Re: Spitballing IoT Security

["Eric S. Raymond" <esr () thyrsus com>]

Mel Beckman <mel () beckman org>:
> I also really like the idea of offering open source options to vendors, many of whom seem to illegally take that 
> privilege anyway. A key fast-path component, though, is in my opinion a new RFC for IoT security best practices, and 
> probably some revisions to UPNP. 
>
> The IoT RFC would spell out basic rules for safe devices: no back doors, no default passwords, no gratuitous inbound 
> connections, etc. It would also make encryption a requirement, and limit how existing UPNP is deployed to prevent 
> unnecessarily exposing vulnerable TCP/UDP ports to the wild. With this RFC in hand, and an appropriate splashy icon 
> for vendor packaging (“RFC 9999 ThingSafe!”), vendors will have a competitive reason for compliance as a market 
> differentiator, whether they deploy with open-source or proprietary code. 

That is a good idea and I am officially adopting it as part of the Evil
Master Plan for World Domination. :-)

I may recruit you to help draft the RFC.
-- 
                <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>