• Pup Biru@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 days ago

    yes and no… i agree with the sentiment, but with root you can extract wifi credentials and various other secrets… you shouldn’t be able to get these things even when you have physical access to the device… the root access itself isn’t the problem

    • Riskable@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      If I broke into your home, why TF would I carefully take apart your robot vacuum in order to copy your wifi credentials‽

      Also, WTF other “secrets” are you storing on your robot vacuum‽

      This is not a realistic attack scenario.

      • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        you’re on programming.dev so i assume you know that secrets is a generic term to cover things like your cloud account login (whatever form that may take - a password, token, api key, etc) for the robot vacuum service and you’re being intentionally obtuse

        it’s a realistic attack scenario for some people - think celebrities etc, who might be being targeted… if someone knows what type of vacuum you have, it’s not “carefully take apart” - it’d take 30s, and then you have local network access which is an escalation that can lead to significantly more surveillance like security cameras, and devices with unsecured local access

        just because it doesn’t apply to you doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply to anyone… unsecured or default password root access, even with physical access, is considered a security issue

        • Riskable@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Listen, if someone gets physical access to a device in your home that’s connected to your wifi all bets are off. Having a password to gain access via adb is irrelevant. The attack scenario you describe is absurd: If someone’s in a celebrity’s home they’re not going to go after the robot vacuum when the thermostat, tablets, computers, TV, router, access point, etc are right there.

          If they’re physically in the home, they’ve already been compromised. The fact that the owner of a device can open it up and gain root is irrelevant.

          Furthermore, since they have root they can add a password themselves! Something they can’t do with a lot of other things in their home that they supposedly “own” but don’t have that power (but I’m 100% certain have vulnerabilities).

          • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            23 hours ago

            they’re not going to go after the robot vacuum when the thermostat, tablets, computers, TV, router, access point, etc are right there.

            … and all of those things should be equally protected

            they’re going to go for the easiest thing to extract information or escalate

            since they have root they can add a password themselves!

            the most absurd thing is assuming that an end-user is going do add a root password to a serial interface

            i’m not saying end users shouldn’t be able to gain root somehow, simply that it shouldn’t be wide open by default… there should be some process, perhaps involving a unique password per device

            • Riskable@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 hours ago

              Having a unique password per device is best practices. IoT vendors should be doing that regardless of whether or not they’re giving the end user root.

              There’s supposed to be a regulation demanding an IoT “nutrition label” that has that very thing in its list of items. I wonder what happened to that?