3 ms·

> Though we don’t have the finer details of the DDoS story, it serves as yet another warning for device owners to do their best to keep their devices, firmware,

by zzyzxd 3y ago

> Though we don’t have the finer details of the DDoS story, it serves as yet another warning for device owners to do their best to keep their devices, firmware, and software updated; monitor their networks for suspicious activity; install and use security software; and follow network security best practices. Maybe they should only allow qualified consumers with required certification to purchase such a smart toothbrush.

accrual 3y ago
> monitor their networks for suspicious activity Indeed. It's asking the same people who only know their router as a box where the internet comes from to run a packet capture and interpret the results.
abdullahkhalids 3y ago
The call if of course on device owners, and not device manufacturers whose responsibility it truly is to manufacture secure devices.
- d4mi3n 3y ago
  100% agree, but I have to wonder how much of the problem is that the cost of security is: A. Not mandated B. Increases cost of the product At what point would people just prefer a regular toothbrush if a smart one doesn't provide enough utility to justify the cost? This isn't specific to toothbrushes, but I wonder what products or services wouldn't exist if they were made to be secure (or safe/ethical/sustainable/etc). Makes me wonder how many existing externalities are causing hard to measure problems that could be prevented by making a higher quality product.
  - abdullahkhalids 3y ago
    Of course it's because security is not mandated. In the past, and in the present, there are many companies who are willing to kill people for the sake of profits, if they can get away with it legally. IMHO, any commercial violations of human rights, like privacy, should have criminal penalties.
- chankstein38 3y ago
  Maybe the device owner only needs to be certified if the device was manufactured by a company that has had compromises or breaches in the past. That way, their sales take a massive hit if they have a problem. That may motivate these companies to do something about security.

by zzyzxd 3y ago

accrual 3y ago

> monitor their networks for suspicious activity Indeed. It's asking the same people who only know their router as a box where the internet comes from to run a packet capture and interpret the results.

abdullahkhalids 3y ago

The call if of course on device owners, and not device manufacturers whose responsibility it truly is to manufacture secure devices.

d4mi3n 3y ago
100% agree, but I have to wonder how much of the problem is that the cost of security is: A. Not mandated B. Increases cost of the product At what point would people just prefer a regular toothbrush if a smart one doesn't provide enough utility to justify the cost? This isn't specific to toothbrushes, but I wonder what products or services wouldn't exist if they were made to be secure (or safe/ethical/sustainable/etc). Makes me wonder how many existing externalities are causing hard to measure problems that could be prevented by making a higher quality product.
- abdullahkhalids 3y ago
  Of course it's because security is not mandated. In the past, and in the present, there are many companies who are willing to kill people for the sake of profits, if they can get away with it legally. IMHO, any commercial violations of human rights, like privacy, should have criminal penalties.
chankstein38 3y ago
Maybe the device owner only needs to be certified if the device was manufactured by a company that has had compromises or breaches in the past. That way, their sales take a massive hit if they have a problem. That may motivate these companies to do something about security.