Hacker News Reader

Comment by whack | Hacker News Reader

That's a great point regarding the economics of why IoT manufacturers don't invest all that much on security. Here's another one. It's an externality. Botnet attacks don't harm the IoT manufacturers. They don't even harm the IoT products or their users. They harm completely innocent bystanders like DNS/github.

What possible incentive do IoT manufacturers have to invest money on initiatives that bring no benefits to themselves, or their customers? What possible incentive do users have to follow "proper security protocols", when they can just do something simple/convenient, and if something goes wrong, some random internet website pays the price.

As idiotic as this sounds, the only non-regulatory solution I can think of is for all potential BotNet victims to collectively "bribe" the IoT companies into following proper security protocols.

View on HN

If ISPs turned off your connection if it was found that something on your network is part of an active attack of a botnet until the problem is cleaned up. Now the 'victim' (I'd not really say victim because they chose the cheapest webcam online) has to figure out (or hire somebody to) clean up their network.

If there are actual consequences for people's computers and IoT devices being 'hacked', they will start to look for ways to avoid the inconvenience in the future. They might start using better passwords, not installing every toolbar under the sun, demand better products (and accountability) from the companies they purchase items from.

tl;dr;

The only way to get some of these problems fixed is to introduce some level of pain, somewhere in the system. I say penalize the consumer who decided to buy the cheapest thing online - turn off their Internet connection when an infected device is found.

This seems the most practical, though I imagine the consumer is likely going change their ISP until they find one that won't. So ISPs have no incentive to do this unless they're regulated.

If customers or ISPs had tools to find out which devices were at fault then it may be more feasible.

It's going to take networks with infected devices being cut away from the Internet like infested tree limbs before things get better.

Externalities are usually solved through pigouvian taxes.

But since we can't really know in advance what product will/won't be secure (or at least it's incredibly difficult in the constantly goalpost moving security industry) the only way I can see this happening is if, say DYN could sue the IoT manufacturers for negligence or something of the like.

Honestly, the general public may benefit from the first few attacks targeting IoT owners.

If your toaster attacks Dyn, that's an indirect failure. But if your lights decide to shut off permanently because some kid thought it would be funny, you're going to throw them away and buy some dumb lightbulbs.

Short of regulation or bribery, I can only hope that we'll see progress after some IoT products are directly attacked instead of repurposed into botnets.

Why would anyone in their right mind attack IoT products directly (ie. disabling/destroying them), when using them as a large botnet is far, far more lucrative?

Well... Perhaps once IoT webcams are used for blackmail - but even that is a much more difficult task than "really big botnet attack really big sites" so the incentive isn't there

The same reason we got ILOVEYOU?

I know profit motivated attacks have eclipsed entertainment motivated ones, but that's partly been about the work required to get a 'strong' exploit going. Mirai used an easier access vector than Morris to get full ownership of target devices, so it wouldn't be hard for one person to copy and abuse.

I don't think this is going to become the norm - messing up a refrigerator isn't a lucrative goal - but I expect that it'll happen occasionally if systems stay this weak.

The best we can get out of direct attacks on IoT are new "security products that protect your IoT devices" in a reactive manner. Windows antivirus all over again.

The safety equipment on vehicles is also an externality but it's mandated because when a car is unsafe it affects other people who aren't the driver. I don't see how IoT is any different. If you don't want to secure your product, then don't build your product and save the rest of us from dealing with the fallout of your laziness.

The principle is no different, but the practice might differ significantly. With vehicle safety there's a reasonably common, agreed upon set of vehicle conditions which can be checked with a inspection; do your brake lights work, tires aren't bald, etc. There is also a framework of regulation (at the product level vehicles have to pass a set of design-level safety tests), as well as policing on actual roads to execute vehicle maintenance checks as needed.

I'm not sure we know what a similar framework would look like with consumer devices. I can see the utility, but I would also worry about regulatory overreach, and giving big brother another point of control to latch onto.

I feel that in the age of technological achievements we currently live in, figuring out a way where we can require a certain level of security on these devices without running afoul of "big brother" syndrome seems well within the realm of possibilities.

It's also worth noting had the IoT companies simply done the baseline level of security of making the user change the password that such regulation wouldn't even be needed, so forgive me if I'm unable to care about their stake in things.

My point is that it's not a technical problem. Some IoT devices have failed their "vehicle safety check". Now who has the authority to take them off the road? Who has the authority to ensure that their poor design isn't even allowed on the road? Do we actually want anyone to hold that authority?

Is there some other way to achieve the same results without formal regulations - to review bad designs and keep them from being sold, and taking bad security designs/implementations off the internet?

Couldn't all those affected by the IoT botnet sue the company fabricating the IoT products?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com