11 ms·

California to ban weak default passwords on internet-connected devices

138 points by vezycash 8y ago

gerdesj 8y ago
Anyone manufacturing an internet-connected device in California will, from 2020 Is CA a major location for router manufacturing?
- vuln 8y ago
  Nope. Well maybe a few startups. But nothing like more regulations right?
mahgnous 8y ago
LOL, how does California think they're going to enforce this? They could possibly ban the sale of devices that don't comply within the state of California? This doesn't make any sense to me.
ejz 8y ago
This is a really misleading headline...but it did get my attention, I guess.
- gh02t 8y ago
  Agreed. According to the summary text of the bill: This bill, beginning on January 1, 2020, would require a manufacturer of a connected device, as those terms are defined, to equip the device with a reasonable security feature or features that are appropriate to the nature and function of the device, appropriate to the information it may collect, contain, or transmit, and designed to protect the device and any information contained therein from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure, as specified. A better title would be "California to ban weak default passwords on devices." Edit: or "California to require more security features on internet-connected devices."
  - kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
    That portion is pretty much toothless without any concrete definition of "reasonable". The password provisions have some merit though: Subject to all of the requirements of subdivision (a), if a connected device is equipped with a means for authentication outside a local area network, it shall be deemed a reasonable security feature under subdivision (a) if either of the following requirements are met: (1) The preprogrammed password is unique to each device manufactured. (2) The device contains a security feature that requires a user to generate a new means of authentication before access is granted to the device for the first time. Even this can be weaseled out of for most consumer IoT products as they aren't typically intended for direct access from outside the LAN.
    - macspoofing 8y ago
      >The password provisions have some merit though Does it? The problem is that they defined a very specific solution to the problem they are trying to solve as comprising of either approach (1) or (2) ... what if there is some innovative third option that neither people here nor the regulators was creative enough to think of? Now you've killed a potential innovative market from developing. >Even this can be weaseled out of That's not 'weaseling out'. That's a real world example of an approach that is perfectly secure and would be hurt by this if a regulator interpreted the law as applying to the device in question.
      - tinus_hn 8y ago
        Your browser does not know the difference between your lan and the internet so any website you visit can instruct it to interact with websites on your lan. It’s nowhere near ‘perfectly secure’ to have weak security on the lan. Besides, having weak security on a network means one compromise leads to a lot more. That isn’t very ‘perfectly secure’ either.
    - r00fus 8y ago
      > IoT products as they aren't typically intended for direct access from outside the LAN For "cloud-only IoT devices" this ban is clearly in effect.
- briga 8y ago
  Maybe it's just my imagination, but I've noticed a real decline in journalistic standards at the BBC in the past few years. It's front page reads more like a clickbait tabloid than a serious news site nowadays. I guess even the big news outlets need to resort to clickbait to stay afloat.
  - partiallypro 8y ago
    It's not just the BBC, it's a race to the bottom out there.
  - MaxBarraclough 8y ago
    Agreed. I expect them to be above clickbaiting, but, they're really not.
- macspoofing 8y ago
  These kinds of laws are 'feel good' measures. The ideas behind them make sense (easy default passwords are 'bad' ... sometimes. Sensible security precautions should be taken into account when designing IoT devices). But those same precautions completely fail when used as part of a one-size fits all regulatory framework. The regulatory, enforcement and licensing mechanisms that such laws entail are either going to be ignored, in which case the entire exercise was a waste of time, or they will be needlessly onerous and create undue burden with negligible benefits ... and be ignored by many manufacturers anyway (because how are you going to police on order for some IoT widget from China). Also, it is not a good idea for lawmakers and regulators to mandate an implementation within a law (and that's exactly what mandating that per-device password needs to be unique is). Maybe my IoT device has a simple default password but has other security measures that the regulator didn't even envision that makes the solution secure. On the other end, maybe my network stack has a critical vulnerability that a unique password does nothing to mitigate. I'm not a Libertarian as I do believe in sensible government oversight and regulation but lawmakers and regulators have to be cognizant that every single regulation they put out has a cost and that cost needs to be balanced with benefits. As it stands this is a poorly thought out law, and will do nothing for security, will punish local manufacturers by increasing overhead, and will make local manufacturers less competitive against external ones that simply ignore these directives. Typical California stupidness.
