Live data from Hacker News

LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

krebsonsecurity.com

351–360 of 549 posts

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#352
An angle that's often not explored is that companies like BrightData that install spyware on your smart gadgets are based in Tel Aviv, Israel. It's not unreasonable to assume that these Israeli cybersecurity firms are also sending data to the Israeli military. While everyone is complaining about AI scrapers and bots, they aren't even looking at the main culprits.

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not the case. The article is quite clear that LG runs an "app store" where 42% of the "apps" likely contain residential proxies, and LG is going to make its "app store" developers stop doing that. From TFA: > “A residential proxy network is not an intended use for LG smart TVs, and LG Electronics is working with developers to remove the residential proxy option from their apps on the webOS platform,” Taylor s…

It very much is the case. Your own quote contradicts you. A smart tv is definitely a computer (one of the selling points is literally that it runs arbitrary apps) and LG is declaring that this "is not an intended use for LG smart TVs" and banning it. There is certainly a conversation to be had regarding consumer protection laws, the nature of an appliance, and the trade-offs thereof but this is not that conversation…

I don't think a bunch of dodgy app vendors who put TVs in botnets is who you should be going to bat for.

Read it again: "LG Electronics is working with developers to remove the residential proxy option from their apps on the webOS platform"

It is working with developers it has a contractual relationship with, and has approved their apps for download from its "app store" -- this one: https://gb.lgappstv.com/main/tvapp

...where 42% seem to be ADDING THE TV TO A BOTNET.

LG TVs form a substantial botnet, and LG didn't appear to know or care.

This is not about a person using their own TV to add it to a botnet (WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT?), it's about "app developers" knowing that LG is lax in checking what "apps" do, and putting out trojan horse apps that, if the TV user installs them, adds the TV to a botnet, without the TV owner's knowledge.

This is entirely orthogonal to "can I run my own choice of software on my LG TV?", which is not addressed in the article at all.

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another win for the Linux security model (software installed and updated manually from vetted repos only).

most of my machines use unnatended-upgrades Increasingly software is distributed by "curl dodgysite.com/get.sh|sudo bash -", no different to running "install.exe" on windows Surely Windows Update is a vetted repo as much as arch or debian

Nah, install.exe must be signed by a certificate authority or you get 10 prompts, and they do revoke certificates.

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#355
post #288
post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were no cookie popups 20 years ago.

I think they meant that the use of cookies for analytics/tracking, which is what triggers the popup requirement, would have been considered malicious.

Indeed.

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The monitors aren't installing anything. That headline was a lie. It's Windows Update that's installing LG crapware upon seeing relevant hardware IDs. That's why the problem affected older monitors too - it's the update side that suddenly started to ship malware.

The headline isn't a lie, even if you can technically nitpick it. The manufacturer implemented choices to deliberately install the software when the monitors are connected. The mechanism is not important to why this is outrageous.

I disagree, the mechanism is the only important thing. Everything else is storytelling and superstition.

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

reasonably important, if you're never connecting your lg tv to any network, and just connecting it to an AppleTV or something and letting HDMI-CEC control it so you never even see their OS.

I would suggest a mini-PC running Linux and Plasma Bigscreen instead of an AppleTV if you want something 100% private and user-controlled.

my priority for a TV isn't privacy or user control, it's minimizing annoyance. and appletv, roku, or similar streaming boxes delivers that best.

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those details are the only thing that matter. Without them, all you have is superstition.

I disagree. It matters that LG makes ads appear on their customers' screens as a deterministic consequence of connecting one of their monitors. It's not superstition. Of course the details are important on some level. But that doesn't make everything else not matter and it doesn't turn an incomplete explanation into a lie.

That's my point: it's not a consequence of connecting a monitor. An external element is making it look like such.

This difference tells you that, for example, you cannot fix the problem by fixing the monitor, because the problem does not exist in hardware. It's actually entirely external to the hardware you own, because it exists entirely "in the cloud" (i.e. on MS and LG servers).

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would suggest a mini-PC running Linux and Plasma Bigscreen instead of an AppleTV if you want something 100% private and user-controlled.

Do you recommend any specific distro for this?

Arch or Fedora, because you want a very recent KDE version.

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. It matters that LG makes ads appear on their customers' screens as a deterministic consequence of connecting one of their monitors. It's not superstition. Of course the details are important on some level. But that doesn't make everything else not matter and it doesn't turn an incomplete explanation into a lie.

That's my point: it's not a consequence of connecting a monitor. An external element is making it look like such. This difference tells you that, for example, you cannot fix the problem by fixing the monitor, because the problem does not exist in hardware . It's actually entirely external to the hardware you own, because it exists entirely "in the cloud" (i.e. on MS and LG servers).

No you're wrong. It absolutely is a consequence of connecting an LG monitor. Connecting an LG monitor triggers a chain of events that deterministically and deliberately cause these ads to be shown.

The hardware alone is not sufficient for this to happen, but if you were to modify or "fix" the monitor (specifically its firmware) so that it no longer identifies as an LG monitor, then it would no longer cause these ads to be shown.

In other words, if A causes B and B causes C then it is correct to say that A causes C.

Post reply on HN