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
Having a unique password per device is best practices.
yup that’s all i’m getting at… this vacuum has unprotected access to ADB, which another user likened to root access, and i just think that in circumstances that are root-like, even physical access shouldn’t grant unprotected root
… and all of those things should be equally protected
they’re going to go for the easiest thing to extract information or escalate
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
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?
yup that’s all i’m getting at… this vacuum has unprotected access to ADB, which another user likened to root access, and i just think that in circumstances that are root-like, even physical access shouldn’t grant unprotected root