  - wpietri 8y ago
    Lawmakers and regulators are already cognizant that regulations have costs; they hear that from everybody already. Often they are, surprise, legally required to consider it. I agree it would be better if industry self-regulated. But they didn't. e.g.: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/router-crapfest-malware-author-builds-18-000-strong-botnet-in-a-day/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/router-crapfe... If this were a problem where only the device owners were harmed, I wouldn't care a lot. Market mechanisms would take care of it. But here bad vendor security is imposing large negative externalities on the rest of the world. If government is for anything at all, it's for making people experience the consequences of their own actions instead of inflicting harm on others. This is not a perfect regulation, but it's better than nothing. Hopefully device-makers will take this as a warning shot a and get their acts together.
djsumdog 8y ago
I've seen more devices do this recently. Most ISPs will not ship a router with an "admin" or any other default password. Instead there's a sticker on the side of the device with a password that got generated and assigned to it on the way out. It may slow down the production process, but it's a step in the right direction for security. All this bill means is that manufactures who don't have that process in place can't sell their devices in California. It will probably mean more devices with random passwords for the whole country.
- freeflight 8y ago
  > Instead there's a sticker on the side of the device with a password that got generated and assigned to it on the way out. This has been a thing for a while for WLAN routers. But I still don't really trust those, for all I know these passwords could be seeded on something very predictable, like the devices serial number.
  - thecatspaw 8y ago
    of course, but its still better to make someone waste their cpu time and slow down the attack, instead of beeing just able to enter admin/admin
    - freeflight 8y ago
      I'm just saying for this to be even better I'd like some transparency from manufacturers about their password generating process. If they do it properly then there should be no problem with surfacing their methodology and I'd have less hassle by actually being able to trust those complex individual passwords the device comes with out of the box.
      - pdonis 8y ago
        I don't think anyone should be trusting any password generated by anyone but themselves. To me, the only viable option is the second option in the California bill: the device requires the user to generate a new password before it can be accessed for the first time.
the_arun 8y ago
Why do we need to wait for 2020? Why can't we do this immediately? For eg. from Jan 2019?
- blitmap 8y ago
  Because it takes businesses 2 years to requiring passwords that are 8-14 characters, include punctuation, capitalization, and numbers. Ugh. :(
- longerthoughts 8y ago
  I expect most businesses have already made significant resource allocation decisions for work in 2019 so introducing previously unaccounted for work would be seen as "anti-business".
dang 8y ago
Url changed from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45757528 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45757528, which points to this.
- tlrobinson 8y ago
  To save you a click, the clickbait title was "Weak passwords banned in California from 2020"
olliej 8y ago
For the lazy among us: does it require per-device complex passwords, or is it enough to have a single “complex” password across all devices? If the latter that makes the bill even more dumb.
- subroutine 8y ago
  Former.
- duskwuff 8y ago
  The law only appears to apply to factory default passwords.
- tinus_hn 8y ago
  It requires either a password that is unique to the device or a feature that forces the user to change the password at first login.
EGreg 8y ago
Sounds like Bloomberg’s soda ban. Where are the freedom advocates to fight against the govt ban? :)
throwaway235478 8y ago
How about penalties for anyone 'permanantly' connecting devices to the internet with default credentials?
sowbug 8y ago
I'm trying and failing to think of other U.S. laws specifically regulating how consumer software is designed. Is this one of the first?

