nanog mailing list archives

Re: Spitballing IoT Security


From: Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 08:38:59 +1100


In message <11718.1477517100 () segfault tristatelogic com>, "Ronald F. Guilmette" writes:
In short, if sensible regulations requiring "safe" designs for IoT products
were to come into force in one locale, it is not only possible, but
actually quite likely that they would affect the whole market.  If a given
Far East manufacturer was required to have safety built into the kernel
of its toasters in order to be able to sell said toasters, say, in the
United States... or even just in California...  would they really go to
the trouble to strip out the additional "safety" part of their firmware
when manufacturing what is essentially the same product, but destined
for other markets?  I think not.  (A question for the audience:  How has
FCC regulation of the maximum power output of WiFi routers affected the
worldwide market for such devices, over time?  I honestly don't know, but
I suspect that there has been a good effect, over time, on the whole
worldwide market.)

FCC regulation has caused manufactures to do a US version and a rest
of the world version.  They have over regulated.  A simple list
for location should be enough with default on unknown which leaves
Wifi off until set.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka () isc org


Current thread: