CosmicGiraffe

joined 2 years ago
[–] CosmicGiraffe@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago

Yeah, its not unreasonable that you'd have a remote way to access the device to gather debug data with the customers consent. An SSH key in the firmware is a flexible way to do that, so long as there are good controls in place to ensure that it isn't misused.

[–] CosmicGiraffe@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago

I think multiple people already have access to the databases that store the data the device sends. I don't really care whether they get the data from the device itself or from the database.

Similarly, I think multiple people have the ability to make changes to the firmware build and the systems that distribute it. So those people already have the potential ability to gain access to the device.

One person or multiple people having unauthorised access are both unacceptable. I'm saying that the users have to trust the companies ability to prevent that occurring, and that therefore this particular technical detail is mostly irrelevant

[–] CosmicGiraffe@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'm 90% sure it is not a single user. I just don't see how that really affects the security of the product, given that the company that sells it can already do the things the author is saying can be done if you have this key.

To be clear, I wouldn't buy this. I just don't think the SSH key makes it any worse than it already was

[–] CosmicGiraffe@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

A shared account doesn't mean everyone who works there has access to it, or that those who do have access aren't subject to some type of access control.

The article basically goes on to say that the existence of this key makes a huge difference to the security/privacy of the product. It argues that using it, someone could access data from the device, or use it to upload arbitrary code to the device for it to run. However, those are both things the user is already trusting the company with. They have to trust that the company has access controls/policies to prevent individual rogue employees doing the things described. It seems unreasonable to say that an SSH key being on the device demonstrates that those controls aren't in place.

[–] CosmicGiraffe@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (8 children)

The email address attached to the public key, eng@eightsleep.com, to me suggests the private key is likely accessible to the entire engineering team.

This assumption is doing a lot of heavy lifting in the authors argument that this is a big deal.

[–] CosmicGiraffe@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This assumes that the reviewer who gave the rating wasn't considering value as part of their scoring. I'd expect the reviewer to be scoring a TV based on his good it is compared to similarly priced competitors, not comparing to every other TV on the market

[–] CosmicGiraffe@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Sure, but then you've just shifted the problem up a level. Now I have to trust that the user id you provide me in the insecure channel really is you. Which means either trusting the insecure channel or trusting that the web app has confirmed who you are in some other way before giving you an ID.

We have to reject the first since we could skip all the asymmetric crypt and just send a symmetric key directly in the insecure channel.

If we're trusting the web app has confirmed your identity, we've moved from "just quickly go to this page and it'll generate you a public key" to "go to this site, upload a photo of your ID and a video of you saying that its you and whatever other verification is needed, then it'll give you a public key".

You originally wrote:

The one sticking point is that your recipient needs to visit the site before you can send your vacation photos to them, but is it really that hard?

The hard part isn't them going to the site in advance, it's them establishing trust with the site that they are who they claim to be.

[–] CosmicGiraffe@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Even if you're using asymmetric cryptography, you still have to trust the insecure channel. If an attacker can replace the URL sent there with their own then they can have the sender encrypt the files with an attacker controlled public key rather than the legitimate one

[–] CosmicGiraffe@lemmy.world 39 points 1 month ago (12 children)

Here's an Olympic sprinter powering a toaster. He generates 0.021kWh going flat out: https://youtu.be/S4O5voOCqAQ

[–] CosmicGiraffe@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

It's not that you change the passwords for each website often, it's that you use a different password for each site. That way if one site gets hacked and your password is leaked, it can't be used to access your accounts on other sites.

[–] CosmicGiraffe@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If you have a nut allergy you probably have never tasted nuts and wouldn't know that was what you were tasting

[–] CosmicGiraffe@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Plenty of costs don't depend on how much usage there is. If a tree falls and takes out a power line it cosrs the same whether that line was being used at 1% capacity or 100%

169
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by CosmicGiraffe@lemmy.world to c/lemmyworld@lemmy.world
 

The admins on lemmynsfw.com have decided to allow "non-IRL loli", i.e. drawn porn involving children/teenagers. (Post: https://lemmynsfw.com/post/29633).

Irrelevant of the moral issues that this poses, such content is illegal in many countries (e.g the UK). Continuing to federate with lemmynsfw.com will put users at risk of significant legal repercussions.

Please would the admins consider defederating unless lemmynsfw change their policy.

UPDATE: The lemmynsfw admins posted an clarification here: https://lemmynsfw.com/post/29826. My original argument for defederating doesn't stand any more.

view more: next ›