Spitballing IoT Security

Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_nanog at vaxination.ca
Wed Oct 26 22:35:11 UTC 2016


On 2016-10-26 18:02, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:

>     http://p.globalsources.com/IMAGES/PDT/BIG/053/B1088622053.jpg
> 
> i.e. a multitude of wall plates in every room, each one bristling with a
> multitude of RJ11 sockets into which all manner of shiny new IoT things
> will be directly plugged, thence to be issued their own IPv6 addresses

You still need to have a SOHO router, which could simply block any
incoming calls unless a port has been opened for a specific IP address.
(or UPnP for computers).

> P.S.  As noted in my prior post, the proplem of regulating IoT devices to
> insure that they do not exceed their reasonably expected operational limits,
> vis-a-vis outbound bandwidth usage

A camera showing the baby in 4K resolution along witgh sounds of him
crying on dolby surround to the mother who is at work would likely
saturate upload just as much as the virus sending DNS requests. This
falls into the tonne of feathers weighting as much as a tonne of lead
category.






More information about the NANOG mailing list