back to article Some Things just aren't meant to be (on Internet of Things networks). But we can work around that

What exactly is the Internet of Things? According to Gartner and IDC, it's a network of endpoints capable of interacting with each other and the world via IP connectivity. Consultant McKinsey & Company defines IoT as sensors and actuators embedded in physical objects, from roadways to pacemakers, that churn out huge amounts of …

  1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge
    Facepalm

    I had to laugh

    at this

    Define a collection of subnets for the various IoT devices and assign DHCP ranges: it's dead easy to do and it'll help make things manageable. Most importantly, though, because you have subnets you can define access control lists (ACLs) to limit the traffic that can get in and out: ensure that the only traffic permitted is what the devices need to work and be managed.

    And jost how do you explain this to the average punter with his 'smath' light switched, Central Heating and not so smart' fridge then?

    And when you tell said punter that they need lots of expensive network kit (how many ISP supplied routers support subnets then?) in order to manage and keep his so called smart devices secure?

    What you are saying makes perfect sense[1] to those who read and comment on this site but for 99% of the rest of the population? Forget it buster.

    [1] Especially deciding NOT to have any of this shit as I have did more than three years ago OR equally important, deciding NOT to connect the stuff you have bought up in ways that can make your network insecure.

    1. LDS Silver badge

      Re: I had to laugh

      Yes, the problem with many home and small office (and even some medium sized) networks is they employ networking devices which were designed for very simple networks, a few connected PCs and nothing more. Just look at how many "unmanaged" switches are on sales, and APs with VLAN and other advanced features are harder to find and more expensive.

      Now the ever increasing number of connected devices would need to adopt more sophisticated designs - but the devices don't support them, and the design/configuration is much harder, and usually beyond the knowledge of most non IT people. It could be simplified by management software for less demanding environments, but no one cares...

      1. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

        Re: I had to laugh

        I would many IT pros are also incompetent at networking. From what I studied to do it right is not a trivial matter when you know what your are doing.

    2. Headley_Grange Silver badge

      Re: I had to laugh

      My mum doesn't know what Window, Finder and Return mean when I give phone support, so I'm looking forward to the call when I help her set up her subnets. She'll want to know how often they need washing.

      Wouldn't it be better to have a recognized standard for IoT security, support and supportabilty with a CE/Kite mark? Sure, it would mean that cheap products with no support wouldn't be available, but the upside is that cheap products with no support wouldn't be available.

      1. LDS Silver badge

        "'m looking forward to the call when I help her set up her subnets"

        Just like some routers have built-in "guest" networks, it wouldn't be difficult to add some pre-configured subnets and VLANs without requiring the user to have a good knowledge of what they are and how to configure them, and add an interface to add the required ACLs in a simple way, again with some pre-configured ones (i.e. "HTTPs traffic only"). Add on top of it DHCP/DNS automatic management, so you can also see which devices are registered, and with which names.

        Call them "networks", "segments," "zones" or whatever you like, to help the user with simpler names.

        1. A Dark Germ

          Re: "'m looking forward to the call when I help her set up her subnets"

          Your thinking IT here.

          Please understand this is not IoT.

      2. vtcodger Silver badge

        Re: I had to laugh

        "Wouldn't it be better to have a recognized standard for IoT security,"

        Of course there will be standards for IoT security. Probably about seven of them. All mutually incompatible. And no one will implement any of them in exactly the same fashion as anyone else.

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: I had to laugh

          "And no one will implement any of them in exactly the same fashion as anyone else."

          In fact, probably no-one will implement any of them exactly.

    3. JDX Gold badge

      Re: I had to laugh

      It seemed pretty clear this article was aimed at businesses not homes.

      1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

        Re: aimed at businesses not homes

        As far as the level of competence obviously required for all these points, yes. It is certain that claiming IoT owners need to "figure out the protocols" obviously means "you know what a protocol is and you can figure it out". That eliminates Joe Public right there.

