[192358] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Spitballing IoT Security
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Andrews)
Wed Oct 26 17:39:08 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 26 Oct 2016 14:25:00 -0700."
<11718.1477517100@segfault.tristatelogic.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 08:38:59 +1100
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
In message <11718.1477517100@segfault.tristatelogic.com>, "Ronald F. Guilmette" writes:
> In short, if sensible regulations requiring "safe" designs for IoT products
> were to come into force in one locale, it is not only possible, but
> actually quite likely that they would affect the whole market. If a given
> Far East manufacturer was required to have safety built into the kernel
> of its toasters in order to be able to sell said toasters, say, in the
> United States... or even just in California... would they really go to
> the trouble to strip out the additional "safety" part of their firmware
> when manufacturing what is essentially the same product, but destined
> for other markets? I think not. (A question for the audience: How has
> FCC regulation of the maximum power output of WiFi routers affected the
> worldwide market for such devices, over time? I honestly don't know, but
> I suspect that there has been a good effect, over time, on the whole
> worldwide market.)
FCC regulation has caused manufactures to do a US version and a rest
of the world version. They have over regulated. A simple list
for location should be enough with default on unknown which leaves
Wifi off until set.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
