Reply to post: Perhaps I'm missing the point...

Surveillance camera compromised in 98 seconds

Packet

Perhaps I'm missing the point...

But he specifically opened port 23 (telnet) to this device and waits for it to get compromised (which it does, rather quickly too).

Isn't all modern SOHO equipment a combination of router + firewall (and DSL bridge / cable modem if not purchased separately)?

So as long as the device is behind a router with inbuilt firewall blocking inbound access, it has some modicum of security.

I'm running a Honeywell wifi thermostat behind my Cisco branded router/firewall - didn't have to open any ports inbound for it to work - it goes to the Honeywell website and I had to register an account with the MAC/serial # of the unit. It works decently well.

Now the security of that particular Honeywell website is not up to me - it's a managed service by them.

It's all a value add anyway - don't want wifi control of your thermostat, don't connect it to the network.

(Did not want a Nest after all the nonsense they went through - and of course, Google data slurpage)

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon