At first I thought ”Well, duh!”, but the manufacturer having a remote kill switch when he network blocked his vacuum from sharing his home map data with them, as well as unprotected root access when connecting to the vacuum… urgh.
The engineer says he stopped the device from broadcasting data, though kept the other network traffic — like firmware updates — running like usual. The vacuum kept cleaning for a few days after, until early one morning when it refused to boot up.
After reverse engineering the vacuum, a painstaking process which included reprinting the devices’ circuit boards and testing its sensors, he found something horrifying: Android Debug Bridge, a program for installing and debugging apps on devices, was “wide open” to the world.
“In seconds, I had full root access. No hacks, no exploits. Just plug and play,” Narayanan said.
All crappy IoT devices ever made. They aren’t used in bot nets all the time because hackers like the challenge of hacking them so much. Security simply isn’t a priority.
A few years ago I noticed an annoyance with a soundbar I had. After allowing it onto my WiFi network so we could stream music to it, it still broadcast the setup WiFi network.
While dorking around one day, I ran a port scan on my network and the soundbar reported port 22 (ssh) was open. I was able to log in as root and no password.
After a moment of “huh, that’s terrible security.” I connected to the (publicly open) setup network, ssh’d in, and copied the wpa_supplicant.conf file from the device to verify it had my WiFi info available to anyone with at least my mediocre skill level. I then factory reset the device, never to entrust it with any credentials again.
The Chinese company that steals corporate secrets (I kicked a bunch of their devs once when they were trying to take pictures of prototypes and copy source code on USB keys) and send everything to China? Who would have thought.
Tend to agree, security is always the goal but if someone is in my house hacking my vacuum, I have bigger issues. The no-notice remote kill is the bigger issue to me.
But on this threat model? Why would it not be good?
It has to physically accessed on the PCB itself from what I gather.
There are 2 “threats” from what I see:
someone at the distribution facility pops it open and has the know how to install malware on it (very very unlikely)
someone breaks into your home unnoticed and has the time to carefully take apart your vacuum and upload pre-prepared malware instead of just sticking an IP camera somewhere. If this actually happens, the owner has much much bigger problems and the vacuum is the least of their worries.
The homeowner is the other person that can access it and it is a big feature in that case.
yes and no… i agree with the sentiment, but with root you can extract wifi credentials and various other secrets… you shouldn’t be able to get these things even when you have physical access to the device… the root access itself isn’t the problem
At first I thought ”Well, duh!”, but the manufacturer having a remote kill switch when he network blocked his vacuum from sharing his home map data with them, as well as unprotected root access when connecting to the vacuum… urgh.
All crappy IoT devices ever made. They aren’t used in bot nets all the time because hackers like the challenge of hacking them so much. Security simply isn’t a priority.
The ‘S’ on IoT stands for security!
There isn’t an s in IoT silly.
Woosh? Either Yours or mine :)
I keep seeing you everywhere and the only reason I won’t block you is because of your username brightening my day every time I see it. Curse you!
When that is the light in your day…
A few years ago I noticed an annoyance with a soundbar I had. After allowing it onto my WiFi network so we could stream music to it, it still broadcast the setup WiFi network.
While dorking around one day, I ran a port scan on my network and the soundbar reported port 22 (ssh) was open. I was able to log in as root and no password.
After a moment of “huh, that’s terrible security.” I connected to the (publicly open) setup network, ssh’d in, and copied the wpa_supplicant.conf file from the device to verify it had my WiFi info available to anyone with at least my mediocre skill level. I then factory reset the device, never to entrust it with any credentials again.
Name and shame, what make and model was it?
It was a TCL Alto 9+.
A quick internet search reveals that this issue was known about at least three years ago.
Another model, the 8i was reported to have a root password of “12345678” - which is partially how I got the idea to start seeing if I could gain root.
The Chinese company that steals corporate secrets (I kicked a bunch of their devs once when they were trying to take pictures of prototypes and copy source code on USB keys) and send everything to China? Who would have thought.
Is it just me, or is having ADB exposed physically not that big a deal?
Tend to agree, security is always the goal but if someone is in my house hacking my vacuum, I have bigger issues. The no-notice remote kill is the bigger issue to me.
The much bigger concern is that the pathway used to send the remote kill command could very easily be utilized by nefarious actors.
To do what, wear out one section of carpet faster than the rest of your house?
It could overcharge and overheat the battery, leading to explosion or at least fire.
If a hacker can get into the device remotely it can be an entry point to your home network.
Remote “kill”
Where does it end? First it wears down your carpets and then we’re in Maximum Overdrive.
It finds a sharp corner to rub against and hones itself into a stabby bot.
It is not good. But in most cases just adb doesnt grand root access. That’s just bad.
NO! It’syour device, you should have root! The fact that the manufacturer gives their product owners root is a good thing, not bad!
I will die on this fucking hill.
I agree with you. But granting root straight from adb with 0 auth is not good.
But on this threat model? Why would it not be good?
It has to physically accessed on the PCB itself from what I gather.
There are 2 “threats” from what I see:
someone at the distribution facility pops it open and has the know how to install malware on it (very very unlikely)
someone breaks into your home unnoticed and has the time to carefully take apart your vacuum and upload pre-prepared malware instead of just sticking an IP camera somewhere. If this actually happens, the owner has much much bigger problems and the vacuum is the least of their worries.
The homeowner is the other person that can access it and it is a big feature in that case.
yes and no… i agree with the sentiment, but with root you can extract wifi credentials and various other secrets… you shouldn’t be able to get these things even when you have physical access to the device… the root access itself isn’t the problem
There was an ARS article years ago about it…