Point – A smart house sitter • Hacker News Board

Re: Point – A smart house sitter

#61

Post by meowface » Mon, Nov 03, 2014, 2:18 PM UTC

RankingMember wrote: post #51

ancarda wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have WPS on my router (How else do you input the SSID/Password?) and I turn Wi-Fi off when I'm not in my house so this product would be a real hassle to setup/use.

Is turning the wifi off when you leave a security concern or a power thing, like you're running off the grid? I'm just curious, as if it's the former and I had the same concern I'd just limit access to specific MAC addresses and make the access point invisible.

>specific MAC addresses and make the access point invisible.

Both of these measures do nothing if any other device is currently connected to the wireless network. A passive attacker will still be able to see your access point (by inspecting packets sent over the air by other devices to the access point) and can spoof a MAC address to connect to it.

Re: Point – A smart house sitter

#62

Post by PinguTS » Mon, Nov 03, 2014, 2:37 PM UTC

dkyc wrote: post #30

PinguTS wrote: post #23

Another device connected to the cloud sending data to the cloud and this time also sound. It was already creepy the learn that Netatmo, a _weather_ station, is recording sound. Because the company released sound profiles from the games during the FIFA world championship mapped to countries, regions. As they said, there is only a loudness sensor integrated. But this time it is a real microphone. That makes it another…

Please read what's on the site: "Nothing is recorded or sent across the network. Peace of mind, without giving up on privacy." I appreaciate your privacy concerns, but not every device is the same. We are in an early stage of such cloud-based "smart devices", so we have to be careful as there are great conceptual differences between different products.

As an embedded engineer myself working in industrial applications as well as automotive and later of the to for the authorities, I know what is possible and what not.

The things, as I would design it and as others like Nest is doing it, those devices support silent updates to provide a "great and seeming-less customer experience". But here is the crux, you see. (;

Re: Point – A smart house sitter

#63

Post by icebraining » Mon, Nov 03, 2014, 2:41 PM UTC

meowface wrote: post #61

RankingMember wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is turning the wifi off when you leave a security concern or a power thing, like you're running off the grid? I'm just curious, as if it's the former and I had the same concern I'd just limit access to specific MAC addresses and make the access point invisible.

>specific MAC addresses and make the access point invisible. Both of these measures do nothing if any other device is currently connected to the wireless network. A passive attacker will still be able to see your access point (by inspecting packets sent over the air by other devices to the access point) and can spoof a MAC address to connect to it.

Not if you're not at home and hence there are no "other devices" sending packets.

Re: Point – A smart house sitter

#64

Post by PinguTS » Mon, Nov 03, 2014, 2:43 PM UTC

VLM wrote: post #52

PinguTS wrote: post #23

Another device connected to the cloud sending data to the cloud and this time also sound. It was already creepy the learn that Netatmo, a _weather_ station, is recording sound. Because the company released sound profiles from the games during the FIFA world championship mapped to countries, regions. As they said, there is only a loudness sensor integrated. But this time it is a real microphone. That makes it another…

I have another startup idea free for anyone to take and run with. A simple little box that eats 5V from a USB connection or PoE or whatever and it limits bandwidth to a long term average of perhaps 0.3K. Lets call it 300 baud for old times sake because my first modem was one of the first commercial direct connect 300 baud modems in the early 80s. Go ahead NSA, try to listen to me, my little bandwidth limiting firewal…

I think, you never heard of Snowden?

The people from Google where also pretty sure, that their property was safe, until proved otherwise.

I think, you knew that Netatmo, a _weather_ station, was recording loudness and the company behind was able to map those data out.

I think, you knew that LG TVs are phoning home and basically reporting every single file of the USB stick you put in into your TV.

I have seen lots of such things. Yes, I am available at different security conference through out the year.

Re: Point – A smart house sitter

#65

Post by owenmarshall » Mon, Nov 03, 2014, 2:58 PM UTC

RankingMember wrote: post #54

amelius wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, I hope it doesn't get triggered by the neighbor's loud tv set. Frankly, I'm not sure if I'd be prepared to receive and deal with false positives even once a month, let alone once a day.

Agreed, a system with false positives is worse than no system at all imho because it trains you to disregard warning signs.

My apartment was broken into because the security system was disabled. The security system was disabled because it used a cheap glass break sensor that would trip if both my dogs barked at the same time - both, not just one. Naturally this was untenable.

