Spitballing IoT Security
Eric S. Raymond
esr at thyrsus.com
Wed Oct 26 19:40:40 UTC 2016
Mel Beckman <mel at beckman.org>:
> I also really like the idea of offering open source options to vendors, many of whom seem to illegally take that privilege anyway. A key fast-path component, though, is in my opinion a new RFC for IoT security best practices, and probably some revisions to UPNP.
> The IoT RFC would spell out basic rules for safe devices: no back doors, no default passwords, no gratuitous inbound connections, etc. It would also make encryption a requirement, and limit how existing UPNP is deployed to prevent unnecessarily exposing vulnerable TCP/UDP ports to the wild. With this RFC in hand, and an appropriate splashy icon for vendor packaging (“RFC 9999 ThingSafe!”), vendors will have a competitive reason for compliance as a market differentiator, whether they deploy with open-source or proprietary code.
That is a good idea and I am officially adopting it as part of the Evil
Master Plan for World Domination. :-)
I may recruit you to help draft the RFC.
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>
More information about the NANOG