Mel Beckman <m...@beckman.org>: > I also really like the idea of offering open source options to vendors, many > of whom seem to illegally take that privilege anyway. A key fast-path > component, though, is in my opinion a new RFC for IoT security best > practices, and probably some revisions to UPNP. > > The IoT RFC would spell out basic rules for safe devices: no back doors, no > default passwords, no gratuitous inbound connections, etc. It would also make > encryption a requirement, and limit how existing UPNP is deployed to prevent > unnecessarily exposing vulnerable TCP/UDP ports to the wild. With this RFC in > hand, and an appropriate splashy icon for vendor packaging (“RFC 9999 > ThingSafe!”), vendors will have a competitive reason for compliance as a > market differentiator, whether they deploy with open-source or proprietary > code.
That is a good idea and I am officially adopting it as part of the Evil Master Plan for World Domination. :-) I may recruit you to help draft the RFC. -- <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>