On 25 October 2016 at 09:37, Jean-Francois Mezei <
jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
> One way around this is for the pet feeder to initiate outbound
> connection to a central server, and have the pet onwer connect to that
> server to ask the server to send command to his pet feeder to feed
On 2016-10-25 04:10, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> If all of the *&^%$# damn stupid vacation pet feeders had originally shipped
> with outbound rate limits hard-coded in the kernel, maybe this could have
> been avoided.
I view this differently.
The problem is in allowing inbound connections and
In message ,
Jared Mauch wrote:
>Top posting to provide some clarity:
That's funny. Personally, I have always felt that top posting -destroys-
clarity. But as Chaplin Tapman said in Catch-22 "I'm not here to judge
On October 24, 2016 at 13:24 r...@tristatelogic.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) wrote:
>1) First, I will successfully complete my campaign to be elected King
>of the World. (Given the current poltical climate, worldwide, this
>should not be a problem, because I lie a lot.)
Too
t" <h...@slabnet.com>
To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 5:21:48 PM
Subject: Re: Spitballing IoT Security
It's possible you might have wanted to read the link for the context that
pointed this out as sarcastic hyperb
ww.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "J. Oquendo" <joque...@e-fensive.net>
To: "Steve Mikulasik" <steve.mikula...@civeo.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 3:53:25 PM
Subject: Re: Spitballing Io
Message -
From: "J. Oquendo" <joque...@e-fensive.net>
To: "Steve Mikulasik" <steve.mikula...@civeo.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 3:53:25 PM
Subject: Re: Spitballing IoT Security
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016, Steve Mikulasik wrote:
> i
IoT is not a well-defined term.
IoT implementations depend on system constraints.
These constraints may relate to security (problems/solutions).
It would be helpful to be more specific.
See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7228, for example.
Cheers
matthias
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016, Jared Mauch
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016, Steve Mikulasik wrote:
> if we automatically blackholed those IPs as they get updated it could put a
> big dent in the effectiveness of Zeus.
>
That would involve someone lifting a finger and implement
a config change. Much easier to implement BCP38 or was it
RFC 4732?
F. Guilmette
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 2:25 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Spitballing IoT Security
In message <e364fcea-7105-b3b9-63a9-7d22ab835...@nuclearfallout.net>,
John Weekes <j...@nuclearfallout.net> wrote:
>On 10/23/2016 4:19 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
jw>>
Top posting to provide some clarity:
1) Many IoT devices are connected via some cloud service, think Nest (for
example)
2) Many IoT devices have cloud management, think of Ruckus, UBNT UniFi, etc that
phone out to a site via DHCP option or otherwise.
3) Many IoT devices are something like a
In message ,
John Weekes wrote:
>On 10/23/2016 4:19 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
jw>>> ... The ISPs behind those IP addresses have
jw>>> received notifications via email...
rfg>> Just curious... How well is
101 - 112 of 112 matches
Mail list logo