        Unfortunately, homes is where IoT is going to wreak havoc. It's Joe Public who wants his IoT door lock, his IoT lights with loudspeakers and fancy colors, and all the rest of that shite.

        And understanding protocols, to say nothing of "sorting out security" (snort), is most definitely not in Joe Public's ability to comprehend, let alone take responsibility for.

        This article's only merit is that it clearly outlines that IoT is not for the public.

        But that's where it is going to be sold.

        1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

          Re: aimed at businesses not homes

          But that's where it is BEING sold by the bucketload.

          There Fixed it For You.

      2. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

        Re: I had to laugh

        It seemed pretty clear this article was aimed at businesses not homes.

        So, what's the business case for having a load of pointlessly IoT devices on your corporate network? Which devices are actually appropriate in a work environment? Fridges, kettles, lightbulbs, el-cheapo cameras? I think not...

        1. Dave 126 Silver badge

          Re: I had to laugh

          Industrial automation has used networked sensors and actuators for years - so we don't need to explain their use in business. Said sensors and actuators are addressable, thus fulfill the definition of Internet of Things.

          In a rather more mundane business environment, an office, door locks activated by an employee's card are common.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: I had to laugh

            And in both environments, we run into se urity failures some of them disturbing. To say the least. Businesses and OEM's both alone or together.

      3. A Dark Germ

        Re: I had to laugh

        Not about IoT.

        It's about a step between IT & IoT.

        Real IoT uses a secure IoT hub to talk to the TCP/UDP/IP world.

        We use hardware cryptography that is tamper proof.

        People are just not educated at all.

        Security is not for you humans.

    4. Anonymous Coward Silver badge
      Alien

      Re: I had to laugh

      Like it or not, most domestic networks are to be treated as untrusted anyway. There is no difference between being inside the network and outside, because they just give their WiFi key to anyone who asks.

      Therefore, a compromised IoT thing will be an inconvenience (because some bugger turns your bedroom lights on a 1am) but not a security risk as such. (obviously, that doesn't apply to CCTV cameras, door locks, etc, but as we say, the 'S' in 'IoT' stands for security)

      Small business networks will be the most vulnerable, not least because the boss will just buy and connect this crap without talking to their (external) IT people.

      1. JohnFen Silver badge

        Re: I had to laugh

        "most domestic networks are to be treated as untrusted anyway"

        This. In fact, I recommend treating all networks that you haven't personally verified the security of as untrusted, and all WiFi connections as untrusted no matter what.

      2. Robert Helpmann?? Silver badge
        Childcatcher

        Re: I had to laugh

        Small business networks will be the most vulnerable, not least because the boss will just buy and connect this crap without talking to their (external) IT people.

        You say most, but I work in an understaffed enterprise environment (the default setting for enterprise environments). I am in the midst of implementing a set of network inventory tools and am uncovering so much stuff that no-one at the home office was aware much less managed, tracked or configured. Despite having implemented a variety of security restrictions on our wired and wireless networks, our local admins put all sorts of stuff on our networks because someone at their site went out and bought it. Same deal for software. The best thing about the situation is that I just have to turn the data over to someone else to take action. I do not believe my situation is in any way unique.

    5. A Dark Germ

      Re: I had to laugh

      Do you know what IoT is mate?

      Your talking about IT here talking peer to peer with IT.

      These devices you say are IoT are Linux based IT mostly.

      So funny thinking your educating when your part of the problem.

  2. BazzF

    As a slightly knowledgeable home user, my router cannot do subnets so I use MAC lists. My desktop, the Wife's desktop, my phone, her phone and the printer (not wireless).

    For the Wifi I changed the SSID and set it to not broadcast, and admin password and that uses the same MAC list. So both wired and wifi is covered.

    No IoT, No hassle and no Tasha Yar

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      You might as well broadcast. If the hub doesn't broadcast, then all your WiFi devices will blare the SSID out clear as day every time it needs to connect. IOW, instead of hiding the door (where someone can just follow someone who has to use it), just be sure there are sufficient locks on the door and pray you don't have a mole (which NO amount of security will be able to fully stop).

