Listen, if someone gets physical access to a device in your home that’s connected to your wifi all bets are off. Having a password to gain access via adb is irrelevant. The attack scenario you describe is absurd: If someone’s in a celebrity’s home they’re not going to go after the robot vacuum when the thermostat, tablets, computers, TV, router, access point, etc are right there.
If they’re physically in the home, they’ve already been compromised. The fact that the owner of a device can open it up and gain root is irrelevant.
Furthermore, since they have root they can add a password themselves! Something they can’t do with a lot of other things in their home that they supposedly “own” but don’t have that power (but I’m 100% certain have vulnerabilities).
they’re not going to go after the robot vacuum when the thermostat, tablets, computers, TV, router, access point, etc are right there.
… and all of those things should be equally protected
they’re going to go for the easiest thing to extract information or escalate
since they have root they can add a password themselves!
the most absurd thing is assuming that an end-user is going do add a root password to a serial interface
i’m not saying end users shouldn’t be able to gain root somehow, simply that it shouldn’t be wide open by default… there should be some process, perhaps involving a unique password per device
Having a unique password per device is best practices.
yup that’s all i’m getting at… this vacuum has unprotected access to ADB, which another user likened to root access, and i just think that in circumstances that are root-like, even physical access shouldn’t grant unprotected root
Listen, if someone gets physical access to a device in your home that’s connected to your wifi all bets are off. Having a password to gain access via adb is irrelevant. The attack scenario you describe is absurd: If someone’s in a celebrity’s home they’re not going to go after the robot vacuum when the thermostat, tablets, computers, TV, router, access point, etc are right there.
If they’re physically in the home, they’ve already been compromised. The fact that the owner of a device can open it up and gain root is irrelevant.
Furthermore, since they have root they can add a password themselves! Something they can’t do with a lot of other things in their home that they supposedly “own” but don’t have that power (but I’m 100% certain have vulnerabilities).
… and all of those things should be equally protected
they’re going to go for the easiest thing to extract information or escalate
the most absurd thing is assuming that an end-user is going do add a root password to a serial interface
i’m not saying end users shouldn’t be able to gain root somehow, simply that it shouldn’t be wide open by default… there should be some process, perhaps involving a unique password per device
Having a unique password per device is best practices. IoT vendors should be doing that regardless of whether or not they’re giving the end user root.
There’s supposed to be a regulation demanding an IoT “nutrition label” that has that very thing in its list of items. I wonder what happened to that?
yup that’s all i’m getting at… this vacuum has unprotected access to ADB, which another user likened to root access, and i just think that in circumstances that are root-like, even physical access shouldn’t grant unprotected root