SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Mass hacking seems to be all the rage currently. A vigilante hacker apparently slipped secure code into vulnerable cameras and other insecure networked objects in the "Internet of Things" so that bad guys can't corral those devices into an army of zombie computers, like what happened with the record-breaking Mirai denial-of-service botnet. The Homeland Security Department issued alerts with instructions for fending off similar "Brickerbot malware," so-named because it bricks IoT devices.
And perhaps most unusual, the FBI recently obtained a single warrant in Alaska to hack the computers of thousands of victims in a bid to free them from the global botnet, Kelihos.
On April 5, Deborah M. Smith, chief magistrate judge of the US District Court in Alaska, greenlighted this first use of a controversial court order. Critics have since likened it to a license for mass hacking.
General warrants were a key reason cited by the Founding Fathers for their rebellion against King George.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:45PM (2 children)
They wouldn't be shipping known insecure devices, and they would be making updates available if the liability for damages were on them. That's why I think it is a perfect fix.
The credit card industry has all kinds of security compliance requirements. (PCI) Because if their systems get hacked, guess who is liable? Clue: not the card holders.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday April 27 2017, @05:22PM (1 child)
Liability means lawyers and insurance corporations will line their pockets with your money. If said cameras had their software open sourced. There would be a lot more possibility to take control of the security issues.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28 2017, @09:03AM
No, they will get a share of the money that normally goes to the IoT company itself. Yes, this may bloat the original price a bit, but I don't see that as a big problem. As mentioned before, people will quickly realize, hm maybe I don't need a toaster that connects to the internet. Companies that are bad at securing their devices will see a much larger share of their customers cash going to lawyers and insurance corporations.
I like the idea for open source, but that still doesn't give the IoT companies an incentive to install the latest patches/fixes, ... Whatever OS and packages they shipped 5 years ago are still fine to ship today, I mean, it's open source and all.
And I know you will probably come back with, "but it's open source so I can upgrade and patch it myself" and that's true. But you'll also have to patch those of your parents, grandparents, ... And YOU will have to put in effort to secure the stuff you bought, are you going to ask for a refund for every hour you spent on it? After that, when your IoT devices still get hacked, it will be very easy to put all the blame on YOU, because you patched it and messed around with it. And that time it will definitely be your money to pay for your lawyers.