Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Sunday August 13 2017, @02:56AM   Printer-friendly
from the when-bad-ideas-go-wrong dept.

According to The Register a firmware update mistake has managed to brick hundreds of internet-connected door locks:

The upshot is you can't use the builtin keypad on the devices to unlock the door. Lockstate's smart locks are popular among Airbnb hosts as it allows them to give guests an entry code to get into properties without having to share physical keys. Lockstate is even a partner with Airbnb.

Earlier this week, though, new software was automatically sent out to folks' $469 Lockstate 6000i locks – one of the upstart's top residential smart locks – which left the keypad entirely useless. The crashed locks – which connect to your home Wi-Fi for remote control and monitoring as well as firmware updates – are now going to be out of action for at least a week.

[...] The physical key on the lock should still work, but that's going to be cold comfort for a lot of Airbnb users, who prefer to keep the physical keys to themselves and set an access code for each lodger that stops by.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Sunday August 13 2017, @03:27AM (5 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Sunday August 13 2017, @03:27AM (#553083)

    This whole "pay for it" thing is BS. Just look at "enterprise software": it costs an absolute fortune, yet it's all complete and utter crap. Paying a lot for something doesn't mean you're going to get a better-designed product, just (maybe, if the contract says so) that you'll be able to get a hold of someone faster. Then that person will tell you "oh sorry! We'll have a fix for you in a week or so!" Or you can have a contract that guarantees a certain performance, and then when they fail (and they will), you'll have to hash it out in court with them.

    Bottom line: don't outsource your building's security to a cloud service.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by black6host on Sunday August 13 2017, @03:36AM (4 children)

    by black6host (3827) on Sunday August 13 2017, @03:36AM (#553089) Journal

    I agree with what you are saying. I just found it unreasonable that people who bought a sub $500 lock that was connected to the internet would think it wouldn't fail :)

    • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday August 13 2017, @04:03AM (1 child)

      by kaszz (4211) on Sunday August 13 2017, @04:03AM (#553102) Journal

      It's not the money that is the failure point here. It's the internet connected + lack of due diligence. If you didn't check the code, then it shall be assumed to be faulty for something critical as this.

      As for code quality it seems the open source model beats the commercial development model. Except for code done using formal verification like NASA space shuttle and L4-microkernel. This firmware was likely developed in the lock-opens, lock-closes and the GUI looks splashy.. SHIP!
      (I wonder if SpaceX does the formal verification thing..)

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13 2017, @03:46PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13 2017, @03:46PM (#553286)

        From 2013-- https://lwn.net/Articles/540368/ [lwn.net]

        > ... Linux runs everywhere at SpaceX, he said, on everything from desktops to spacecraft. ...

        No mention of formal verification, I wonder if this is a suitable workaround?

        > When the build fails, it should "fail loudly" with a "monitor that starts flashing red" and email to everyone on the team. When that happens, you should "respond immediately" to fix the problem. In his team, they have a full-size Justin Bieber cutout that gets placed facing the team member who broke the build. They found that "100% of software engineers don't like Justin Bieber", and will work quickly to fix the build problem.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13 2017, @07:49PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13 2017, @07:49PM (#553344)

      And why would they not think so?
      Because it's cheap? It was one of the top tier models.
      Because reviews? see the xkcd about the reviews (tornado app).
      Or because you expect non-die hard techies to know as much as you do about tech?

      Stop blaming users and start looking into how to make software products that are as reliable as a car or a washing machine

      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday August 14 2017, @02:06AM

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday August 14 2017, @02:06AM (#553420)

        Stop blaming users and start looking into how to make software products that are as reliable as a car or a washing machine

        Why shouldn't users be blamed? They're the ones with the ultimate authority. The buck stops with them, so ultimately it's all their fault.

        If you disagree, then please explain why a company should even bother putting out a quality product, and not just half-ass it and throw something out there. Exactly what reason is there to make one of these things reliable? I can't think of one. Will consumers look carefully to see if these things are as reliable as washing machines? No. Then what exactly is the incentive? Professional pride? That doesn't help the company make more profit, but cutting corners and shipping early do.

        The only time companies have an actual responsibility to put out a quality product is if:

        1) they'll get in legal or governmental trouble if they screw up (either they'll run afoul of some regulation, or they'll get sued to death),
        Examples: not meeting crash standards means you can't even sell your car on the market; making a car that blows up too easily when in a crash means you get sued for ridiculous amounts of money and lose.

        2) the reputation they'll acquire will be so lousy compared to their competition (or compared to not buying the product at all) that people won't want to buy it.
        Examples: American cars in the 80s, IBM DeskStar hard drives, possibly Microsoft's Windows Phones (arguable)