RE: Death of the Internet, Film at 11
On: Saturday, 22 October, 2016 17:41, Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca> wrote:
On 2016-10-22 19:03, Keith Medcalf wrote:
This does not follow and is not a natural consequence of sealing the little buggers up so that they cannot affect the Internet
Problem is that many of these gadgets want to be internet connected so mother at work can check on her kids at home, start the cooking, raise thermostat etc.
This does not require that the devices be open to the Internet, nor does it require that they are under the control of an Internet based controller.
The problem is that as a novelty, people are quick to adopt, but don't think about making their homes vulnerable to attack. (consider an internet connected door lock)
There are many people who do not read this list who would have nothing whatsoever to do with such a scheme (earlier similar schemes are routers & etc that are programmed and controlled from the "web", and remote access crap which is proxied through a third-party web server -- another ill-conceived and brain-dead idea). This is a self-limiting issue. Darwin will take care of it. Unfortunately there will be collateral damage as those not fit to the continuation of the species are eliminated from the gene pool. We should do our duty and make sure that the pool cleaning proceeds with the maximum speed and efficiency possible.
Modern medicine, sanitation, and sedentary lifestyles for the developed world have effectively culled natural selection for most internet users. On Oct 22, 2016 7:16 PM, "Keith Medcalf" <kmedcalf@dessus.com> wrote:
On: Saturday, 22 October, 2016 17:41, Jean-Francois Mezei < jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca> wrote:
On 2016-10-22 19:03, Keith Medcalf wrote:
This does not follow and is not a natural consequence of sealing the little buggers up so that they cannot affect the Internet
Problem is that many of these gadgets want to be internet connected so mother at work can check on her kids at home, start the cooking, raise thermostat etc.
This does not require that the devices be open to the Internet, nor does it require that they are under the control of an Internet based controller.
The problem is that as a novelty, people are quick to adopt, but don't think about making their homes vulnerable to attack. (consider an internet connected door lock)
There are many people who do not read this list who would have nothing whatsoever to do with such a scheme (earlier similar schemes are routers & etc that are programmed and controlled from the "web", and remote access crap which is proxied through a third-party web server -- another ill-conceived and brain-dead idea). This is a self-limiting issue. Darwin will take care of it. Unfortunately there will be collateral damage as those not fit to the continuation of the species are eliminated from the gene pool.
We should do our duty and make sure that the pool cleaning proceeds with the maximum speed and efficiency possible.
* Keith Medcalf:
On: Saturday, 22 October, 2016 17:41, Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca> wrote:
On 2016-10-22 19:03, Keith Medcalf wrote:
This does not follow and is not a natural consequence of sealing the little buggers up so that they cannot affect the Internet
Problem is that many of these gadgets want to be internet connected so mother at work can check on her kids at home, start the cooking, raise thermostat etc.
This does not require that the devices be open to the Internet, nor does it require that they are under the control of an Internet based controller.
How would you know? It is perfectly reasonable to send a notification to a device by making a TCP connection to it. This is the way the Internet was built. You are not expected to sign a contract with the network operator for the target device before you can establish a connection to the device. The possibility of denial-of-service attacks is not a sufficient reason to change that model.
participants (3)
-
Florian Weimer -
Josh Reynolds -
Keith Medcalf