4 ms·
There are 4 really bad ideas from the article: 1. Clock is automatically updated from the internet 2. The microwave has a web page so you can control it
by negativity 13y ago
There are 4 really bad ideas from the article:
1. Clock is automatically updated from the internet
2. The microwave has a web page so you can control it
from your phone (why not), and set up cooking
instructions for products
3. Tweets after it's finished cooking something
4. Can be controlled with voice commands ∗∗
∗∗ ...not that bad, but subject to pranks and false positive
microwave commands, from people in the same room
This is all REALLY bad from a safety perspective. Exposing household appliances to the wilds of the internet is all kinds of dangerous. You shouldn't advertise that this is a good idea, and leave readers with the assumption that maybe it's password protected or maybe not (it is: http://www.microwavecookingdb.com/products/new?upc=8711000279571 http://www.microwavecookingdb.com/products/new?upc=871100027...), or maybe it's wrapped up in TLS/SSL and maybe not (it's not: http://www.microwavecookingdb.com/users/sign_in http://www.microwavecookingdb.com/users/sign_in). Is the internet control framework just security by obscurity, operated by arbitrarily obscure URL parameters? Who knows? Maybe? (here's the code: https://github.com/ndbroadbent/raspberry_picrowave https://github.com/ndbroadbent/raspberry_picrowave) I mean, yeah it's just a DIY project, but immediately, I see some opportunities to wreak havoc.
First of all, it's not merely polling an internet time server, but that's one port exposed to the internet, that anybody can just start dumping malicious payloads on. Second, and worst, it can be switched on from the internet. Third, it gives feedback that can be accessed by the entire internet, tells the internet what it is, and what it's doing, right now in real time, allowing an attacker to monitor the success of malicious efforts. This way, you'll know as soon as you're able to send a command to power up the microwave for one second, to test and prove the ability to control it.
People will attack these kinds of openings, just for the sheer amusement of running up a total stranger's electric bill, nevermind start a fire. This article seems relatively smart and competent, and so maybe we should ASSUME that proper security exists?
This is the kind of design inspiration that's going to encourage some other engineer (or worse, an MBA in charge of some stupid startup) to go out and expose the electric grid to twitter with some poorly tested SCADA system, and on a dark, stormy night, in the far flung future, I'm going to be eating cold beans from a can, in the dark, because of it.
- benjamincburns 13y ago> This is the kind of design inspiration that's going to encourage some other engineer (or worse, an MBA in charge of some stupid startup) to go out and expose the electric grid to twitter with some poorly tested SCADA system, and on a dark, stormy night, in the far flung future, I'm going to be eating cold beans from a can, in the dark, because of it. Wait... are you saying this as reason why this guy shouldn't be doing what he's doing? Because somebody somewhere who might be in a position of public trust might be incompetent? SCADA security is a big deal, but I think your energy is a bit misplaced here... Party on, Mr. Broadbent. Keep making that Raspberry Pi make you some Raspberry Pie.
- negativity 13y agoI don't care if Mr. Broadbent does this. And I'll admit, that yeah, this project is way cool! But if I live in an apartment building, and my belongings can be burned to the ground because the apartment above me decided to put their microwave on the internet, I wouldn't want any of my neighbors doing this. It's not a good idea for everyone, everywhere, all the time. * EDIT: Just the "internet enabled" parts mostly (unless you're qualified/experienced enough to understand the hazards), not all the other hardware hacks (i would estimate that anybody etching their own circuit boards would have a pretty firm understanding of electrical safety).
- maxerickson 13y agoI wouldn't be too positive about safety, there are lots of very step-by-step tutorials out there.
- lttlrck 13y ago' It's not a good idea for everyone, everywhere, all the time.' Well yeah that would be a bit crazy.
- GhotiFish 13y agoA port is a port is a port. You can send anything you like to that port and it's not like the computer will say "Oop, I have no programs listening on this port, so I'll just execute what you're sending me" What is the danger in having a port exposed that can receive updates for time? Are there huge vulnerabilities in the ntpd? Seems like a pretty small attack surface to me. actually... Is that port even open?! This is polling a time server through NAT right? So the ports get negotiated. We're not listening, were asking. So I guess the danger would be that your time server of choice could be compromised, and then start sending out malicious packets that... confuse ntpd? Seems like were back where we started. There was some stupid stuff in that article, twitter updates being perhaps the most colossal (and voice control coming in a neat second, web control @ 3). However, once you take flame decals off and remove the card in the spokes, this ceases to be the danger it once was.