LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.Such as the Raspberry Pi 2 and the MinnowBoard Max.
Read more.Such as the Raspberry Pi 2 and the MinnowBoard Max.
So, what this really amounts to is a beta, and by the sound of it, even that may be being generous.Originally Posted by article
Being part of the Win10 family, I wonder if the same sort of privacy, or rather, gross lack thereof, policy applies? If so, Win10 IoT devices will be barred, Chez Saracen.
It's IoT - there's no privacy regardless of the OS, short of not having a wi-fi setup close by.
Jonj1611 (11-08-2015)
Barred it is, then.
I know this is a bit of a tinfoil hat question but I'm interested from a technical point of view.
If I was paranoid as hell but still wanted some of the functionality of the IoT, would it be possible to isolate your house (e.g. build it with a giant faraday cage as the frame), have all the little gadgets and gizmos networked within the house talking to a single 'house server'. Internal communication would be unlimited. Communication to the outside world would only be via a hardline on the server, and the home owner could set limits on what could be sent/received over that connection (I'm thinking either by using settings/filters or at worst case, all the comms get summarized as a queue and the owner can approve/reject each request to the wider world).
First off - would WiFi even work within a faraday cage?
It's even easier: Put all your IoT devices on one VLAN, and prevent that VLAN for accessing the internet. Sit a gateway server that bridges that VLAN with everything else on your home network and controls access to the data gathered by your IoT devices.I know this is a bit of a tinfoil hat question but I'm interested from a technical point of view.
If I was paranoid as hell but still wanted some of the functionality of the IoT, would it be possible to isolate your house (e.g. build it with a giant faraday cage as the frame), have all the little gadgets and gizmos networked within the house talking to a single 'house server'. Internal communication would be unlimited. Communication to the outside world would only be via a hardline on the server, and the home owner could set limits on what could be sent/received over that connection (I'm thinking either by using settings/filters or at worst case, all the comms get summarized as a queue and the owner can approve/reject each request to the wider world).
First off - would WiFi even work within a faraday cage?
This is honestly the way home IoT SHOULD be implemented, but "oh, you mean I have to buy another device?!" means that instead each IoT device has it;s own link to the internet and the 'gateway server' is a VM somewhere 'in the cloud'.
Tpyo (13-08-2015)
Given that Tpyo prefaced and qualified his question/scenario with "paranoid as hell", no, it isn't that simple, and won't do what he asked. First, ANY external connection provides a possible attack vector. Secondly, anything with a wifi connection provides an attack vector.
That's exactly why I have a number of machines here, where my usage of them doesn't require any external comms, sitting behind an airgap. Other machines, that are internet-connected, don't carry any of that more 'sensitive' data. The only attack vectors to that 'sensitive' data require physical presence at the machines.
In my case, it's a cost-benefit analysis issue - what benefit do I get ftom connecting those machines, versus what cost/risk I run. As the benefit is at most minimal, and really, zero, and cost/risk is too high, why run it? And in my case, even physical presence still leaves any intruder either needing passwords (plural), or serious encryption/cracking capabilities, or both.
For me, IoT comes down to the same cost-benefit calculation. I've yet to see any case for supposed benefits of IoT being anything I much want, and certainly not to the point where I'd give, or risk, much data about my or my household's lifestyle. I might implement Tpyo's airgapped IoT, if I could see any real benefit to me, and if the (monetary) cost of doing so was justified. But I've yet to see anything in the way of benefit to IoT that much appeals ... to me. Others may, of course, get different mileage from the IoT. If anyone's got (or invents) that benefit that, to me, is a 'must-have' game-changer, then the cost-benefit calculation might change.
Anyone see Dragon's Den with the guy that had the car security app, when Peter Jones said (paraphrasing a bit) ...
"One question ..... WHY???"
That's roughly how I feel about IoT.
Tpyo (13-08-2015)
as much as im curious of this are there any benefits over other RPI OS's already out there ?
It all depends on how you define benefit, I guess. The primary ones that I can think of off the bat are ease in communications and consolidation for whomever is writing the OS. Using the Nest (an internet ready thermostat now owned by Alphabet aka Google) as an example, when it first came out, it pretty much required IOS (an iphone/ipad) to work 100% properly. Now that it's owned by the company that makes Android, it works 100% properly with both. But Alphabet is under no obligation to maintain that compatibility. It's all good to be locked into one environment, until it isn't.
So, nutshell, the benefit is all your junk will talk to each other in the same language. The problem is, all your junk will only speak that one language, and will never learn another. And if something breaks and/or becomes obsolete? I'll let you follow that particular path down the rabbit hole.
"First off - would WiFi even work within a faraday cage?"
Don't know, but you would be immune from lightning strikes!!!!!!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote