This underscores the principle that IoT devices should not be allowed to communicate over the public Internet. Pretty much all cheap, Chinese-made hardware of this kind has intentional or unintentional security holes waiting to be exploited.

▲

jwrallie 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Better to buy devices that can work without internet and just blacklist them at the router level. Price or origin is not a good metric to ensure no leaks.

▲

locknitpicker 7 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> This underscores the principle that IoT devices should not be allowed to communicate over the public Internet.

TP-Link is a prominent maker of network hardware, including home and mesh routers.

▲

WarOnPrivacy 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Pretty much all cheap, Chinese-made hardware of this kind has intentional or unintentional security holes waiting to be exploited.

Why single out bad Chinese coding? Bad US IoT coding has a longer history.

▲

forestry 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There’s bad, and then there’s egregious.

▲

copperx 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

All of there IoT devices will be slop coded soon, and I wonder whether that will be an improvement or not. I bet that security will be better.

	▲	shakna 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> I bet that security will be better. Not doxing myself, but... Company with a known name vibecoded a dashboard with Claude. Which also hardcoded a password into the client-side of the dashboard, which I caught. I reckon security will be about the same.
	▲	Namidairo 16 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> All of there IoT devices will be slop coded soon Soon? I've already seen multiple of TP-Link's firmware engineers leave their LLM history public and indexed by search engines. It's quite obviously them as well.

▲

petra 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Consumers just don't care about security. It is what it is.

▲

qurren 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Chinese-made hardware

Honestly, I'd rather it leak my GPS to the Chinese government than the US government. They don't have jurisdiction over me anyway.

> should not be allowed to communicate over the public Internet

It would be a no-go for non-techies. One of the biggest draws to IoT devices for "average Joes" is being able to view and control them from remotely, and they aren't going to have the skills or know-how to set up a VPN correctly with dynamic DNS so that their phone can VPN into their home and then sideload/jailbreak their phone to load a custom app to control it. "It just works from anywhere" is a big sell for them.

▲

afavour 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> It would be a no-go for non-techies.

There are better solutions, like Apple’s HomeKit. I’m able to watch a camera that has no internet access because it passed through my Apple TV, which serves as a home hub. I didn’t have to set any of this up, it just works when you have the required hardware.

▲

qurren 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

HomeKit will take care of the VPN/remote access part, sure, but your devices still need to communicate with the HomeKit device, and that's usually over Wi-Fi, which puts the devices on the public internet, and carries the same security risk.

There are various non-internet protocols for IoT devices, none of them good:

* Zigbee: Requires some technical understanding to set up, devices randomly disconnect for hours even when they are 2ft from the coordinator, all-around horrible experience for non-techies

* Non-standard Zigbee variants: even worse

* Matter-over-Thread: horrendously designed from a UX perspective. Easy-to-lose barcodes stuck on cards in the packaging, weird 12-letter codes, and your non-techie cannot understand what the hell Matter or Thread is. Pairing is an absolute nightmare.

▲

yjftsjthsd-h an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> devices randomly disconnect for hours even when they are 2ft from the coordinator

I don't think that's normal. Like, to the point where I'm wondering if you have a bad opinion of the whole protocol because you got a faulty device.

▲

holgerschurig 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Zigbee

Requires no technical understanding. At least not more than e.g. a WIFI router.

> devices randomly disconnect for hours even when they are 2ft from the coordinator,

You present this like a fact. But it is at most an anecdote. I present you a different anecdote: I have ~30 zigbee devices, in two different houses (first a house with concrete floors and cellar and level 1..3) and now one old woodwork structure house with 2 floors. Nowhere did I had even half an hour of disconnection.

> all around-horrible

... excellent experience even for my ex-spouse, which is/was non-techie.

However, that you present Zigbee here at all is weird. Zigbee doesn't have any way to transport a camera stream. It's mean for low-powered battery devices. My temperature sensors got a 1500mAh AAA chargeable batteries and they lasts now for over one year. Note that I have sensors from ~ 15 different brands. Mostly battery powered sensors and mains power switchable plugs.

I also enjoy that these Zigbee devices are by design completely disconnected from any IP traffic. This, and their (intentional) low data rate make them almost impossible to misuse. E.g. as denial-of-service originators or amplifiers.

It's like you present WIFI as long-range thingy but actually you'd want LORA for that. I'm not assuming that knowing for what kind of usage a tech was designed as "needing technical understanding". After all, no one would claim "you need technical understanding" to know that you better use a truck instead of a Porsche Cayman to transport 50 cubic meters of sand.

	▲	qurren 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Nowhere did I had even half an hour of disconnection. Well my garage door opener sensor has been disconnected for two 30 minute gaps today and my plant humidity sensors go offline for 2 weeks at a time. So yeah, it's not ready for prime time. > LORA No, let's not even go there. Tech nerd protocol here that's an awkward middle ground that creates even more problems. Average Joes aren't going to set that crap up.

▲

Rohansi 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I’m able to watch a camera that has no internet access because it passed through my Apple TV, which serves as a home hub.

How exactly does this prevent the same kind of issue for Apple devices? Aren't you just trusting that Apple handles your data better than TP-Link? Not saying they don't but routing through another device doesn't really add security on its own.