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

More awful IoT stuff

mjg59.dreamwidth.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 245 posts

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#61

Post by Klathmon »

pjc50 wrote: post #54
Klathmon wrote: post #4

>It's running Linux and includes Busybox and dnsmasq, so plenty of GPLed code. I emailed the manufacturer asking for a copy and got told that they wouldn't give it to me, which is unsurprising but still disappointing. Has the GPL really lost it's power that much? I mean not responding to inquiries is one thing, but outright saying no?

This happens a lot. The GPL remains enforcable, but just because you have a copyright doesn't mean that people will bother to comply with it.

I've heard of companies like BMW (not true, see edit) just ignoring requests for GPL code, or promising to release it but just never doing so.

And that's a shitty thing to do which I 100% disagree with, but at least it gives lip service that they are doing something wrong. If what this reviewer says is true, the company just told him no.

That's not ignoring copyright/GPL, that's laughing in it's face.

Edit: BMW apparently did not do that, I probably read that somewhere that had an axe to grind...

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#62

Post by rubidium »

Tobani wrote: post #49
diggan wrote: 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?

The comments in the article link to this: https://github.com/HQarroum/awesome-iot

None of those are actual finished products (except for the amazon dash... which also isn't really a product). There's hardware and software components and recommendations, but (perhaps tellingly) no "IOT thermostat" or "IOT fridge".

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#63

Post by Tomte »

Klathmon wrote: post #61
pjc50 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This happens a lot. The GPL remains enforcable, but just because you have a copyright doesn't mean that people will bother to comply with it.

I've heard of companies like BMW (not true, see edit) just ignoring requests for GPL code, or promising to release it but just never doing so. And that's a shitty thing to do which I 100% disagree with, but at least it gives lip service that they are doing something wrong. If what this reviewer says is true, the company just told him no. That's not ignoring copyright/GPL, that's laughing in it's face. Edit: BMW appar…

The case you heard about was overhyped. BMW did provide source code.

It required a second request, and BMW's internal bureaucracy took some days (or weeks?), but they did fully comply.

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#64

Post by kordless »

pjc50 wrote: post #53
manyxcxi wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

It doesn't bridge directly to real IP, there will be a 'hub' somewhere. You can't talk directly to the devices from any PC or mobile on the network, which is less convenient but reduces the attack surface to just the hub. (It's also much more power-efficient; you can't really use wifi on battery powered devices unless you charge them frequently)

I've gotten an ESP8266 device to last for about 3 days with (2) AAs when in using sleep mode aggressively for the wifi. Not to say that the Python stack is stable on it. It's not.

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#65

Post by steven2012 »

The stuff from wirelesstags.net are generally very good. I have a bunch of sensors and their Reed sensors for detecting opening and closing of doors are very good. I hook it up with ifttt and turn on my Hue lights when I open and close my doors. Clearly not ground breaking stuff but useful.

The Hue lights are great but expensive. The Hue switch made things a lot more useful as well. I'm waiting for them to come out with a compatible light switch so I can control my recessed lights the same way as my light bulbs.

What they need to work on is a better outdoor camera with motion detection that doesn't get triggered by shadows or wind moving a tree branch. I've tried almost every solution and none is acceptable.

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#66

Post by CaptSpify »

I just blogged about this yesterday. In short:

> The line in the sand for me is: network vs cloud-based systems. I want things to be network connected, but I want it for my own network only. I want to be able to control my coffee pot, but only from home. If I choose to expose this over the internet, great! It's up to me to make sure it's secure. I don't want anyone making that decision for me.

I also want it to be upgradeable, and hackable. I'm willing to pay a lot of money for standalone quality devices, but nobody is supplying!

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#67

Post by Klathmon »

Tomte wrote: post #63
Klathmon wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard of companies like BMW (not true, see edit) just ignoring requests for GPL code, or promising to release it but just never doing so. And that's a shitty thing to do which I 100% disagree with, but at least it gives lip service that they are doing something wrong. If what this reviewer says is true, the company just told him no. That's not ignoring copyright/GPL, that's laughing in it's face. Edit: BMW appar…

The case you heard about was overhyped. BMW did provide source code. It required a second request, and BMW's internal bureaucracy took some days (or weeks?), but they did fully comply.

Fair enough! But that was just one of many that i've heard of.

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#68

Post by porsupah »

Klathmon wrote: post #61
pjc50 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This happens a lot. The GPL remains enforcable, but just because you have a copyright doesn't mean that people will bother to comply with it.

I've heard of companies like BMW (not true, see edit) just ignoring requests for GPL code, or promising to release it but just never doing so. And that's a shitty thing to do which I 100% disagree with, but at least it gives lip service that they are doing something wrong. If what this reviewer says is true, the company just told him no. That's not ignoring copyright/GPL, that's laughing in it's face. Edit: BMW appar…

The Register provides a brief summary of the BMW matter:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/30/bmw_complies_with_gp...

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#69

Post by bgentry »

CaptSpify wrote: post #66

I just blogged about this yesterday. In short: > The line in the sand for me is: network vs cloud-based systems. I want things to be network connected, but I want it for my own network only. I want to be able to control my coffee pot, but only from home. If I choose to expose this over the internet, great! It's up to me to make sure it's secure. I don't want anyone making that decision for me. I also want it to be up…

The network model you describe sounds just like Apple's HomeKit.

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#70

Post by [deleted] »

steven2012 wrote: post #65

The stuff from wirelesstags.net are generally very good. I have a bunch of sensors and their Reed sensors for detecting opening and closing of doors are very good. I hook it up with ifttt and turn on my Hue lights when I open and close my doors. Clearly not ground breaking stuff but useful. The Hue lights are great but expensive. The Hue switch made things a lot more useful as well. I'm waiting for them to come out w…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN