within the LAN.

davidcbc 9y ago
>Of course the makers claim this is so you can watch from anywhere, but a lot of those old "dumb"(?) IP cameras could be configured to upload video to a remote server if you wanted, and one under your control. The average consumer doesn't have a remote server or the knowledge to set one up.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- csydas 9y ago
  > The average consumer doesn't have a remote server or the knowledge to set one up. Which is fine to say, but doesn't really address the main issue of the IoT Cameras and honestly comes off as exploitative as an excuse. Just because something provides a convenient service does not mean it should get a free pass on basic and reasonable security precautions, nor should it be able to exfiltrate data, much less in a lazy way. To be 100% clear, I'm not meaning to put words in the parent's mouth; I understand that the statement is just a factual statement that most people don't know how to set up a remote server. However, small SOC boards have never been cheaper and continue to grow cheaper; a "remote server" to feed data to can be bundled easily at extremely low cost to the manufacturer, let the user provide their own storage, and then work on making the discovery experience elegant. (Plug in the cameras and the SOC box close to one another. Plug the SOC Box into a monitor/TV. Follow the on-screen prompts to discover the local WiFi and Cameras and connect all of them) Apple has found ways to make their wireless vision almost complete; setting up remote printers, connecting via Airdrop, etc, is all fairly close to elegant with some minor bumps. Xiaomi's line of hardware ties in neatly to Mi-Life fairly well also and discovery is easy (though the actual connectivity is in dire need of work). The idea that consumers need to let their data be exfiltrated due to lack of knowledge is silly; there are numerous examples on how to do it right, and the tech has never been more ready.

fencepost 9y ago

Why would a thermometer need to connect to the Internet in the first place? It is absolutely unnecessary. The software could be installed on a server in a local network or even inside the thermometer itself. Seriously? This is not obvious? What's the upper bound on the number of aquariums that a large facility might have as decor, decorative dividers, etc? 10? 50? 200? More? At a commercial scale having people go to each one is no more viable than Google using web managed network switches would be, or than using individual residential thermostats in a large office building. It might be possible, but it would be slow and error prone. Installing an in house server would be no better, but for different reasons of getting IT involved either for the server or for local software on a PC (locked down possibly and unable to install or run unrecognized apps). "Hi, this is Bob in maintenance, we'd like to install some software that will scan the network for" "NO." "But the fish!" "NO." For that matter had these been properly segregated on an "IoT" network neither of those would have worked well anyway. If you're handling financial data like that in a regulated environment, nothing from the IoT network should be able to reach to protected systems. There's a case for the protected network to be able to reach to IoT, but there are also reasons to not allow it. Frankly, having devices like that able to reach out to a cloud management system makes a lot of sense for both the client and vendor (subscriptions, lock-in, etc). The problem is allowing them on a supposedly secure network. Edit: added "residential thermostats" because it seems more appropriate here than my initial example

matthew-wegner 9y ago

RE: Thermostat I live in Phoenix, and regularly set my thermostat en route to my house after being gone awhile. I have scripts that set it to away automatically when my phone leaves the network. It saves me quite a lot of power yearly. (I feel guilty for contributing to these sorts of pedantic HN threads, but there you go)

animal531 9y ago
At least yours is a very decent example of where it is handy.

avip 9y ago

Really? And who will support that on-premise "thermo-server"? Who'll security update it? run sw upgrades? Solve misconfigured networks? Replace a faulty network adapter?