Live data from Hacker News

More awful IoT stuff

mjg59.dreamwidth.org

31–40 of 245 posts

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are entitled by the license, but only the copyright holder can sue for the violation.

So, the GPL never had much power?

If that's really how it works then does that mean that open source projects with no clear copyright owner can't enforce their license?

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#32
post #18

So there is a great amount of lists, blogposts and information about awful/bad IoT things, but if someone like me want to have a list about IoT things that are actually secure and well-working, where would I find that?

I'd love a list like that as well, but sadly I don't think one exists and I don't think there's any money in doing it. Nobody wants to hear about good IoT devices, they want to make fun of bad ones and feel superior, that's what sells clicks. Maybe i'm just being cynical...

I don't think there's enough profit margin in most IoT devices to allocate to something like this.

F.ex. when's the last time you saw a commercial for a door knob?

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, the GPL never had much power?

If that's really how it works then does that mean that open source projects with no clear copyright owner can't enforce their license?

Doesn't the actual text of the license list the owner?

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#34

IoT is all about unsecured devices generally?

That's been my understanding as well. The cpu's used typically aren't powerful enough to do anything other than simple encryption in a reasonable amount of time. Ssl is generally out of the question. Someone please educate me if that's incorrect.

What kind of latency is really an issue here? The payload isn't going to be large for lots of these IoT devices. If it takes a couple of hundred milliseconds longer to carry out the transaction is that really a big deal?

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#35
post #18

So there is a great amount of lists, blogposts and information about awful/bad IoT things, but if someone like me want to have a list about IoT things that are actually secure and well-working, where would I find that?

It's not that easy. I stick with brands/products that are reviewed by people I trust or have seemed to pick up some momentum. My general rule of thumb is I NEVER buy anything IoT that is WiFi based. Zigbee or Z-Wave based devices will save you a lot of security nightmares (though definitely not all).

Why is Z* preferable to Wifi-based?

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#36
Sounds like there is a strong need for a standard OS build for IoT devices.

I'm not expert in the area, but I would imagine a standard API could be implemented to handle the vast majority of use cases. Connecting to an app securely, turning things on and off, basic scheduling.

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are entitled by the license, but only the copyright holder can sue for the violation.

So, the GPL never had much power?

It's not any different than any other copyright license in that respect.

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#38

There's so much potential in the market for proper, well made IoT devices that would bring around the hardcore skeptics like myself. I mean really well made products, properly encrypted with well made API endpoints that come with good apps for the uninitiated -AND- the ability to be scripted and automated by the techies. (You can do both, there's no reason why you can't and I don't understand why everyone refuses to)…

Which problems do you want to solve with these IoT devices? What should they do? In my opinion existing IoT devices generally replace simple, proven systems with complex and abstruse ones.

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#39

Sounds like there is a strong need for a standard OS build for IoT devices. I'm not expert in the area, but I would imagine a standard API could be implemented to handle the vast majority of use cases. Connecting to an app securely, turning things on and off, basic scheduling.

I think openwrt on the main unit (a good router) + nodemcu based sensor units would work well.

Openwrt is powerful enough to take care of logging, connecting to the internet etc, and the sensor units can form a pseudo mesh using their wifi capabilities.

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#40
post #18

So there is a great amount of lists, blogposts and information about awful/bad IoT things, but if someone like me want to have a list about IoT things that are actually secure and well-working, where would I find that?

It's not that easy. I stick with brands/products that are reviewed by people I trust or have seemed to pick up some momentum. My general rule of thumb is I NEVER buy anything IoT that is WiFi based. Zigbee or Z-Wave based devices will save you a lot of security nightmares (though definitely not all).

Insteon isn't bad either. Though it's proprietary, which is a big downside. But without you setting up a Hub or software on your PC, the hardware has no way of talking to the Internet. (And most of Insteon works without a Hub or PC even!)
Post reply on HN