      1. DropBear Silver badge

        "You might as well broadcast"

        Is that so? Granted, not broadcasting the SSID is not going to keep it some sort of inaccessible secret, but it will prevent your WiFi showing up in the list on a casual scan which is all you need to prevent 99.9% of all access attempts. If someone is staying put for long enough to methodically scan your neighbourhood and chance upon your smartphone connecting as you return home (as everything else will likely just stay connected 24/7) chances are you're up against a threat you can't even begin to hope to successfully counter. Yes, it won't simply magically keep you safe all by its own - but useless? Hell no.

    2. JohnFen Silver badge

      "For the Wifi I changed the SSID and set it to not broadcast"

      This provides you very nearly no additional protection.

      1. Maelstorm Bronze badge
        Trollface

        "For the Wifi I changed the SSID and set it to not broadcast"

        "This provides you very nearly no additional protection."

        What if I put a condom over it? I hear that Trojans are the best protection that you can get, and it feels like nothing at all.

  3. Stoneshop Silver badge

    Security what?

    "When something becomes end-of-life it means there are no more security updates "

    Given this criterion one should consider IoT devices as having an EoL date half a decade in the past.

    At the very minimum.

  4. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

    shouldnt your corporate network be secure enough not have hackers rifling it from the outside looking for webcams and fridges?

    1. JohnFen Silver badge

      Yes, but it should be remembered that in businesses, most attackers aren't coming in from the outside, they're coming from inside the secured network. They can be disgruntled or criminal employees and contractors, and they can also be IoT devices that establish connections to outside destinations.

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      "shouldnt your corporate network be secure enough not have hackers rifling it from the outside looking for webcams and fridges?"

      But what about those webcams and fridges calling home, or at least trying to?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "But what about those webcams and fridges calling home, or at least trying to?"

        Saw a presentation by a pen test company a few months ago, one of the demos was a CCTV system (for home / SME) which actually captured still images every so often and tried to send them to the software developer's email .....

  5. trevorde

    Firmware updates

    yeah, right

  6. This post has been deleted by its author

  7. Sir Loin Of Beef

    WHY?

    Why do we need IoT in the first place??

    1. Dave 126 Silver badge

      Why do businesses benefit from a network of sensors and actuators, you mean? Ask them - they've been using them for years. I'd have thought some applications would be obvious. access control, fire safety, efficiency....

      1. JohnFen Silver badge

        I don't think he was asking what the benefit of remotely accessing sensors and the like is. I think he was asking why on earth they should be on the internet. Which, I think, is a valid question. The internet is far from the only way to accomplish that, it's just the most convenient -- if you don't care about security at all.

        If you really have to have this stuff on the internet, then you also have to engage in quite a bit of security groundwork for them to even begin to approach being something reasonably secure, which takes away a fair amount of that convenience.

    2. A Dark Germ

      You don't need this IT crap in your home, but we all need IoT!

      We need to monitor our environments in order to save time & money on wastage.

      IoT is for sensors & actuators over long distances no operating system involved very low level hardware.

      Our local council don't check lights on the streets anymore.

      They have out sourced the task of many hours checking thousands of lights by getting the public to report the lights not working. This is not the solution.

      With IoT lights the state of the light and the time delays can be dynamic.

      This means a light will report the problem with its brightness itself.

      It will self check. Winter comes early the lights can be turned on, maybe even off to save money late at night.

      The list of tasks IoT will monitor & action will become 10-100 times larger than the INTERNET.

      You don't seem to read much do you, or at least educate yourself here.

      Please educate yourself about the reality around you.

      Comments from fools & ignorant people are hard to understand, but populate due to sheep mentality.

  8. This post has been deleted by its author

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "What exactly is the Internet-of-Things?"

