3 ms·

Security is a big one. No way I'm plugging into some random public USB outlet. Aside from that, I believe they were indeed intended to serve multiple people at

Security is a big one. No way I'm plugging into some random public USB outlet. Aside from that, I believe they were indeed intended to serve multiple people at once... encampments, communities, short term installations, etc.

wolverine876 3y ago
> No way I'm plugging into some random public USB outlet. How is LibraryBox better? You would be connecting to a random wifi SSID? > Aside from that, I believe they were indeed intended to serve multiple people at once... encampments, communities, short term installations, etc. Almost any computing device on a network can share files this way, with a bit of configuration.
- toyg 3y ago
  Afaik, a random WiFi wouldn't be able to exploit local-execution bugs - it would have to use remote exploits, which are harder to pull off, or limit itself to network eavesdropping. USB drives, on the other hand, can trigger execution with local privileges - as well as exploiting bugs in hardware-handling system code, of which there are always plenty.
- chefandy 3y ago
  Modern network interfaces are safer even in a default config without a local firewall enabled. Not even windows has SMB or the like enabled by default anymore. Theres a lot different sorts of USB devices that thing could pretend to be.
- chefandy 3y ago
  Also: > Almost any computing device on a network can share files this way, with a bit of configuration. LibraryBox is designed to be a deployable appliance that works where no network exists that's configurable by non-technical people. Nobody even intimated it was a novel technical approach to physically transferring data. You could pick any method of transferring data and say, "well why didn't they just use [method]?" I suspect you're just hunting for opportunities to make critical comments.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    I was addressing the parent's comments more than LibraryBox generally. > LibraryBox is designed to be a deployable appliance that works where no network exists that's configurable by non-technical people. Yes, that is valuable.

wolverine876 3y ago

> No way I'm plugging into some random public USB outlet. How is LibraryBox better? You would be connecting to a random wifi SSID? > Aside from that, I believe they were indeed intended to serve multiple people at once... encampments, communities, short term installations, etc. Almost any computing device on a network can share files this way, with a bit of configuration.

toyg 3y ago
Afaik, a random WiFi wouldn't be able to exploit local-execution bugs - it would have to use remote exploits, which are harder to pull off, or limit itself to network eavesdropping. USB drives, on the other hand, can trigger execution with local privileges - as well as exploiting bugs in hardware-handling system code, of which there are always plenty.
chefandy 3y ago
Modern network interfaces are safer even in a default config without a local firewall enabled. Not even windows has SMB or the like enabled by default anymore. Theres a lot different sorts of USB devices that thing could pretend to be.
chefandy 3y ago
Also: > Almost any computing device on a network can share files this way, with a bit of configuration. LibraryBox is designed to be a deployable appliance that works where no network exists that's configurable by non-technical people. Nobody even intimated it was a novel technical approach to physically transferring data. You could pick any method of transferring data and say, "well why didn't they just use [method]?" I suspect you're just hunting for opportunities to make critical comments.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  I was addressing the parent's comments more than LibraryBox generally. > LibraryBox is designed to be a deployable appliance that works where no network exists that's configurable by non-technical people. Yes, that is valuable.