Then why are you putting it on the internet?!
Either you create devices that are secure - which may include things that neither the manufacturer or the user want to do - or you shouldn't be putting it on the internet.
> I think every person's home should have a local network called "shitty backdoored and malicious IoT crap".
Relying on border security is a terrible idea. A firewall is not an excuse to ignore host security.
pretty sure we can at least agree that all IoT choices available to users and manufacturers today are hugely problematic for one or both of these parties.
No, I don't expect anyone to be asked to update. I expect it to work just like Chromecast devices do: It updates in the background while in operation and applies that update at the next reboot. If idle for long enough it'll reboot itself (usually in the middle of the night when no one is expected to use it).
Self-update mechanisms aren't rocket science. In fact, there's so many FREE options to choose from at this point you can just take your pick. Don't need to code anything on your own!
- http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/4/11362928/google-nest-revolv-shutdown-smart-home-products
- https://nest.com/support/article/Nest-Protect-SafetyBy neglecting to update devices you increase risk by ensuring vulnerabilities won't get fixed. You also might not get notified in the event of product recalls (if you never registered your purchase).
I understand your argument though: By solving one security issue we're creating another: Trusting the vendor. To that I have this to say...
If you don't trust the vendor why did you buy their product in the first place!?
so your first point, automatically updates, implies your fifth point, administered by vendor, should be "yes". (Not "no", as you've put it.)
Further, I would like you to think more broadly about infrastructure. I think every person's home should have a local network called "shitty backdoored and malicious IoT crap". The question is how to administer that network, what its topology should be, how these devices should be able to receive information from the Internet, and in general what their capabilities should be and the way in which they should be firewalled off.
Having these devices on users' home wifi via their home router (the status quo) is obviously wrong and insufficient. I'm afraid your checklist is also, therefore, wrong and insufficient.
so, think harder at the architectural level, please. the existence of IoT stuff is obviously good. (as in, obviously there can be a benefit to devices being able to be connected - in the abstract, not based on today's very flawed infrastructural and architectural choices) the infrastructure we have for it today is obviously insufficient. I don't have a comprehensive solution in mind or anything but it is worth giving serious attention to by people who have spent years on the subject.
today, they are failing. It's not that people are ignoring their advice: they just don't have any. They've thrown up their hands and given lists like yours, which are not a comprehensive solution and are not even internally consistent. They need to think outside the box and propose completely new infrastructure.
there needs to be different infrastructure in place, not an SOP for the current infrastructure. we need better security baked into the topology and architecture of how the devices are connected.