4 ms·
I've fiddled with IoT very little, yet with the little experience I have, I must say, I'm not surprised at all. And I think the main reasons are the ecosystems
by axegon_ 6y ago
I've fiddled with IoT very little, yet with the little experience I have, I must say, I'm not surprised at all. And I think the main reasons are the ecosystems around IoT: they are a mess - no standards, no common communication protocols, none of that. So it is a bit of a "every man for himself" kind of thing. I have a few smart devices at home and it really boggles my mind how much they differ from one another when they connect to the wifi. Some fire up a tiny http server which I would assume is used as a rest api, some use udp connections, each one uses the most random port you can imagine, the developer documentation for all of them is nothing short of crap. I think the security vulnerabilities will start going down once:
1. Everything goes open source.
2. Everyone settles on a standard way of communicating between those devices.
Sure, vulnerabilities won't disappear completely but they will go down. At this stage, I feel like they aren't exploited due to lack of interest rather than good will or lack of opportunities.
- red_admiral 6y agoI'm pessimistic about the open-source part. The lesson I took from OpenSSL/Heartbleed is: even if something's very widely used and people could spend some collective effort on it (or just contribute some funding), that doesn't mean anyone will. The Linux Core Foundation funding after that, and google contributing its own expertise through BoringSSL, made OpenSSL a lot more secure but it took a wake-up call.
- Nasrudith 6y agoThe sad thing is OpenSSL with heartbleed unpatched would still be an improvement. Even though the entire related class of buffer bugs shouldn't be a thing.