[192415] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Spitballing IoT Security
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Emille Blanc)
Thu Oct 27 17:39:50 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Emille Blanc <emille@abccommunications.com>
To: Jon Lewis <jlewis@lewis.org>, "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 14:39:15 -0700
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.1610271535350.26305@soloth.lewis.org>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
>On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
>> My iPhone 3GS still works just fine,
>
>I still have a "functional" iPhone 3G (no S). I don't think AT&T will=20
>activate service on it at this point, and it's been relegated to iPod=20
>service when I do yard work.
>
>> You can't *force* people to throw away or trade-in their old tech produc=
ts,
>> especially when, from the user's point of view, there doesn't -seem- to =
be
>> anything wrong with them... like all of those pre- Sept. 2015 Internet v=
ideo
>> cameras.
>
>Sure you can. Just make the tech dependent on "the cloud" and when the=20
>device is too old, force retirement by no longer supporting it. That=20
>doesn't force it off the network (unless the final command from the cloud=
=20
>is "shut off [your network interface]?"), but it makes the user much more=
=20
>likely to toss it and replace it with something newer if they still want=20
>such a device.
Or shut down the network that the phone(s) support. Anyone remember the ana=
logue cell network shutdown? Or am I already that old?
http://www.pcworld.com/article/142119/article.html
Granted there were other problems this presented. Decreased coverage in are=
as for example is my favourite, as it opened the doors for such revolutiona=
ry pay-as-you-go-licensing features for base stations such as range-by-the-=
kilometre.
But I think with this, I'm contributing to driving this thread off the topi=
c of IoT security, and will now dive back into staring at some netflow data=
.
