2 ms·
What are you talking about? The Anafi drone uses regular wifi, with ESSID and password, and that's how the security is achieved. There is no need for additiona
by theamk 2y ago
What are you talking about?
The Anafi drone uses regular wifi, with ESSID and password, and that's how the security is achieved. There is no need for additional encryption on protocol level.
It's really the best way - instead of making ad-hoc security mechanisms, rely on well-researched and well-tested wifi security.
(That first sentence, "Start by connecting your PC to the Parrot Anafi’s Wi-Fi network", really carries a lot of load... As Raymond Chen likes to say, "It rather involved being on the other side of this airtight hatchway")
- jojobas 2y agoYeah, as if defending against the actual user of the drone would have been a good thing.
- numpad0 2y agoThey used to have root shell on telnet in early consumer drones. It was a long time ago, but that can't happen by accident; they could have used dropbear with known fixed password, Wi-Fi MAC as password, etc. They also had wildly different mass than competitors - realistically DJI - at same price/performance ranges. So I assumed ever since that they have their unique opinions about security and architecture of a flying machine control software. Is that odd?
- echoangle 2y ago> They used to have root shell on telnet in early consumer drones. Is that a problem as long as the drone WiFi is protected?
- palata 2y ago> Is that odd? A little bit, yeah. They used to make toys, and you assume that the threat model for the toys is probably the same they would use to build anything else, and then you criticise them based on that assumption.