    1. Its a Smart TV that exists for industry-wide consumer surveillance

    2. Its a vacuum cleaner with video cam for remote spying capability

    3. Its the very next Alexa / eavesdropping smart-speaker clusterfuck

    4. Its a car that will spy on you anywhere / everywhere you go / drive

    5. Its a kids toy that will burn your kids privacy badly or even horribly

    6. Its a home security device that will often leave the front door open

    7. Its a home security system that will track your family for hackers

    8. Its a CT scan / hacked medical equipment that gives a lethal dose

    9. Its a kettle or home device that's hacked to start a fire while you sleep!

    0. Its a cyberwar device for ddosing and conducting WW3 attacks etc.

    ~~~~~

    IoT is basically

    ~~~~~

    1. A solution to a problem no one really cares about versus flying cars

    2. An empty marketing sales pitch in search of some real practical use

    3. Intelligence / Spying target-device that Govt has promised to exploit

    4. A device that phone homes reliably, but fails when you need it to work

    5. A host of juicy data left wide-open on an Amazon S3 Cloud bucket

    6. A marketing device designed to bump GDP / Surveillance-Economy

    7. A 'Scam' perpetrated on unwitting low-hanging-fruit users / consumers

    8. A clusterfuck of unintended consequences that'll burn vulnerable people

    9. Endless devices offering 24/7 Worldwide-Surveillance Orwellian-Hell

    0. - *Internet_of_Threats* - *Internet_of_Tat* - *Internet_of_Twats* -

    1. DCFusor Silver badge

      Re: "What exactly is the Internet-of-Things?"

      I agree - the only reason for the I in IoT is so someone can get in the middle and do things that profit them.

      I really don't need to do things like set a thermostat while on the road, though it's handy to be able to do it to one on-site building from another one. So...here on the off-grid homestead, I did a LAN of things for those things most don't think about but are needed to be off-grid - solar system control, water system collect and purify, and yes, thermostats in several buildings, weather details around the nature preserve and around the plumbing in the crawl space (do I need to do something so it won't freeze?). Stuff like that makes sense. It'd be pretty hard to hack, as all this stuff is "one off" and at least has security by obscurity - and if you think that's all, come at me, bro.

      How long before all these people providing this "free" service hire an MBA and decide they need rent on top of their other monetization (like a lot of other industries..."something as a service"). Or maybe they have already, and it's the GIF thing all over again - get wide adoption and THEN spring the trap.

  10. Scott 53

    No...

    Wi-fi uses photons, not electrons. We are not swamped with beta radiation.

    1. Graham Cobb

      Re: No...

      I quite liked the image of my router dodging electrons being fired in random directions from some IoT crap while trying to simultaneously provide a Wifi service.

    2. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: No...

      "Wi-fi uses photons, not electrons."

      Neither, actually. It uses radio waves just like most other wireless communications systems not dependent on line of sight (which rules out infrared which is still an electromagnetic wave).

      1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

        Re: No...

        It uses radio waves

        Them's photons, just big fuzzy ones.

      2. Maelstorm Bronze badge
        Facepalm

        Re: No...

        "Wi-fi uses photons, not electrons."

        Neither, actually. It uses radio waves just like most other wireless communications systems not dependent on line of sight (which rules out infrared which is still an electromagnetic wave).

        Wrong. It is photons. A radio wave is a photon. Go look at your electromagnetic spectrum chart. Visible light is on it.

    3. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

      Re: No...

      We are not swamped with beta radiation.

      Although that would explain the shitty range of my Virgin Media router. Maybe it would work better in a vacuum, and in the absence of any electrical fields?

    4. Andy the ex-Brit

      Re: No...

      "... thanks to radios that could well be accepting connections from anything that wants to throw electrons at them."

      It would be shocking if radios worked that way!

    5. IHateWearingATie
      FAIL

      Massively disappointed....

      …. that it took till half way down the comment thread for someone to pick up on the obvious electrons / photons error in the article.

