Talk:1966: Smart Home Security
When I went to explainxkcd right after the comic posted, I saw this in the incomplete tag: "Created by ORGANIZED CRIME". Today is the day this website has officially swallowed its own tail. Djbrasier (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Oh no! We must eradicate this enemy- We must start violent purging- No one can be trusted! Linker (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Hmm. Isn't the concern for smart appliances usually that since they're internet-connected, they can be used to for DDoS and other nefarious purposes? I mean, a smart thermostat doesn't really have the capability to spy on its owners, right?
- They can spy on your temperature preferences! (Dun dun dah!). You do have a point though. I originally was thinking more like smart home assistants, as that seems to be the craze now. That is ignoring the majority smart devices in the market though. You could get some information from most though, even it is minimal. You could get a rough floorplan from a roomba, you could get an idea what kind of products people buy with smart fridges... etc. We may never know what Randall's original intention was though. I wonder if he reads this wiki... Does he ever edit it?
- A smart thermostat often knows when you are home and not. It could easily be used to develop a pattern of behavior to determine when would be the best time to rob your house. Then there's smart door locks, with the obvious consequences of hacking. But yes, botnets are one of the biggest problems. Note that the graph (accurately!) shows a not-so-great best case on day 1, as most IoT security is awful.220.127.116.11 17:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. A much more likely scenario is that your device is being used for a botnet. Smart appliances aren't updated as reliably as personal computers (since they're "set and forget" devices), and the owner is less likely to notice if they've been hacked (because you won't notice if your thermostat is running a little slow), so they're a prime target for hackers. That's also why the graph shows the risk increases as time goes by - the manufacturer stops patching the device, but the hacker will keep trying to get in. --18.104.22.168 17:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I’m going to give them an update they can’t refuse
Is it just me or is it strange that the older the device is the better the case? I just do not understand the graph and the explanation as it is now, does not make sense to me. In case it is just me that fails to understand it, then the explanation is still not good enough... Because: "Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb." :D --Kynde (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- It seems to me that you need to look at the area on either side of the curve. So, if a device is 10 years old, the section on the "worst case" side of the curve is larger. Therefore, it is more likely that your device is to be compromised. --Detroitwilly (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- I somewhat disagree. I don't think that it's a discrete best-case, worst-case only problem that's divided by the line, rather that it becomes so unlikely that there will be people protecting you, the best case scenario would be having your thing part of an organized crime. It's simple so unlikely that you're being protected, that having a hacked device is the best scenario. Perhaps there is some worse, unseen scenario that is so bad that having a hacked device is better in comparison. 22.214.171.124 20:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)