A vigilante trying to improve IoT security
gizmodo.com
A vigilante trying to improve IoT security
1–10 of 242 posts
Re: A vigilante trying to improve IoT security
#2This is perhaps the only way. Get the customer to irritate security exploits.
Nice thinking though
Re: A vigilante trying to improve IoT security
#3"Something Wonderful has Happened"
Re: A vigilante trying to improve IoT security
#4Slightly OT, but not too long ago I read that it is not uncommon for viruses to remove other known, competing, malware. Does anyone know if anyone has ever made a virus who's only purpose is to remove other malware? Perhaps the same aggressive approach used by Janit0r is needed to stop the spread of worms, kill off botnets etc.?
Re: A vigilante trying to improve IoT security
#5It's what I said people should do. Kind of like 2nd Amendment taken against 3rd-party devices that nobody will do anything about. It might also generate demand for more secure devices on consumer side or liability on supplier side for same. Good to see someone is doing it. There were quite a few other people wanting to see these bricked on last HN thread about it:
Re: A vigilante trying to improve IoT security
#6Slightly OT, but not too long ago I read that it is not uncommon for viruses to remove other known, competing, malware. Does anyone know if anyone has ever made a virus who's only purpose is to remove other malware? Perhaps the same aggressive approach used by Janit0r is needed to stop the spread of worms, kill off botnets etc.?
Not only that, but even human immune system can instruct other cells to self-destruct, if it detects they are infected! So what Janit0r is doing is kind of similar to that approach.
Re: A vigilante trying to improve IoT security
#7This is a more in-depth source for the same story: https://arstechnica.com/security/2017/04/brickerbot-the-perm...
Re: A vigilante trying to improve IoT security
#8It's all fine and well until one of those improperly configured devices are a medical device or something critical. Yes I understand that's part of the problem, but proving a point with risk isn't the right answer either. Every Dialysis machine i've seen runs windows xp, which any security professional will tell you is game over, but given the market hasn't provided an alternative, it's becomes a necessity to figure out how to protect these improperly updated / configured / designed devices.
Fandom of actions that impact others in a negative way is bad, and one day someone will do something they feel is right that impacts you and you'll say.. well that's not fair.
Re: A vigilante trying to improve IoT security
#9It takes a special kind of entitled to destroy people's things and to then blame others (the manufacturers) for it.
Re: A vigilante trying to improve IoT security
#10It's all fine and well until one of those improperly configured devices are a medical device or something critical. Yes I understand that's part of the problem, but proving a point with risk isn't the right answer either. Every Dialysis machine i've seen runs windows xp, which any security professional will tell you is game over, but given the market hasn't provided an alternative, it's becomes a necessity to figure…
I think this is a legitimate moral paradox. Are you saving more people in the long run by making sure the devices fail sooner rather than later? Not that it's the responsibility of random, unaccountable hackers. But it is someone's responsibility, someone who isn't fixing the problem we know exists.