Spitballing IoT Security

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Wed Oct 26 17:19:07 UTC 2016

In a message written on Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 08:06:34AM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> The makers of IoT devices are falling all over themselves to rush products
> to market as quickly as possible in order to maximize their profits.  They
> have no time for security.  They don't concern themselves with privacy
> implications.  They don't run networks so they don't care about the impact
> their devices may have on them.  They don't care about liability: many of
> them are effectively immune because suing them would mean trans-national
> litigation, which is tedious and expensive.  (And even if they lost:
> they'd dissolve and reconstitute as another company the next day.)
> They don't even care about each other -- I'm pretty sure we're rapidly
> approaching the point where toasters will be used to attack garage door
> openers and washing machines.

You are correct.

I believe the answer is to have some sort of test scheme (UL
Labratories?) for basic security and updateability.  Then federal
legislation is passed requiring any product being imported into the
country to be certified, or it is refused.

Now when they rush to market and don't get certified they get $0
and go out of business.  Products are stopped at the boader, every
shipment is reviewed by authorities, and there is no cross boarder
suing issue.

Really it's product safety 101.  UL, the CPSC, NHTSA, DOT and a
host of others have regulations that if you want to import a product
for sale it must be safe.  It's not a new or novel concept, pretty
much every country has some scheme like it.

Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20161026/4f266772/attachment.pgp>

More information about the NANOG mailing list