4 ms·
> Wonder why don’t support it. It's probably harder to tie devices in a single household together with IPv6 than with IPv4, or so they think. They don't make
by Syonyk 4y ago
> Wonder why don’t support it.
It's probably harder to tie devices in a single household together with IPv6 than with IPv4, or so they think.
They don't make (much) money on their devices, they make money on selling data collected and aggregated by their devices. Their "privacy" policy [0] is a hoot to read. "Whatever we can do, we will. If the laws of the country we collected the data in would interfere with that, we'll move the data and then do what we want." I mean, they grant themselves permission to nmap your network for other devices! Emphasis mine.
> We may receive information about the browsers and devices you use to access the Internet, including our services, such as device types and models, unique identifiers including advertising identifiers (e.g., for Roku Devices, the Advertising Identifier associated with that device), MAC address, IP address, operating system type and version, browser type and language, Wi-Fi network name and connection data, __and information about other devices connected to the same network__.
[0]: https://docs.roku.com/published/userprivacypolicy/en/us https://docs.roku.com/published/userprivacypolicy/en/us
- jmclnx 4y ago> It's probably harder to tie devices in a single household together with IPv6 than with IPv4, or so they think So I wonder if this means it is harder to ID the consumer with IPv6 ?
- megous 4y agoIt's easier. You'd be using SLAAC and your devices would have globally unique IP address based on the MAC address of their network interface.
- outworlder 4y agoExpect that some systems use random temporary IPv6 exactly to make it harder to track (even Windows)
- megous 4y agoProbably not very helpful against adversary device (like Roku) running on the same LAN.
- toast0 4y ago> It's probably harder to tie devices in a single household together with IPv6 than with IPv4, or so they think. It's probably easier, in fact. A significant and growing number of households are behind CGNAT on IPv4 and not have a 1:1 household : ip address relationship. On the other hand, if they're on IPv6, they're most likely on the same /64. But, Roku's not doing IPv6 was handy for me when Netflix decided not to accept IPv6 connections over Hurricane Electric tunnels. I didn't have to change anything, and I didn't have to do anything, the Rokus were already ignoring IPv6.
- mitchs 4y agoThe big issue with v6 is you don't know what every ISP is doing with their IP space. The current RIPE recommendation is to delegate somewhere between a /48 to a /56 to every customer. Some ISPs might only delegate a 64, and perhaps typical home wifi setup may only use a single /64. For data aggregation maybe the error is ok, but I've wondered about what IP banning/filtering looks like for v6. Assume everyone gets a /64 and most cats will have 256 lives, and sometimes 16384. Assume everyone has anything larger than a 64, and you may block 255+ other people with the intended target.
- Gigachad 4y agoIP based bans have long been obsolete imo. These days a combination of google captcha tracking and phone number verification is mostly used. A few things like IRC and 4chan still do IP bans which is painfully obvious when you notice you are randomly banned depending on what CG-NAT handed you at the time.
- toast0 4y agoStart by banning /64's, but if you see a lot of nearby bans in some ASN, mark that one for bigger bans. Easy-peasy-ish.
- yamtaddle 4y ago> __and information about other devices connected to the same network__ They may also be doing more nefarious things, but this might just mean it watches for UPNP and other announcement-broadcast messages on your network (like, say, mdns).
- birdman3131 4y agoThey use this for the remote feature in the app. You can control roku's on your network without being signed into the roku account tied to the device iirc. (At least. Not saying they are not doing anything else bad, Just that there is a valid use.)
- Syonyk 4y agoThe rest of their "Haha, you bought one of our devices, all your data is ours!" policy doesn't give me much cause to give them the benefit of the doubt here. At least some people [0] have reported their Roku device scanning their network, which is explicitly allowed in that policy. Though you can probably do a lot of it passively without leaving those annoying traces. Once they've granted themselves permissions to do it, why wouldn't you? Knowing a house is an Apple household with a lot of devices probably means they've got money, or at least a willingness to take on debt. You can get a sense of when devices come and go to help identify activity, and if you're particularly annoying, you could snoop wireless signal strength of other devices on the LAN to get an idea of who's in the room with you. If it's only got a few Androids and Chromebooks, well, probably lower income. If you can't find a thing on the LAN, you're probably in the house of a computer security researcher and should behave. Etc. If they meant to say "We watch for UPNP announcements to identify other content sources on your LAN," they could have said that. But they didn't. They left the door wide open to do whatever home LAN analysis they think they can get away with. I mean, this is a company whose response to the "Do Not Track" bit is to ignore you [1]. No standards? It's literally in the name. > Do Not Track > Some Internet browsers include the ability to transmit “Do Not Track” signals. Since uniform standards for “Do Not Track” signals have not been adopted, the Roku Sites do not currently process or respond to “Do Not Track” signals. [0]: https://community.roku.com/t5/Wi-Fi-connectivity/Roku-Device-Port-Scanning-Home-Network/td-p/709018 https://community.roku.com/t5/Wi-Fi-connectivity/Roku-Device... [1]: https://docs.roku.com/published/cookiepolicy/en/us https://docs.roku.com/published/cookiepolicy/en/us