This is a cool article, and neat he got it working in the end.

One thing that is odd - if he blocked it calling home, it doesn't make sense that the kill code was issued remotely. It makes more sense that there is a line of code internally that kills the machine when it can't call home (which would be far less malicious).

▲

jacquesm 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That would in many ways be even worse because it means that if the manufacturer were to go out of business all of the stuff they sold would stop working. That's more malicious, not less.

▲

DaSHacka 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> It makes more sense that there is a line of code internally that kills the machine when it can't call home (which would be far less malicious).

Would it be? Whether the line of code is on the server or the device, what's the difference?

▲

below43 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

He implied they were remoting in after he blocked network traffic. It could easilyl be a standard exception handling approache when it can't call home and fetch latest settings etc. It might not be malicious - not defending the architecture, just think that there is an assumption of intent here.

	▲	foobarchu 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Whether they remote into his device or it kills itself is irrelevant except that if it's local code that's even worse, as they've programmed in future obsolescence. That is indefensible, full stop, do not pass go.

▲

fragmede 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you bring me your silverware from the kitchen, or I go into your house to take it, what's the difference?

(CFAA charges)

▲

8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]