News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A vigilante trying to improve IoT security by kbuchanan on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @01:29PM (#14205098)
This captures the essence of the type of activism that I so dislike — an unaffected, third party (a person who doesn't use your bluetooth lightbulb) taking the job upon himself to tell you what level of security your lightbulb should employ... By breaking it.
Re:A vigilante trying to improve IoT security by jerf on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @01:42PM (#14205210)
We're not unaffected anymore. Mirai did a lot of damage to a lot of people. Very diffuse damage, sure, but a lot of damage.

Note we've had worms and such for decades now and most of them don't deliberately break things. It's generally far more profitable to exploit the resources than simply destroy them. Brickerbot almost certainly wouldn't be if we weren't all getting affected.

Re:A vigilante trying to improve IoT security by drenvuk on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @01:42PM (#14205212)
Then fix your lightbulb so that someone can't tell you how to handle your lightbulbs. If you can't reach that low bar then why are you even connecting to the internet? You are implicitly allowing your tools to be used for botnets which should be a crime in itself.
Re:A vigilante trying to improve IoT security by nugator on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @01:59PM (#14205365)
So you think the consumers should be punished for something you think the producers do wrong? Do you apply this to other products as well? Would it be ok to soak peoples cigarettes in water, break the motor of your neighbours high fuel consuming SUV or destroy the guns of people since these products can cause damage to other people?
Re:A vigilante trying to improve IoT security by Arizhel on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @03:27PM (#14206169)
If a certain brand of cigarettes is creating secondhand smoke that causes a significant number of bystanders to die of anaphylactic shock somehow, and the government refuses to force a recall, and the manufacturer doesn't care, and the smokers don't care because it doesn't affect them, then YES, it is morally correct to destroy these cigarettes illegally.
Re:A vigilante trying to improve IoT security by biktor_gj on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @02:23PM (#14205601)
The problem is, I think, what choice do we have (we == rest of the world) when somebody's messed up camera starts spamming the entire Internet? And how much does cost the mirai botnet to everyone when some client rents it?

Best case scenario: users claim warranty and replace their devices something better

Worst case scenario: users need to buy new gear, they probably won't buy from that same manufacturer because last one died for no apparent reason. Really worst case scenario: users buy again the same cr*p and dies again, until they realize that brand is worthless and buy something a bit better. Doesn't seem so bad, if the alternative is having their machines taking down businesses and users...

Re:A vigilante trying to improve IoT security by JabavuAdams on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @05:10PM (#14207028)
Really worst-case scenario: Someone is killed or maimed due to bricked system.

FTFY

Re:A vigilante trying to improve IoT security by nickpsecurity on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @07:50PM (#14208042)
I was particularly thinking of baby monitors during an emergency. It was most important house-hold device I could think of in terms of harm. Maybe turn a freezer off on IoT fridge while people are on vacation then back on just before they return to make meat refreeze or something spoiled. Maybe turn off the power in household with IoT home automation and someone on life support of some kind.

Im only having a few possibilities come to mind that are life-threatening. Most are just annoying or financial drain. If we add painful, maybe make an epileptic's screen on SmartTV blink fast like the attack on the web site. Turn off people's alarm clock enough they get fired and loose health insurance before major operation. Im really having to stretch it here.

Re:A vigilante trying to improve IoT security by jacquesm on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @09:35PM (#14208529)
Alarm system with remote fire alarm capability. Those things are everywhere and if they don't work people could easily die.
Re:A vigilante trying to improve IoT security by nickpsecurity on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @10:12PM (#14208690)
That's a great one. Good catch.
Re:A vigilante trying to improve IoT security by mondoshawan on Friday April 28, 2017 @07:24AM (#14218506)
Lights that turn off at night while someone is walking down stairs can result in death if that person is unfamiliar or disoriented enough to tumble.
Re:A vigilante trying to improve IoT security by nickpsecurity on Friday April 28, 2017 @10:15AM (#14219528)
That's clever. The threat of lighting was nicely illustrated on Christmas Vacation. Whole relationships ruined and stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp8lwpvQEIM

Re:A vigilante trying to improve IoT security by rdiddly on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @07:58PM (#14208089)
The analogy would be, someone leaves their cigarettes or their gun out on the stoop all night, or their SUV on the street unlocked with the keys in the ignition. If they do that, something is going to happen to it eventually. Especially if they live on a street that actually spans the entire world, and whose entire length can be traversed in one second.

John J. Citizen should be thankful if the person who finds it only wants to deactivate it rather than use it to poison him / shoot him / run him over. No matter who finds it though, it's tough luck for that person; they're the owner of that item in name only, if they don't secure it.

Society has decided in some cases (in domains well-understood by legislators, unlike IoT) that the person doesn't deserve to keep that item if they don't secure it. Example: "Improper storage of a firearm" or the like, is literally a crime in many jurisdictions and can result in losing your gun license. Creating a burden on or a danger to society through your neglect has in that case been affirmed to be unacceptable. The law will catch up with this too, I hope.

