4 ms·
Tbh, I think this will add unnnecessary regulatory burden for start-up companies. Take for example general IoT cloud connected equipment: it will get security
by blobbers 3y ago
Tbh, I think this will add unnnecessary regulatory burden for start-up companies.
Take for example general IoT cloud connected equipment: it will get security upgrades more often than one that is completely offline. That was a big selling point of the Meraki cloud offering that is now part of Cisco. There would be millions of unpatched networking equipment, but Meraki could force upgrades onto networks without them managing the patching. The result being they would have secure products, and the non-cloud providers would have to rely on their customers to update their phone. The meraki solution was by definition a better upgrade path than the standalone solution. Why would you burden them with regulatory hoops that non-cloud devices do not require?
When you buy an IoT device, you're taking on a risk on anything not open source, and betting that a product/company will succeed. For example, I bought some cube sensors to monitor my home air quality. These sensors are now garbage because they connect to a closed cloud that has been shut down. They don't even function let alone get security upgrades.
If anything, non-cloud connected IoT devices are more likely to cause problems.
- cjalmeida 3y agoEnforcing mandatory updates might not be a good idea, but creating standards that can inform the consumer in making decisions is helpful.