4 ms·
Why not just disconnect it from the network?
by thirsteh 12y ago
Why not just disconnect it from the network?
- _asummers 12y agoSure, that's one solution. But let's take the Samsung example. What happens when the device needs to update firmware? I want to allow traffic of that sort, while disallowing things such as the voice communication.
- jimbobimbo 12y agoI device is disconnected from the network, it doesn't know that it "needs to update firmware".
- teacup50 12y agoWhy does your device need to update firmware? It's an appliance. Its advertised features should work, and should continue to work.
- _asummers 12y agoSecurity vulnerabilities. Performance increases. All the devices that were vulnerable to Heartbleed (as an example) with no ability to update themselves are still vulnerable. One could argue that simply disconnecting the device would be sufficient, but this ignores the possibility of internet features being useful; I wasn't limiting the discussion to TVs.
- thirsteh 12y agoBut it's a useful exercise to limit the discussion to TVs exactly because most TVs don't need any Internet connectivity at all! They just need to display input from other devices that are connected to the Internet. The trend for Smart TVs these days is to leak data like a sieve. The small risk of vulnerabilities in e.g. a TV's HDMI layer being exploited is arguably a price worth paying for privacy.
- rodgerd 12y agoI recently bought a Panasonic TV that doesn't have smart TV features - the pictures as good as the smart variants, it has a couple of HDML ports and no network interfaces. The discussions around smart TV vulnerabilities is making me very pleased about that decision.
- teacup50 12y agoSecurity vulnerabilities in a network-disconnected TV?