Re:A vigilante trying to improve IoT security by username223 on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @02:33PM (#14205688)
> Would it be ok to soak peoples cigarettes in water,...

How about in arsenic? The Internet of Things is mostly insecure trash that will only be fixed by throwing it away. The manufacturers know this, and simply don't care.

Re:A vigilante trying to improve IoT security by nickpsecurity on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @07:44PM (#14208018)
Re:A vigilante trying to improve IoT security by rblatz on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @01:51PM (#14205290)
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/26/ddos-atta...

Very few people that use the internet were unaffected by shitty IoT security. And that seems like it was just the start of it's capabilities. Something needs to be done to destroy these cyber weapons. If your stupid light bulb is recruited into a cyber weapon, then it should be prevented from harming others.

Re:A vigilante trying to improve IoT security by derefr on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @04:53PM (#14206888)
I don't see this as activism per se. I see this as similar to a virus or bacterium coming into existence, forcing us toward better hygiene practices. You don't blame a virus or bacteria for existing; it's just sort of... there, part of the ecosystem. Instead, you blame things for being vulnerable to it and therefore spreading it. You try to kill it not by eliminating its "source", but by eliminating the spread.

Right now, we're beginning to treat DDoSes in that "infectious agent"/"your responsibility if you don't act to protect yourself" way. So many people do them, so often and so easily, that "shutting down the botters" one-by-one will never make DDoSes go away. So we have to just figure out how to deal with them. (Which will, coincidentally, make DDoSes actually go away, if everyone ends up immune to them such that it's no longer useful to do one.)

But, annoyingly, we still handle bots programmed to scan for and exploit software vulnerabilities (worms, ransomware, what-have-you) as only intentional malicious action on the part of their original author, to be solved by catching the author. (Not that you can't catch the author—but that won't stop a worm, and especially won't stop someone else from just slightly-modifying and then re-releasing the worm.) We haven't bothered nearly at all with the "how do we make software vulnerabilities, as a class, less exploitable" part of the equation.

Personally, I'm hoping that this decade sees "A-Life" computer worms, that self-modify using (machine-readable?) 0days they discover by spidering the web from their infected hosts. Computers would be being attacked with novel exploits, even with no new malware authors to do the attacking! Then we'd really have to treat vulnerabilities as a fact of life to secure around, rather than something we can stop by just stopping people from bothering to exploit them.

Re:A vigilante trying to improve IoT security by macintux on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @09:35PM (#14208535)
If I created a virus to punish people for failing to wash their hands regularly, and instead of giving them diarrhea it started killing people, I should absolutely get the blame for creating it. Even if it doesn't kill anyone I should still be held accountable.

Yes, this a rotten situation, and I sympathize with the motivation. No, I don't think we should blithely disregard the fact that the worm is likely causing genuine harm and that it was in fact created to cause harm.

Re:A vigilante trying to improve IoT security by derefr on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @09:56PM (#14208615)
I didn't mean that someone is not "to blame"; more just that a framing which even brings up who's "to blame" vastly overstates the "use" of punishing humans in defending oneself against this problem. Indeed, even if we catch "cyberterrorists" at a constant rate, this problem will only get worse: there will be more people; each person will have more and more programmable automation available to them, more and more easily; and people will grow more proficient with technology earlier and earlier in their lives (i.e. long before they've built up any sort of idea of ethics.)

Right now we have script-kiddy teenagers; Real Soon Now there won't be much reason to expect your average 5-year-old with a Youtube account, won't be able to slap together something like a ransomware worm from readily-available components, that will spread itself a billionfold. And, amongst 7 billion people and growing, there's going to be a lot of kids thinking that that sounds like a fun time.

The only thing to really stop this from being the world we live in, is making worms irrelevant.

(And what we do in the short term, about this case? Honestly, I haven't bothered to think about it. Too "identity politics.")

Re:A vigilante trying to improve IoT security by bryondowd on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @01:40PM (#14205188)
Is it an unaffected third party, when your unsecured lightbulb is participating in a DoS that knocks out some service he's relying on?
Re:A vigilante trying to improve IoT security by anonnyj on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @01:46PM (#14205251)
I'll choose a boogeyman you can perhaps appreciate: You bluetooth lightbulb is enabling pedophiles with anonymity, and you may take the fall when you're mistaken as the source of the requests. (You can swap out the boogeyman with terrorists, spammers, credit card thiefs, etc)
Re:A vigilante trying to improve IoT security by CPLX on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @03:57PM (#14206410)
There's no such thing as an unaffected third party in a tragedy of the commons situation, which this is.
Re:A vigilante trying to improve IoT security by Etheryte on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @01:41PM (#14205203)
How is anyone unaffected when IoT devices with bad security break the net?