4 ms·

Not sure how complex modern IoT devices, but I tried to get started hacking around in larger platforms, and it seemed impossible to get into. I wouldn't be shoc

Not sure how complex modern IoT devices, but I tried to get started hacking around in larger platforms, and it seemed impossible to get into. I wouldn't be shocked if these companies make it damn near impossible to hack around in these devices (for a hobbyist at least). Especially given how worried people get regarding IoT and security.

derefr 6y ago
I mean, sure, it is relatively impossible to get into. I wouldn't expect newbies to embedded programming to get their feet wet with these systems. My complaint is that even the old hands in e.g. the demoscene aren't bothering to play with these modern embedded devices, when hacking on at-the-time-modern "happens to have a computer in it" embedded devices was exactly where the demoscene got started. Nowadays, for some reason, it's ossified into just building hacks for the same old retro devices that were popular in the scene 30-50 years ago; rather than exploring what can be done with modern appliances. I feel like the only modern "playfulness" in exploring the capabilities of these devices, comes when someone writes a funny "we did it" screen to be triggered by their PoC exploit chain for some "secure" device at DefCon. But they never bother to go further than that and actually make it to something neat—because they're security people and that's not their thing. Maybe it would be fruitful if there were an event where security folks and demoscene folks team up and collaborate—the security people to handle getting code to run on the device using known (if still only PoC) exploits; the demoscene people to explore the capabilities the resulting "access surface" of the device grants them, and create art demonstrating their findings.
- CobrastanJorji 6y ago
  But that's the point. If you want to make something neat with severe computing limitations, the old devices are great for that. If you want to try to run your own code onto a thing trying to stop you from running your own code, the new devices are great for that. But how many people are in BOTH groups?
  - derefr 6y ago
    The old devices tried to stop you from running your own code, too! These problems have long been solved; but hacking around lock-out chips, manually re-flashing soldered ROMs, etc., was always part of the original demoscene culture—just like urban exploration and parkour has always been part of street-art culture. Sometimes a fence gets between you and your canvas, and you need to go around! I suppose that might imply that "the old demoscene" had this intersection of interests, and so was inherently limited to a much smaller group of people than "the modern demoscene" is; but it still was large enough to exist and have network effects of people joining in—so I'd expect to see some analogous community today, however small, and I still find it kind of weird that I don't! On another note, remember the venerable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_intro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_intro ? It seems warez groups had this intersection of interests, too: an equal focus on reverse-engineering/copy-protection-removal; and on attaching hardware-bending art to the results. Where'd those people go? Who are their spiritual descendants?
strbean 6y ago
I spent a truly obscene amount of time trying to just figure out how to make a DIY smart speaker discoverable to Alexa / Google Home / etc. The discoverability of the documentation was varying degrees of deplorable, mostly with a heavy slant towards funneling you into end user docs. In the end all I found was how to write little voice apps. I know these smart assistants have standard interfaces for many kinds of devices. I just don't know where the hell the docs are for those interfaces.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  Two things here: First... you're not the target group for integrating with Alexa, G Home, Siri and friends; the vendors want (and tbh, probably need) only the "big brands" such as car makers, Sonos, Sony, Samsung etc., especially as they likely pay a hefty chonk of money for the privilege of accessing official SDKs and documentation plus support - they'd feel ripped off if the vendors would give away all that stuff. Second: support itself. Assume that you're Google which is notoriously different to get support from a human being. What would you like more to support: a couple dozen highly skilled developers from huge companies or a bunch of thousand "hobbyists"? And who will the users blame if their 10 $ gadget doesn't work with Google Home one day, the gadget maker or Google? tl;dr: we'd all like more open access but as long as Google and friends don't allow us to pay money to talk to a human able to solve your problems (did I already mention Google is extremely nasty to get in contact with?) that won't happen.
  - strbean 6y ago
    Totally agreed on point one, I think it is an incredibly sad state of affairs though. For point two, I'm pretty desensitized to the sad state of affairs that is big-player web service support. The phishing vector of "Hi, I'm calling from Microsoft and need your social security number" is mind boggling. I've had to tell older family members (including lifelong software developers and tenured CS professors) that no major tech company would ever let you speak to a real human to save your life... too many times. I don't see progress happening on that front for some time, but I don't think that should stop them from giving us devs the damn docs. And for who the user would blame, I see a few counterarguments there. First, if I get some weird no-name IOT device, I'm definitely blaming the maker first if there is a problem. I think most consumers place a fair amount of trust in the big tech companies, and would come to the same conclusion. Second, if they want to lock down their platforms, they could just use the Play Store approach, and require adding a developer key somewhere and enabling a dev mode on the smarthome device.

