5 ms·
I think this is oversimplifying things. Is finishing the dinner more important than applying a patch that fixes actively exploited bug that locks your oven int
by klausa 3y ago
I think this is oversimplifying things.
Is finishing the dinner more important than applying a patch that fixes actively exploited bug that locks your oven into cleaning mode and burns everything inside into ash over the next three hours? Or something that disables the safety checks and lets the oven overheat and burn your house down?
(Granted, the latter shouldn't physically be possible because it should have physical temperature killswitches etc.)
People always (understandably so!) consider software updates to be annoyances; but especially when you give an example like _an oven_, the potential for _catastrophic_ failures is too great.
- MarcoPerazaFCC 3y agoOne my favorite IoT botnet scenarios is an attacker taking control of thousands of ovens/air conditions/other high-wattage devices and using them to cause power outages. https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/usenixsecurity18/sec18-soltan.pdf https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/usenixsecurit... I wonder how the impulse to connect everything to the internet will be remembered.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hot_gril 3y agoThese seem like very rare scenarios. If we're concerned about dire threats like this, the manufacturer needs a way to remotely send devices into an internet-disconnected "safe mode" before anyone's even talking about updates.
- klausa 3y agoHow do you, as a user, determine whether your oven is in "safe mode" that the manufacturer has toggled, or in "safe mode" that makes the UI look the same as the real one, but is actually a malicious code that waits until 3AM to start the cleaning mode? I agree that these scenarios are (relatively) far fetched _now_; but if we expect the future to include connecting appliances like that to the internet, then solving problems like those is table-stakes stuff. I understand that enforced software updates are annoying; but for high-stakes environments like this they strike me as a lesser of the two evils.
- hot_gril 3y agoIf the attacker has total control, then all bets are off no matter what mechanisms you put in first. Adding a safe mode would at least allow manufacturer to stop any non-total exploit without relying on the more complicated update mechanism. Also, the appliance would more likely work in a kinda normal way in the meantime.
- klausa 3y ago>If the attacker has total control, then all bets are off no matter what mechanisms you put in first. Great, so we now agree that it's important to keep the system patched and up to date.
- fragmede 3y agoThat depends on updates never introducing new vulnerabilities.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hot_gril 3y agoI didn't say otherwise. Only that a forced update mechanism is insufficient for stakes as high as burning down the house. Maybe the patch fails to download/install, or they take too long to develop the patch in the first place, or the patch doesn't work for all models on the first try. There needs to be a simple kill switch if we're talking about threats like this. Besides that, the safe mode oven should still be able to cook food manually.
- withinboredom 3y agoFinishing dinner can be more important than the house not burning down. A burned down house is likely insured. A dinner with a potential business client is not.
- aflag 3y agoI think it works best when the consumer gets to decide. If a car recall comes along because the seat belts in your car have been shown to actually kill people in accidents, would you blow off your weekend plans to get your car fixed as soon as possible or would you go to your thing then bring the car to the manufacturer on Monday? There will be people on both sides of that decision and, ideally, we should let them choose.
- freedomben 3y agoYou make a good point, but this kills me. I've been writing software a long time, and there's nothing I trust less to control my oven than software. God help us. I yearn for simple physical controls