[193647] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IoT security
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (clinton mielke)
Thu Feb 9 16:24:19 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <167072.1486670635@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
From: clinton mielke <clinton.mielke@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:28:11 -0800
To: Valdis Kletnieks <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
It probably doesn't account for those situations. In the case of security
products, it's also likely that multiple devices are hosting port 80
But it doesn't matter too much. Having this kind of data helps us
prioritize what devices have the biggest chunk of the infected pie.
On Feb 9, 2017 12:04 PM, <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 22:19:01 -0800, clinton mielke said:
>
> > Yup! All the mapping Ive done is over port 80. Id have a lot more than I
> > currently have if I was looking at other ports, probably.
>
> Wow. How does this work if more than one IoPT(*)
> device is in play in the home network, especially from different
> manufacturers?
>
> (*) Internet of Pwned Things.
>