I'm a bit leery about glass break sensors, to say the least.

Re: Point – A smart house sitter

#66

Post by pistle » Mon, Nov 03, 2014, 3:16 PM UTC

ISL wrote: post #15

mrmaddog wrote: post #7

I really like the idea of unobtrusive anomaly detection as a product, but I wonder how much benefit I could actually derive from this. Perhaps it is nice to have a log of whenever the front door opens, but that feature certainly won't sell me on its own. It is cool that they can tell when a window breaks, but... how much good does that notification do for me? How confident can I be that this is not a false positive a…

If you're a landlord or hotelier, this is like a black-box/speed camera/friendly supervisor for your property. Music too loud, or smoking in a non-smoking place? This thing lights up and lets your guest know to tone things down. If it gets too loud, it switches color and logs the infraction. Appliance failure or security concerns get monitored too.

That seems like either some passive aggressive nanny state or mindcrime overlord stuff there.

For those with such a sad overlord, repeatedly discharge the batteries until the cost/annoyance for the landlord gets too damn high.

Re: Point – A smart house sitter

#67

Post by ChiperSoft » Mon, Nov 03, 2014, 3:27 PM UTC

kristiandupont wrote: post #25

ancarda wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any plans to have an Ethernet model rather than Wi-Fi?

No. May I ask why you would prefer that? Is it a security concern?

Just to add to the other comments, Power over Ethernet would be a handy way to save on batteries.

Re: Point – A smart house sitter

#68

Post by pistle » Mon, Nov 03, 2014, 3:30 PM UTC

k0ngo wrote: post #38

_pmf_ wrote: post #26

Home automation and home security need more powerline communication and less app-wankery and IoT pipedreams with shoddy wireless protocols.

We're using plain batteries and wifi to avoid using cables, thus making it much easier and elegant to install. That also means the device is completely self-contained, so you don't need any base stations or gateways to connect it to the internet. It's just plug-and-forget. I wouldn't call 802.11bgn "shoddy"; it's basic infrastructure already available in most people's homes these days.

Until the power goes out, the router gets funky, etc.

Also, it complicates wireless security config - can a non-tech figure out how to configure security with their router?

Does being self-contained mean isolated and non-expandable?

Add a remote GSM/CDMA option. Hook up with a 24/7 service center to provide monitoring subscriptions without contract (a la Simplisafe). What about integration with door and window sensors? Motion sensors? Carbon monoxide detection? Moisture detection? Sirens?

I'd really like to see innovation in this space as Honeywell, etc. drag their feet and provide overpriced, under-delivering options, but the reasons are plain. There is no one-size fits all, and mixed systems don't make sense. Then, the resilience of the assurance dependency chain is inversely proportional to the cost of the system. If it's cheap, it's easy to beat or have many common points of failure - any one of which can bring the system down or trigger enough false alarms that it costs the consumer with their time, money, and energy.

Sincerely, Good luck!

Re: Point – A smart house sitter

#69

Post by headgasket » Mon, Nov 03, 2014, 3:31 PM UTC

ancarda wrote: post #22

k0ngo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Form engineer here. We're not planning on shipping our firmware signing keys along with our product like Belkin did. Jokes aside, security, integrity and trust are our very top priorities. The hardware is designed in a way that should be extremely hard to misuse, and even if someone would be able to break the encrypted protocols, the encrypted and signed firmware images and manage to run custom firmwares on the MCU:s…

Are there any plans to have an Ethernet model rather than Wi-Fi?

I'd second the want for ethernet with PoE, with slots for rechargeable AA batteries for power outages. I bet more than 10% of fire alarms currently installed in the USA have a dead battery.

Re: Point – A smart house sitter

#70

Post by rdl » Mon, Nov 03, 2014, 3:35 PM UTC

Huge points for doing this onsite vs. in the cloud.

I'd want to audit the firmware, and would put it behind a firewall blocking outbound connections.

I'd like the ability to monitor a few sites, though -- not just my home, but also a storage/warehouse space, potentially an office, vacation home, parking spot, etc. Being able to monitor all of those in a single app would be awesome.

I'm willing to trust you with processed events (probably), just not raw data, and no silent auto-updates, and a network/deployment config which is at least relatively secure by default. (I know you could covert channel with a sneaky firmware feature I could never detect, but that would require effort. I trust the company to be honest a lot more than I trust them to be bug-free, so I just don't want "fail-open" to be a default.)