9 ms·

I wonder what the solution to this sort of thing is. Open source hardware maybe? Force publication of firmware for all hardware sold?

Avamander 7y ago
FOSS firmware would be a nice, but unless someone verifies that firmware (could be maliciously a spaghetti), then it doesn't have much use.
- roel_v 7y ago
  Who says the hardware doesn't have a separate IC overriding the ostensibly clean firmware? So you need not only verified hardware schematics, but also verification that the hardware you're running is actually based on that verified design. For which there is currently no way of doing that, as far as I know. You need to either trust the vendor at some level, or treat every device as hostile - while still getting its intended use out of it.
  - Avamander 7y ago
    True, but having to only trust hardware being correctly made is already an improvement over having to trust both software and hardware to be made correctly.
  - eeZah7Ux 7y ago
    > Who says the hardware doesn't have a separate IC overriding the ostensibly clean firmware? Cost, space on the PCB or on the die, additional complexity, and it's a very big thing to keep secret. And if it's found it becomes impossible to deny or chalk up as an innocent mistake.
- eeZah7Ux 7y ago
  No. FOSS firmware immediately makes backdoors thousand times more risky to implement.
somurzakov 7y ago
1. if the device name contains "smart" -> always assume it is vulnerable. 2. put all IoT devices behind firewall/NAT router and never allow any traffic from WAN to the IoT. (Allow only South->North traffic) 3. Never allow east-west traffic between IoT devices.
- inetknght 7y ago
  1. if the device has a name -> always assume it is vulnerable 2. hope you disabled upnp, the device doesn't have NAT hole punching, and doesn't "require" internet access for some reason like... cloud backup of logs or update checks 3. configuring firewalls and routers is hard. but plugging devices into power is easy. people always go the easy route.
- voltagex_ 7y ago
  OK but what does the general public do?
  - silon42 7y ago
    Separate WIFI/network for IoT devices. Do not route to the internet in any way (skip buying anything that requires it). Connect to windows (or other OS) PC only, non-routable. Disable all connections from that network to the PC.
    - therealx 7y ago
      You wish. People are not going to go to their local PC (if they even have one) to use their smart lights. Likewise people are not going to change wireless networks everytime they need to change a smart item. The best combo I have found is non-cloud smart devices and a solid firewall. I'm confident enough that my lightbulb isn't going to hack my Mac/Windows machine, and I can still control it when I'm at home with my phone. If I want outside control, then it's vpn time.

Avamander 7y ago

FOSS firmware would be a nice, but unless someone verifies that firmware (could be maliciously a spaghetti), then it doesn't have much use.

roel_v 7y ago
Who says the hardware doesn't have a separate IC overriding the ostensibly clean firmware? So you need not only verified hardware schematics, but also verification that the hardware you're running is actually based on that verified design. For which there is currently no way of doing that, as far as I know. You need to either trust the vendor at some level, or treat every device as hostile - while still getting its intended use out of it.
- Avamander 7y ago
  True, but having to only trust hardware being correctly made is already an improvement over having to trust both software and hardware to be made correctly.
- eeZah7Ux 7y ago
  > Who says the hardware doesn't have a separate IC overriding the ostensibly clean firmware? Cost, space on the PCB or on the die, additional complexity, and it's a very big thing to keep secret. And if it's found it becomes impossible to deny or chalk up as an innocent mistake.
eeZah7Ux 7y ago
No. FOSS firmware immediately makes backdoors thousand times more risky to implement.

somurzakov 7y ago

1. if the device name contains "smart" -> always assume it is vulnerable. 2. put all IoT devices behind firewall/NAT router and never allow any traffic from WAN to the IoT. (Allow only South->North traffic) 3. Never allow east-west traffic between IoT devices.

inetknght 7y ago
1. if the device has a name -> always assume it is vulnerable 2. hope you disabled upnp, the device doesn't have NAT hole punching, and doesn't "require" internet access for some reason like... cloud backup of logs or update checks 3. configuring firewalls and routers is hard. but plugging devices into power is easy. people always go the easy route.
voltagex_ 7y ago
OK but what does the general public do?
- silon42 7y ago
  Separate WIFI/network for IoT devices. Do not route to the internet in any way (skip buying anything that requires it). Connect to windows (or other OS) PC only, non-routable. Disable all connections from that network to the PC.
  - therealx 7y ago
    You wish. People are not going to go to their local PC (if they even have one) to use their smart lights. Likewise people are not going to change wireless networks everytime they need to change a smart item. The best combo I have found is non-cloud smart devices and a solid firewall. I'm confident enough that my lightbulb isn't going to hack my Mac/Windows machine, and I can still control it when I'm at home with my phone. If I want outside control, then it's vpn time.