Live data from Hacker News

Wanted to spy on my dog, ended up spying on TP-Link

kennedn.com

41–50 of 181 posts

Re: Wanted to spy on my dog, ended up spying on TP-Link

#41
post #34
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The device should ideally have some kind of secret material derived per device, like a passphrase generated from an MCU serial number or provisioned into EEPROM and printed on a label on the device. Some form of "enter the code on the device" or "scan the QR code on the device" could then mutually authenticate the app using proof-of-presence rather than hardcoded passwords. This can still be done completely offline w…

I agree that would be nice, but it also doesn't sound all that practical for a small vendor. I used to sell a home networking device,[0] and I wouldn't do what you're describing. If there were an issue where the labels calculate the wrong password or the manufacturer screws up which device gets which label, you don't find out until months later when they're in customer hands and they start complaining, and now you ha…

Ha! I actually use TinyPilot all the time, nice!

> I agree that would be nice, but it also doesn't sound all that practical for a small vendor.

Personalizing / customizing per device always introduces a huge amount of complexity (and thus cost). However, this is TP-Link we're talking about, who definitely have the ability to personalize credentials at scale on other product lines.

And again, to be clear, I'm not trying to argue that the current way is some horrible disaster from TP-Link, just advocating for a better solution where possible. I think the current system reads as fine, honestly, it sounds like typical cobbled together hardware vendor junk that probably has some huge amount of "real" vulnerability in it too, but this particular bit of the architecture doesn't offend me badly.

> now you have to unwind your manufacturing and fulfillment pipeline to get back all the devices you've shipped.

This can be avoided with some other type of proof-of-presence side channel which doesn't rely on manufacturing personalization - for example, a physical side-channel like "hold button to enable some PKI-based backup pairing or firmware update mode." For a camera, there should probably be an option to make this go away once provisioning is successful, since you don't want an attacker performing an evil maid attack on the device, but for pre-provisioning, it's a good option.

Re: Wanted to spy on my dog, ended up spying on TP-Link

#44
post #11
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. I've been using Home Assistant for around 6 years now and it's absolutely amazing for tying hardware from varying ecosystems together. Even if your hardware doesn't support local APIs, there's a good chance someone has made an HA integration to talk to their cloud API.

> Even if your hardware doesn't support local APIs, there's a good chance someone has made an HA integration to talk to their cloud API. And if they haven’t, you can pretty trivially write your own and distribute it through HACS (I’ve got three integrations in HACS and one in mainline now)

Thank you for your contributions btw! There is so much amazing work that's gone into HA and I appreciate it every day.

Re: Wanted to spy on my dog, ended up spying on TP-Link

#47
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love it! But my setup has a lot of sharp edges. It's a combo of things where the "standards compatible" way to connect to HA lacks things like camera control, by dastardly vendors like Chamberlain who basically killed HA support for spite, and finally, by having to use Google or Amazon for voice assistants. My #1 wish would be for someone to build a HA-native voice assistant speaker. I'd pay $100 each for a smart s…

or roll your own. This M5 Stack ASR unit costs $7.50, and has a vocab of about 40-70 words. That's enough to turn on/off lights and timers. You might need to come up with your own command language, but all of the ASR is extremely local https://shop.m5stack.com/products/asr-unit-with-offline-voic...

That is probably a great and fun way to solve the problem for those with even a little free time.

Sadly for family reasons I sadly can't take on projects that require more than a few minutes, so I'm holding out hope for someone to bridge the gap between the "project boards that require writing a bunch of code to interface with Home Assistant and define all of its possible abilities and commands" and "dumb as a post Google thing that you just plug in" with a hardware device that is easy to connect to HA and starts out doing what the Google thing can do, but smart instead of stupid like the legacy voice assistants are.

Re: Wanted to spy on my dog, ended up spying on TP-Link

#50
post #44
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even if your hardware doesn't support local APIs, there's a good chance someone has made an HA integration to talk to their cloud API. And if they haven’t, you can pretty trivially write your own and distribute it through HACS (I’ve got three integrations in HACS and one in mainline now)

Thank you for your contributions btw! There is so much amazing work that's gone into HA and I appreciate it every day.

Thanks, but it really is a community effort. Even the one I wrote the most of was still me and another guy (the Lucid Motors integration).
Post reply on HN