3 ms·
Sounds more like we need a minimum required period for security updates after a device is sold, and other similar measures. It is much, much easier to enforce t
by sgc 3y ago
Sounds more like we need a minimum required period for security updates after a device is sold, and other similar measures. It is much, much easier to enforce this type of thing with one manufacturer than with 100k customers, many of whom are elderly and will never be able to do it themselves no matter how much we preach.
- mschuster91 3y ago> It is much, much easier to enforce this type of thing with one manufacturer than with 100k customers, many of whom are elderly and will never be able to do it themselves no matter how much we preach. They all pay their ISP a hefty "rental" fee for their crap modem. It's only fair to hold the ISPs responsible in such cases.
- sgc 3y agoThat type of thing is why I threw in "and other similar measures". Of course there needs to be a basic security policy that is developed and enforced, and resellers / lessors should be responsible. We already have plenty to draw from, such as car/appliance recalls, large organization security policies, etc. There is a ton of low hanging fruit that could be easily dealt with quickly if there were political will.
- gunapologist99 3y agoThis is how you end up getting forced to be behind their awful DNAT DPI "firewall", which will still be insecure, and you won't have any access to it.