News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:IoT garage door opener maker disables customer’s service ... by syshum on Wednesday April 05, 2017 @06:09AM (#14040970)
> Do you ever need to control your garage door, while, for example at work?

Use cases include

- Closing the door because you forgot to close it when you left, or a child forgot to close and you notice on your Security system

- Monitoring your system remotely and letting in 3rd parties with out giving them access directly

- getting alerts when your door is open and closed

Re:IoT garage door opener maker disables customer’s service ... by phkahler on Wednesday April 05, 2017 @07:06AM (#14041196)
Those are nice examples of remote access, but none of them require a 3rd party. The problem seems to be all these web developers throwing the same solution at different problems where it doesn't really fit. Put the server in the product - problem solved.
Re:IoT garage door opener maker disables customer’s service ... by dagw on Wednesday April 05, 2017 @08:16AM (#14041488)
Put the server in the product - problem solved.

But then I need to be able to open a connection from my phone to the device. With NATs, Dynamic IPs, ISP configured firewalls/routers and so on, this is decidedly non-trivial. Sure, you and I are smart enough to hack something together that will probably work, but end users aren't.

Re:IoT garage door opener maker disables customer’s service ... by mirimir on Wednesday April 05, 2017 @10:13AM (#14042187)
Re:IoT garage door opener maker disables customer’s service ... by phkahler on Wednesday April 05, 2017 @09:32AM (#14041933)
>> But then I need to be able to open a connection from my phone to the device. With NATs, Dynamic IPs, ISP configured firewalls/routers and so on, this is decidedly non-trivial.

There's always a "but". ISPs need more regulation. They need to be carriers of bits, and they should be forced to hand out fixed IP addresses (IPV6 makes this trivial) or even blocks /8 to homes. In the meantime there is dynamic DNS. It seems like a better idea to fix the problems standing in the way than to run every IoT device through remote servers. If you do that, you're making a choice and it's not in the customers best interest.

I for one will never participate in IoT that works the way these things do today. My furnace needs to fucking work all the time. Having a fancy NEST fail without a network connection is not an option. A simple mercury switch is more reliable and doesn't collect information about me.

Re:IoT garage door opener maker disables customer’s service ... by PaulRobinson on Wednesday April 05, 2017 @09:22AM (#14041865)
IPv6. Apple made it work with "Back to my Mac". It's not hard.
Re:IoT garage door opener maker disables customer’s service ... by luca_ing on Wednesday April 05, 2017 @11:56AM (#14043027)
> Put the server in the product - problem solved.

...and make that server public-facing. One problem solved, a million security issues gained.

Granted, I put words in your mouth there.

But if you put such an attack surface in your device, you need to be really sure to secure it well. Especially for the case when your company goes out of business, but your customers' devices stay up.

Re:IoT garage door opener maker disables customer’s service ... by CJefferson on Wednesday April 05, 2017 @08:04AM (#14041426)
That doesn't work for many home networks, where you can't make incoming connections, and there might not even be a fixed IP address -- at the very least you need some kind of simple server to pass messages between the user's phone and door.
Re:IoT garage door opener maker disables customer’s service ... by CaptainZapp on Wednesday April 05, 2017 @06:22AM (#14041022)
Thanks.

The potential cost would still outweigh the use I would get out from it. But that's strictly me speaking. Other people may totally see it the other way 'round.