derefr 6y ago

I mean, sure, it is relatively impossible to get into. I wouldn't expect newbies to embedded programming to get their feet wet with these systems. My complaint is that even the old hands in e.g. the demoscene aren't bothering to play with these modern embedded devices, when hacking on at-the-time-modern "happens to have a computer in it" embedded devices was exactly where the demoscene got started. Nowadays, for some reason, it's ossified into just building hacks for the same old retro devices that were popular in the scene 30-50 years ago; rather than exploring what can be done with modern appliances. I feel like the only modern "playfulness" in exploring the capabilities of these devices, comes when someone writes a funny "we did it" screen to be triggered by their PoC exploit chain for some "secure" device at DefCon. But they never bother to go further than that and actually make it to something neat—because they're security people and that's not their thing. Maybe it would be fruitful if there were an event where security folks and demoscene folks team up and collaborate—the security people to handle getting code to run on the device using known (if still only PoC) exploits; the demoscene people to explore the capabilities the resulting "access surface" of the device grants them, and create art demonstrating their findings.

CobrastanJorji 6y ago
But that's the point. If you want to make something neat with severe computing limitations, the old devices are great for that. If you want to try to run your own code onto a thing trying to stop you from running your own code, the new devices are great for that. But how many people are in BOTH groups?
- derefr 6y ago
  The old devices tried to stop you from running your own code, too! These problems have long been solved; but hacking around lock-out chips, manually re-flashing soldered ROMs, etc., was always part of the original demoscene culture—just like urban exploration and parkour has always been part of street-art culture. Sometimes a fence gets between you and your canvas, and you need to go around! I suppose that might imply that "the old demoscene" had this intersection of interests, and so was inherently limited to a much smaller group of people than "the modern demoscene" is; but it still was large enough to exist and have network effects of people joining in—so I'd expect to see some analogous community today, however small, and I still find it kind of weird that I don't! On another note, remember the venerable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_intro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_intro ? It seems warez groups had this intersection of interests, too: an equal focus on reverse-engineering/copy-protection-removal; and on attaching hardware-bending art to the results. Where'd those people go? Who are their spiritual descendants?

strbean 6y ago

I spent a truly obscene amount of time trying to just figure out how to make a DIY smart speaker discoverable to Alexa / Google Home / etc. The discoverability of the documentation was varying degrees of deplorable, mostly with a heavy slant towards funneling you into end user docs. In the end all I found was how to write little voice apps. I know these smart assistants have standard interfaces for many kinds of devices. I just don't know where the hell the docs are for those interfaces.

mschuster91 6y ago
Two things here: First... you're not the target group for integrating with Alexa, G Home, Siri and friends; the vendors want (and tbh, probably need) only the "big brands" such as car makers, Sonos, Sony, Samsung etc., especially as they likely pay a hefty chonk of money for the privilege of accessing official SDKs and documentation plus support - they'd feel ripped off if the vendors would give away all that stuff. Second: support itself. Assume that you're Google which is notoriously different to get support from a human being. What would you like more to support: a couple dozen highly skilled developers from huge companies or a bunch of thousand "hobbyists"? And who will the users blame if their 10 $ gadget doesn't work with Google Home one day, the gadget maker or Google? tl;dr: we'd all like more open access but as long as Google and friends don't allow us to pay money to talk to a human able to solve your problems (did I already mention Google is extremely nasty to get in contact with?) that won't happen.
- strbean 6y ago
  Totally agreed on point one, I think it is an incredibly sad state of affairs though. For point two, I'm pretty desensitized to the sad state of affairs that is big-player web service support. The phishing vector of "Hi, I'm calling from Microsoft and need your social security number" is mind boggling. I've had to tell older family members (including lifelong software developers and tenured CS professors) that no major tech company would ever let you speak to a real human to save your life... too many times. I don't see progress happening on that front for some time, but I don't think that should stop them from giving us devs the damn docs. And for who the user would blame, I see a few counterarguments there. First, if I get some weird no-name IOT device, I'm definitely blaming the maker first if there is a problem. I think most consumers place a fair amount of trust in the big tech companies, and would come to the same conclusion. Second, if they want to lock down their platforms, they could just use the Play Store approach, and require adding a developer key somewhere and enabling a dev mode on the smarthome device.