      And then doubly disappointed at the lack of sarcasm and general finger-pointing-and-laughing at the error further up when someone got confused about radio waves and photons.

      Clearly the heat has addled commentards brains - buck up your ideas people!

      (I have an excuse in that I was too busy to read the article till this morning)

      1. Ken Moorhouse Silver badge

        Re: electrons / photons error

        Would that be Layer 0? Has anybody bothered doing a spec for that?

  11. Sebastian Brosig

    Electrons?

    ...accepting connections from anything that wants to throw electrons at them

    Photons. It's electromagnetic waves, that's really limp photons but lots of them.

  12. Sebastian Brosig
    Boffin

    Electrons?

    ...accepting connections from anything that wants to throw electrons at them

    Photons. It's electromagnetic waves, that's really limp photons but lots of them.

  13. JohnFen Silver badge

    DHCP

    "you could consider assigning static IP addresses to the IoT devices so you know exactly which is which"

    Wait, you mean this isn't standard practice? I thought this was considered best practice for at least a decade. DHCP for transient devices, static assignments for everything else. To do otherwise make network management much, much more difficult.

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: DHCP

      Unless you're Joe Stupid. Think about this problem from his angle: not knowledgeable enough to handle this on his own yet vulnerable anyway. What's needed for him is a turnkey solution, yet everyone here is claiming no such thing is possible. Perhaps one can PROVE that in plain English so they can present the problem before a legislature...

      1. JohnFen Silver badge

        Re: DHCP

        Not Joe Stupid -- don't confuse ignorance with stupidity.

        Your fundamental point is right, though, which is why it's highly irresponsible to sell these sorts of devices to ordinary people unless they're part of a larger system that imposes some sort of security.

        "yet everyone here is claiming no such thing is possible"

        They are? I think people here are saying that no such solution is currently available for naive users, which is true (and IoT manufacturers have zero interest in making one, because similar efforts in the past have sold badly). That's not the same as saying it's not possible.

        1. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

          Re: DHCP

          @JohnFen - You are correct about the real problem. These turds are being sold to Joe User who not networking guru. Then security 'experts' expect him to have the knowledge and time to properly connect the turd to his home network. And to add insult to injury these same 'experts' fail to grasp that home networking kit in not the same as enterprise level kit nor does have the same price.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: DHCP

      Just wait for IPv6 become widely used... it will make even harder for non IT skilled people to manage and keep track of addresses. Automatically assigned addresses will be the norm.

  14. Androgynous Cow Herd

    You can’t spell IDIOT without IOT...

    I studiously avoid most of this fluff as unneeded to my lifestyle... if I need to know what’s in my refrigerator I open the door etc.

    However, recently I was gifted a sous vide cooker. If you’re not familiar, this is a recirculating water heater that you use to slow cook meat to specific levels of doneness. The great hook is, it is impossible to overcook with this method. So long as you cook for the minimum time, the meat is just done, whether you like rare, medium well, etc. The method works great.

    If there was ever a device that did not need network connectivity, this is it. However, to use it, I am supposed to ...

    Download an app

    Connect to the device via Bluetooth

    Use the app to identify the device

    Configure the device for WiFi connectivity, which requires me to register with the manufacturer (who of course will allow me to identify myself via Faecesbook...)

    Then, I can heat water.

    Alternately, I can use another device, that has a power switch, and a rheostat to set the temperature.

    I use that one.

  15. s. pam
    Megaphone

    Just setup a separate Wifi network, name it "InternetOfShit"

    Put all the IoT crap on a separate Wifi network, leave it open to the Internet, and let it eat itself. Easy when it's fucked to not take down your home/office.

    1. Stoneshop Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: Just setup a separate Wifi network, name it "InternetOfShit"

      Put all the IoT crap on a separate Wifi network,

      With you so far.

      leave it open to the Internet, and let it eat itself.