138 points by vezycash 8y ago

Anyone manufacturing an internet-connected device in California will, from 2020 Is CA a major location for router manufacturing?

vuln 8y ago
Nope. Well maybe a few startups. But nothing like more regulations right?

mahgnous 8y ago

LOL, how does California think they're going to enforce this? They could possibly ban the sale of devices that don't comply within the state of California? This doesn't make any sense to me.

ejz 8y ago

This is a really misleading headline...but it did get my attention, I guess.

gh02t 8y ago
Agreed. According to the summary text of the bill: This bill, beginning on January 1, 2020, would require a manufacturer of a connected device, as those terms are defined, to equip the device with a reasonable security feature or features that are appropriate to the nature and function of the device, appropriate to the information it may collect, contain, or transmit, and designed to protect the device and any information contained therein from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure, as specified. A better title would be "California to ban weak default passwords on devices." Edit: or "California to require more security features on internet-connected devices."
- kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
  That portion is pretty much toothless without any concrete definition of "reasonable". The password provisions have some merit though: Subject to all of the requirements of subdivision (a), if a connected device is equipped with a means for authentication outside a local area network, it shall be deemed a reasonable security feature under subdivision (a) if either of the following requirements are met: (1) The preprogrammed password is unique to each device manufactured. (2) The device contains a security feature that requires a user to generate a new means of authentication before access is granted to the device for the first time. Even this can be weaseled out of for most consumer IoT products as they aren't typically intended for direct access from outside the LAN.
  - macspoofing 8y ago
    >The password provisions have some merit though Does it? The problem is that they defined a very specific solution to the problem they are trying to solve as comprising of either approach (1) or (2) ... what if there is some innovative third option that neither people here nor the regulators was creative enough to think of? Now you've killed a potential innovative market from developing. >Even this can be weaseled out of That's not 'weaseling out'. That's a real world example of an approach that is perfectly secure and would be hurt by this if a regulator interpreted the law as applying to the device in question.
    - tinus_hn 8y ago
      Your browser does not know the difference between your lan and the internet so any website you visit can instruct it to interact with websites on your lan. It’s nowhere near ‘perfectly secure’ to have weak security on the lan. Besides, having weak security on a network means one compromise leads to a lot more. That isn’t very ‘perfectly secure’ either.
  - r00fus 8y ago
    > IoT products as they aren't typically intended for direct access from outside the LAN For "cloud-only IoT devices" this ban is clearly in effect.
briga 8y ago
Maybe it's just my imagination, but I've noticed a real decline in journalistic standards at the BBC in the past few years. It's front page reads more like a clickbait tabloid than a serious news site nowadays. I guess even the big news outlets need to resort to clickbait to stay afloat.
- partiallypro 8y ago
  It's not just the BBC, it's a race to the bottom out there.
- MaxBarraclough 8y ago
  Agreed. I expect them to be above clickbaiting, but, they're really not.
macspoofing 8y ago
These kinds of laws are 'feel good' measures. The ideas behind them make sense (easy default passwords are 'bad' ... sometimes. Sensible security precautions should be taken into account when designing IoT devices). But those same precautions completely fail when used as part of a one-size fits all regulatory framework. The regulatory, enforcement and licensing mechanisms that such laws entail are either going to be ignored, in which case the entire exercise was a waste of time, or they will be needlessly onerous and create undue burden with negligible benefits ... and be ignored by many manufacturers anyway (because how are you going to police on order for some IoT widget from China). Also, it is not a good idea for lawmakers and regulators to mandate an implementation within a law (and that's exactly what mandating that per-device password needs to be unique is). Maybe my IoT device has a simple default password but has other security measures that the regulator didn't even envision that makes the solution secure. On the other end, maybe my network stack has a critical vulnerability that a unique password does nothing to mitigate. I'm not a Libertarian as I do believe in sensible government oversight and regulation but lawmakers and regulators have to be cognizant that every single regulation they put out has a cost and that cost needs to be balanced with benefits. As it stands this is a poorly thought out law, and will do nothing for security, will punish local manufacturers by increasing overhead, and will make local manufacturers less competitive against external ones that simply ignore these directives. Typical California stupidness.
- wpietri 8y ago
  Lawmakers and regulators are already cognizant that regulations have costs; they hear that from everybody already. Often they are, surprise, legally required to consider it. I agree it would be better if industry self-regulated. But they didn't. e.g.: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/router-crapfest-malware-author-builds-18-000-strong-botnet-in-a-day/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/router-crapfe... If this were a problem where only the device owners were harmed, I wouldn't care a lot. Market mechanisms would take care of it. But here bad vendor security is imposing large negative externalities on the rest of the world. If government is for anything at all, it's for making people experience the consequences of their own actions instead of inflicting harm on others. This is not a perfect regulation, but it's better than nothing. Hopefully device-makers will take this as a warning shot a and get their acts together.

djsumdog 8y ago

I've seen more devices do this recently. Most ISPs will not ship a router with an "admin" or any other default password. Instead there's a sticker on the side of the device with a password that got generated and assigned to it on the way out. It may slow down the production process, but it's a step in the right direction for security. All this bill means is that manufactures who don't have that process in place can't sell their devices in California. It will probably mean more devices with random passwords for the whole country.

freeflight 8y ago
> Instead there's a sticker on the side of the device with a password that got generated and assigned to it on the way out. This has been a thing for a while for WLAN routers. But I still don't really trust those, for all I know these passwords could be seeded on something very predictable, like the devices serial number.
- thecatspaw 8y ago
  of course, but its still better to make someone waste their cpu time and slow down the attack, instead of beeing just able to enter admin/admin
  - freeflight 8y ago
    I'm just saying for this to be even better I'd like some transparency from manufacturers about their password generating process. If they do it properly then there should be no problem with surfacing their methodology and I'd have less hassle by actually being able to trust those complex individual passwords the device comes with out of the box.
    - pdonis 8y ago
      I don't think anyone should be trusting any password generated by anyone but themselves. To me, the only viable option is the second option in the California bill: the device requires the user to generate a new password before it can be accessed for the first time.

the_arun 8y ago

Why do we need to wait for 2020? Why can't we do this immediately? For eg. from Jan 2019?

blitmap 8y ago
Because it takes businesses 2 years to requiring passwords that are 8-14 characters, include punctuation, capitalization, and numbers. Ugh. :(
longerthoughts 8y ago
I expect most businesses have already made significant resource allocation decisions for work in 2019 so introducing previously unaccounted for work would be seen as "anti-business".

dang 8y ago

Url changed from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45757528 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45757528, which points to this.

tlrobinson 8y ago
To save you a click, the clickbait title was "Weak passwords banned in California from 2020"

olliej 8y ago

For the lazy among us: does it require per-device complex passwords, or is it enough to have a single “complex” password across all devices? If the latter that makes the bill even more dumb.

subroutine 8y ago
Former.
duskwuff 8y ago
The law only appears to apply to factory default passwords.
tinus_hn 8y ago
It requires either a password that is unique to the device or a feature that forces the user to change the password at first login.

EGreg 8y ago

Sounds like Bloomberg’s soda ban. Where are the freedom advocates to fight against the govt ban? :)

throwaway235478 8y ago

How about penalties for anyone 'permanantly' connecting devices to the internet with default credentials?

sowbug 8y ago

I'm trying and failing to think of other U.S. laws specifically regulating how consumer software is designed. Is this one of the first?