That's a really scary idea from the security point of view and something that bothers me about the IoT craze. Every consumer device visible on the Internet should quickly and reliably self-update its software if a security issue is found and remote updates are still a bit tricky to implement in embedded devices (little storage, diverse hardware).
The unsexy IoT
21–30 of 44 posts
Re: The unsexy IoT
#22> IPv6 has massively increased the number of available IPs, allowing every sensor and relay within a system to be addressable from the public internet That's a really scary idea from the security point of view and something that bothers me about the IoT craze. Every consumer device visible on the Internet should quickly and reliably self-update its software if a security issue is found and remote updates are still a…
Re: The unsexy IoT
#23IoT has many other problems... as pointed out by the popular twitter account against it: https://twitter.com/internetofshit?lang=en Some of the most amusing posts: - Nest not being able to function while there is service outage (e.g. can't change temperature if server is down) https://twitter.com/Jenthulhu/status/688918036791840768 - Tried to install an Spotify update for the car, ended disabling brakes. https://twit…
Re: The unsexy IoT
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wrote a library to enable secure communications over insecure channels for IoT, maybe it'll be useful to you: https://stringphone.readthedocs.org/en/latest/
Interesting. I actually run a web-server, and I only control my stuff through a web-API's, but that could also be useful.... Thanks
That said, it's definitely not useful everywhere, e.g. if you use TLS and the application is only for stuff at home, you're probably fine.
Re: The unsexy IoT
#25I work for a company doing unsexy IoT and I've been dreaming about writing this article for months now. We're a tiny company in New Jersey whose been around in some form or another for the last 25 years, supplying remote telemetry units (RTUs) to the industrial assets industry. Helium, oxygen, nitrogen, whatever, on boats, trucks, and static sites. We also provide a monitoring platform which is where I come in. We're…
Re: The unsexy IoT
#26I work for a company doing unsexy IoT and I've been dreaming about writing this article for months now. We're a tiny company in New Jersey whose been around in some form or another for the last 25 years, supplying remote telemetry units (RTUs) to the industrial assets industry. Helium, oxygen, nitrogen, whatever, on boats, trucks, and static sites. We also provide a monitoring platform which is where I come in. We're…
C#? Quite interesting. Anything that you can share about it? The language geek in me loves the use of C#, Java and similar safe stacks in the IoT domain. :)
I wasn't here when the C# decision was made, but it's worked out really well for us so far, Silverlight notwithstanding. Microservices work out really well for us too because there's a lot of code written for specific RTUs which will not (and should not) be shared, and having them explicitly separated keeps everything tidy. Microservices communicate via a centralized publisher using WCF, which uses MSMQ as the underlying transport method. Our #1 priority is to never loose data so these technologies are a pretty safe bet. Like I mentioned before, C# has good support for low-level stuff, but we don't do as much low-level as you think. Our greatest challenge is handling several distinct protocols with as much as the same code path as possible, and C# has really great generics support which makes our lives easy. We don't require the performance a C++ platform would bring.
To elaborate a bit more, our basic control flow goes something like:
Poll unit -> get data -> push data -> translate data -> assign data to business objects -> operate on data -> present data
Each step usually involves a save to the database of critical info at that stage.
Re: The unsexy IoT
#27IoT has many other problems... as pointed out by the popular twitter account against it: https://twitter.com/internetofshit?lang=en Some of the most amusing posts: - Nest not being able to function while there is service outage (e.g. can't change temperature if server is down) https://twitter.com/Jenthulhu/status/688918036791840768 - Tried to install an Spotify update for the car, ended disabling brakes. https://twit…
"The internet has many other problems. Just a few days ago, Dropbox was down."
Re: The unsexy IoT
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think there are any valid use cases for a widely distributed network of any kind of personal item that make sense for consumers. Consumers don't continuously manage large repetitive processes. They don't own items that remain distributed, or are being redistributed on any regular basis. They simply don't have the minimum threshold of Things that would benefit from the Internet.
How about the various "where are my friends" tracking apps, dating gadgets that light up when a person with shared interests is nearby, body metrics scanner that help health services create a map of say areas with an increased amount of people having hay fever?
Re: The unsexy IoT
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The internet has many other problems. Just a few days ago, Dropbox was down."
The solution is federated, P2P-like systems. But, unfortunately, there is no money to be made with such solutions.
Re: The unsexy IoT
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
The solution is federated, P2P-like systems. But, unfortunately, there is no money to be made with such solutions.
No one's making money of BitTorrent, and yet it functions. I think that P2P Dropbox or even youtube (without ads) is a pretty good idea.
The sad thing is, these days you only seem to be able to make money by holding your customers hostage in your online systems (cloud) or ecosystems. I miss the days where developers could make money selling just software.