      It will have no connectivity to the outside world. Nothing, zero, nada, zilch.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Just setup a separate Wifi network, name it "InternetOfShit"

        Wanna bet? It'll probably have a Whispernet connection, and breaking the antenna probably counts as tampering and will void the warranty. Oh, and it probably won't work if put in a Faraday cage, either. And soon you find out it's legally mandated (for "national security" reasons). Not to mention required to avoid a massive raise in your insurance rates...

  16. David Hall 1

    Reg taking the piss? Or too hot for journalism.

    "For example, a former colleague of mine has the option of adding Ethernet adaptors to the emergency generators on his data room but has decided not to – simply so the vendor's engineers have to visit to do maintenance rather than being allowed to break and crash things from afar."

    Yeah. Guy is a genius. Totally thinking he runs a comms room rather than a proper DC.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Reg taking the piss? Or too hot for journalism.

      "simply so the vendor's engineers have to visit to do maintenance rather than being allowed to break and crash things from afar"

      Wanna bet that gets reflected in the invoices? Accounting may wanna have a word with you at some point...

  17. Ken Moorhouse Silver badge

    I had a surreal conversation with a plumber recently...

    All I did was to give a BT-HomeHub its last rites and stick in another consumer Modem Router.

    My client sounded more perplexed than annoyed when he rang to tell me "The boiler's not working on my Iphone."

    I then spoke to their plumber who started talking about "switching it off and switching it back on again". Before I could say "Hang on a minute m8, that kind of language is reserved for IT people" he was telling me to look out for a MAC address on the side of the boiler controller.

    It took a while to sort that one out, but at the end of the exercise the boiler manufacturer agreed that they had given us duff information about what to do if your router is changed. Some configuration was needed at their end.

    How many IoT device users have abandoned their devices because it is just such hard work trying to maintain them?

    I mentioned this to my client, but having just spent a lot on the boiler it is not something you can rip out and say is unacceptable just because the app doesn't work reliably. Before replacing it he should bizarrely be discussing his choice with an IT person, as well as his plumber.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Isn't just easier, and more rational, to keep a cattle prod, a roll of carpet and some quicklime handy while flat out banning anything that might fugg up your wonderful network. Never let Lusers take control of anything, let alone install something that you then have to manage for them. That is a violation of rule 1 & 2 of the BOFH book, Rule 1 being "We don't talk about Luser-installed network attached hardware", and Rule 2 being "We don't talk about what happens to Lusers who install network attached hardware".

    1. Kernel Silver badge

      "That is a violation of rule 1 & 2 of the BOFH book, Rule 1 being "We don't talk about Luser-installed network attached hardware", and Rule 2 being "We don't talk about what happens to Lusers who install network attached hardware"."

      And Rule 3 is "Try to remember that many of those 'Lusers' will be the people who actually generate revenue for the company so it can continue to exist and employ those who are merely a cost centre and weight around the ankle of said Lusers."

      Just because someone isn't an IT expert doesn't make them stupid or ignorant or a Luser - it just means they probably know a whole lot of specialized stuff you don't - even if it's only how to shovel shit out of the gutter 5 days a week without ruining their back in the process. Shoveling shit brings money into the company when the customer pays for it to be done.

      Yes, I know you used the joke icon, but I've seen some crap work from IT professionals who should've know better, over the years - if fact, a number of the major data leakages we read about on El Reg seem to involve a degree of incompetence on the part of those professionals who should know better, particularly in the area of failing to secure/configure deployed systems properly.

      1. dajames Silver badge

        Rule 3 is "Try to remember that many of those 'Lusers' will be the people who actually generate revenue for the company so it can continue to exist...

        So ... shouldn't they be doing that, then, rather than spending time attaching unauthorized devices to the company network?

        Leave the networking to those whose job that actually is.

