Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

krebsonsecurity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 549 posts

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#431

Post by justcool393 »

account42 wrote: post #313
walrus01 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No residential last mile broadband ISP at the scale of hundreds of thousands or millions of customers is presently willing to spend the salary/benefits/fully loaded employee cost on the massive teams of (somewhat technically clued in, not low wage) people it would take to effectively implement this.

They would be willing if they were themselves held liable for the illicit activity originating from their network otherwise.

except we need ISPs to be treated as relatively neutral parties. we don't hold the water company liable if someone uses water to cook up meth

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#432

Post by justcool393 »

jacobgold wrote: post #386
dpoloncsak wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Major US ISPs (Comcast, AT&T) should detect clearly suspicious activity coming from customer IPs and warn them to scan their computers, check their TV apps, and find whatever is turning their internet into a proxy. It's very bad for the customers too (slows things down, gets their IP banned, etc) Is there incentive for them to? If anything, you might be paying extra for the data use and not even know it, right? The…

It may actually be costing them money through higher peak usage (requiring more capacity). I'm not sure but either way the government should have a role if market incentives aren't sufficient.

yeah no, this isn't a good take imo. we already have way too much of ISPs doing bad things to internet shaping and random governmental overreach (from state govts no less!) on domains and such.

if someone wants to knowingly host a proxy they should. stuffing it along with other apps is shady and if LG wants to disallow those apps from their store than w/e but like we don't need governmental stuff encroaching on this stuff. if LG wants to do moderation on those apps than whatever.

there was a lot of fighting over this stuff back in the early 2010s because the alternative was effectively a balkanized corponet.

smart TVs, by virtue of being devices you can write apps for, have morphed into more general purpose computing devices and keeping it as open as it can be is important. the backsliding from stuff like Android has been horrible for the ecosystem and that shouldn't be normalized, let alone as a legal requirement geez

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#433

Post by HDBaseT »

amiga386 wrote: post #353
fc417fc802 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/tvap…

I have trouble believing LG "didn't appear to know" almost 50% of applications on their store were effectively spyware.

It takes one look at the App Store on these TV to know all these apps are sketchy...

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#434

Post by justcool393 »

ButlerianJihad wrote: post #139
Dylan16807 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At the very least, consumer connections explicitly disallow "Commercial Use". And that's really bad! Far more than reselling, you should very much be able to run a website from home!

> And that's really bad! No, it’s fair, and probably federally regulated. You wanna run a business? Then get a business license, pay your business taxes, and sign up for a business Internet connection. That’s what they’re made for. Then run your servers to your heart’s content.

so much of the early aughts small business and startups were people selling stuff and doing things out of ppls home. and not like the "startup industry" startups, actual startups

but aside from that, hosting a website or email server or newsgroup or game server with friends isnt necessarily hosting a business, not everything is a transactional relationship

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#435

Post by [deleted] »

preg_match wrote: post #397
ChocolateGod wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> software installed and updated manually from vetted repos only So something most desktop Linux users don't do.

I would say 95%+ do just this. The Debian, Ubuntu, and even Fedora repos are very large and include all the software you could ever want. And then flathub takes the rest. It’s really only arch with the AUR and some others where completely untrusted packages are used. This is legitimately a better model than what windows does, although Microsoft has been trying to change this with winget.

[deleted]

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#436

Post by vel0city »

preg_match wrote: post #400
iso1631 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There is one major difference: those install under your users. I haven’t seen a windows installer that didn’t require admin. Some older Linux apps require sudo. They don’t need to do that anymore, not for a while. We have xdg standards of where to install stuff in a users home directory.

Tons of Windows apps these days install into user's AppData these days. Its common for installers to ask "Install for everyone or just me".

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#437

Post by tyre »

entropie wrote: post #46
tyre wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I bought a Samsung TV and there isn’t a way to set up Art Mode without the internet. So first you have to get a raspberry pi, install pi hole, then switch your router’s DNS. What a wild experience 2026 is. But I do feel like a wizard.

They might hardcode DNS. It's not certain that this will work.

You are correct! They do and it was bypassing my pihole. I was able to get around this but man they really want to stalk people.

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#438

Post by boredatoms »

mDyJzDPmBdG wrote: post #266
boredatoms wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whats your point exactly? Are you purposely being obtuse? Plenty of uninformed people let their tv on the network, they shouldn’t. A separate box should instead. Tell me I'm wrong?

You are wrong. Just idea of having to use to remotes is unacceptable level of friction to most people. We should not hail separate device as excuse to allow this shitty behaviour by TV manufacturers. I guess the lawmakers won't move a finger and we have wait for consumer network equipment manufacturers[1] to advertise build in pi-hole and ACR/TV ads blocking on firewall level. [1] Let's just forget for a second they…

Ok I’m convinced, we rally at dawn?

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#439

Post by alterom »

reaperducer wrote: post #413
jhallenworld wrote: post #371

I have a new LG TV, holy moly what a terrible user experience. Out of the box it requires you to create an LG account. PITA, but OK. Except I was supposed to set the location first, instead I set it after. So now you have the problem that you can not log into LG.com using my own email (even from a web browser) because it says: "incorrect country". I contacted their tech support about this, the only fix is to switch b…

I have a new LG TV, holy moly what a terrible user experience. My LG TV doesn't support Bluetooth, and it's only maybe eight years old. Instead of simply connecting to Bluetooth headphones, you're supposed to put some LG app on your smart phone, then sync that via wifi with another app on the TV, then connect your smart phone to the headphones via Bluetooth. Instead, I just watch less TV and will not purchase LG in t…

Well it doesn't sound like you're having much luck with that setup, or would award it any gold stars, so there's that.

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#440

Post by Tor3 »

worldofmatthew wrote: post #233
Tor3 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From previous discussions there are apparently TVs which will connect to any open network nearby, if it can find one. I got myself a normal, non-smart Philips 49" TV some ten years ago, it's good, but I don't expect to be able to find something similar anymore.

Your smart TV would make you risk going to prison for theft? Just because its open does not mean permission to use.

Huh? Open networks are open. You don't go to prison for that. Anyway, as the next comment said, there aren't many open networks anymore, though you'll still find some (see other comment)
Post reply on HN