This made me realize how many devices I buy once, set up once, and then never think about again. Smart TVs are probably one of the biggest examples of that. It would be interesting if manufacturers had to make software support periods much more obvious before people bought them.
> If I had to guess where most of this traffic is coming from, it's from compromised smart appliances contributing traffic to proxy networks.
I find it interesting that we have a moral panic over giving people access to their own smartphones, because if the user has access they may get a virus, with negative knock-on effects on the internet...
...but there is no push to remove the same capabilities from smart appliances. They can do what they want. The user doesn't have access, which appears to be what counts. The appliance has access, so its viruses can do all the same things that have to be forbidden on phones, but that doesn't matter.
There's an interesting potential future where personal computing is illegal, unless you buy a refrigerator for the purpose.
What gets me is how honestly horribly written most of these scrapers are. I found one ip in my logs recently that had 50,000 attempts at the same 404, over and over every few seconds.
> If I had to guess where most of this traffic is coming from, it's from compromised smart appliances contributing traffic to proxy networks.
... Is the data earlier in the article supposed to support this hypothesis? I'm not saying it doesn't, but I would really appreciate having more lines drawn and dots connected here. And what sort of checking are people supposed to do, exactly? And how?
I try to avoid "smart" appliances and if the manufacturer forces the "smart" stuff, I never enable it. Even my induction hob would like to connect to wifi (no idea what that would be useful for), but that's just not happening.
One party made certain IP addresses valuable, the other party responded by totally randomising their IP addresses, and the world is worse off for it. Who's responsible? They weren't using random IP address proxies when IP addresses weren't treated as a status symbol.
16 comments
[ 0.20 ms ] story [ 1570 ms ] threadI find it interesting that we have a moral panic over giving people access to their own smartphones, because if the user has access they may get a virus, with negative knock-on effects on the internet...
...but there is no push to remove the same capabilities from smart appliances. They can do what they want. The user doesn't have access, which appears to be what counts. The appliance has access, so its viruses can do all the same things that have to be forbidden on phones, but that doesn't matter.
There's an interesting potential future where personal computing is illegal, unless you buy a refrigerator for the purpose.
Stainless Steel Scrapers - tonight, on Sick Sad World.”
... Is the data earlier in the article supposed to support this hypothesis? I'm not saying it doesn't, but I would really appreciate having more lines drawn and dots connected here. And what sort of checking are people supposed to do, exactly? And how?