        1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

          "Try to remember that many of those 'Lusers' will be the people who actually generate revenue for the company so it can continue to exist

          I'd just like to echo the commenter above and add that if someon'e job involves adding unsecured network hardware to a corporate environment without permission, then that person is not a revenue-generating asset (no matter how high their opinion of themselves). They are a liability. Increasing risk exposure in an uncontrolled manner is never revenue-generating, and if you have people like that in your organisation, they need to be shown the door. Or the nearest window. By applying a voltage if necessary.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Problem is, what if they're (a) masochists (who get off on stuff like cattle prods) and (b) over your head (meaning they can reverse or counter any actions you attempt against them)?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "Leave the networking to those whose job that actually is"

          I worked for companies where the problem exactly lied in those whose job should have been networking - always trying to minimize the work they had to do instead of addressing users' needs.

  19. Frumious Bandersnatch Silver badge

    "Some Things just aren't meant to be ... on [the] Internet"

    Don't you mean "You know we aren't meant to exist on the outside world?"

  20. A Dark Germ

    Disagree with definition of IoT, only fools build IoT with IP access. IDIOTS.

    IoT is edge true.

    We use LoRa modems to connect with a main LoRa hub, example IoT.

    But it never talks direct with IT systems.

    That would be mad from a design point of view.

    To many attack vectors.

    This LoRa hub represents many edge nodes and uses secure technology

    to talk over TCP/IP to the back end.

    We pick MQTT for this over TCP/IP.

    To say all IoT uses IP is mad and totally wrong.

    The understanding of IoT & IT is easy to see, when you build systems.

    Most folk don't understand the difference.

    We don't let 100,000,000 IoT edge nodes attack the IP infrastructure that would be madness people.

    WAKE UP.

    https://lo5t.me/

  21. GSTZ

    IoT vs. Industry 4.0

    Maybe we should distinguish between consumer-oriented gadgets (typically connected to the Internet just to enable consumers to brag with their ability to toy around with said gadgets via smartphone apps) and serious technology used in production, logistics, transportation and other areas. The Germans have coined the term "Industry 4.0" for such technology.

    Here, typically some industrial control system (ICS) would be involved, and the machinery controlled by this would not necessarily need to be connected to the Internet. For instance, you could order some furniture in a webshop specifying the exact dimensions you want, but the related production gear might run totally separated behind an air-gap ...

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: IoT vs. Industry 4.0

      Trouble is, the vulnerable consumer-grade stuff can be leveraged to force magnify and take on the industrial-grade stuff to force multiply further. That's what Mirai taught us. If it's out there, it can be exploited to take down more secure stuff and start a domino effect. And it's only going to get worse. Like a zombie apocalypse. Sure, you're all hunkered down right now, but the horde can just find more victims outside to grow and eventually overwhelm you...

  22. A Dark Germ

    Wake up people IoT is not IT!

    Real IoT does not talk TCP/UDP/IP

    IoT edge nodes talk to a IoT hub.

    This IoT hub is the only part that talks over TCP/UDP/IP via MQTT & HTTPS

    The hub should be based around a secure core like Microchip's SAML11.

    The edge nodes should use 508a/608a from Atmel now Microchip!

    for public key cryptography to talk over LoRa only.

    Not LoRaWAN as it uses fixed symmetric AES keys per device that you need to store in a database. Madness here. No one stores AES keys in a database apart from fools.

    These edge nodes can also use NFC/BLE adverts, but do not support the full BLE stack for TCP/IP access.

    You must all understand IoT is a subset on the edge of IT.

    Yes the venn diagram has a common area the IoT HUB.

    Designs that use hardware cryptography in IoT are the same idea as U2F from FIDO is for human access control using the internet. In fact U2F can work over IoT for door access control also.

    People really need to go back to school, your all very poorly educated here online.

    N.B Personal IoT that does not talk to a IoT HUB but uses peer to peer can use TCP/UDP/IP but then these devices can and are used to attack the internet infrastructure. I don't count peer to peer as real IoT. Please understand this main point. The boundary between IT & IoT has two stages. One close range and the real IoT with long range measured in km.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019