Spitballing IoT Security

Mel Beckman mel at beckman.org
Thu Oct 27 14:02:16 UTC 2016

Requiring manual approval is an excellent idea for the ThingSafe RFC!


> On Oct 27, 2016, at 2:10 AM, Mike Meredith <mike.meredith at port.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:59:00 +0200, Eliot Lear <lear at ofcourseimright.com>
> may have written:
>> Well yes.  uPnP is a problem precisely because it is some random device
>> asserting on its own that it can be trusted to do what it wants.  Had
> From my own personal use (and I'm aware that this isn't a general
> solution), I'd like a device that sat on those uPnP requests until I logged
> into the admin interface to review them. Now if you could automate _me_
> then it might become more generally useful :-
> uPnP(ssh, for admin access) -> f/w
> f/w -> uPnP device: Don't be silly.
>> But if instead of a pet feeder we're talking about a home file sharing
>> system or a video camera where you don't want to share the feed into the
>> cloud?  There will be times when people want inbound connections.  We
>> need an architecture that supports them.
> As someone who manages an application-based firewall, every problem looks
> like it would be easier to solve using an application-based firewall :)
> -- 
> Mike Meredith, University of Portsmouth
> Principal Systems Engineer, Hostmaster, Security, and Timelord!

More information about the NANOG mailing list