WI-FI IOT modules

[scalz]

@alowhum
I get your point, but the problem is very often mothers are not able to secure their LAN too :nerd_face:
I think private datas are as important as home network security.
any ethernet devices like cameras, voice assistants, ssl, unsecured mqtt etc? if so, how to connect them? on same LAN as home computers, phones, with stock isp router and config? it's the easiest but that's not super secure.

I just meant it's a good idea to isolate HA to main LAN when you want good security (lot of good router/firewall solutions). + SBC's should be secured (ssl when enabled, ddos attacks etc)
this should help for wifi devices attacked from internet. If someone would get into, then lot of chance he would have access to your main LAN too.

About local, security, I know a small agriculture company where I live in country field, who got jammed and robbed, no security alarm triggered. I think they may have got the lesson about going wireless. First time I heard about a jamming attack here but this exists.

And if someone is trying to hack your HA RF with a local sniffer, I would be worried about intrusion in my main wifi network, if not secured too.

[zboblamont]

@scalz
"About local, security, I know a small agriculture company where I live in country field, who got jammed and robbed, no security alarm triggered. I think they may have got the lesson about going wireless. First time I heard about a jamming attack here but this exists."

Determined criminals (or government versions) will always be better prepared and equipped to exploit holes and abuse systems no matter how secure they purport to be.
Even a security system wih GSM comms can be locally jammed and wifi nodes interfered if pros want to rob it, but crucially they have to be in close proximity. All you can do is make it difficult for them by extending intrusion detection range to raise the alarm before they can.
For the 99% amateur crooks this is perfetly adequate.
I do not trust reliance on the internet or wifi nodes, as almost every modern kid is intimately acquainted with internet and wifi hacking, so internet access can never be 100% secure and will always be a moving target.

[Sergio Rius]

That's like saying one would never travel by plane because accidents happen. Your simplifying in excess the wifi concept.

Tell me how a WiFi connection can be hacked, if it implements an "inclusion mode"

[alowhum]

@scalz @Sergio-Rius

I get your point, but the problem is very often mothers are not able to secure their LAN too

True. That's why I'm not against WiFi, I'm against any IP-based technology for IoT devices. Which is ironic, since I'm a big fan of the Mozilla WebThings Gateway, a project whose main goal is to connect all kinds of devices to the internet using an open standard. I totally disagree with that goal :-)

mysensors only works bc it's not widely used

True. I use MySensors for prototyping, but if the Candle project would ever turn into actual commercial devices, I'd probably move the wireless technology to Zigbee/Z-Wave/Bluetooth.

So the overall point is that I much prefer network technologies that have smart devices on a separate, dedicated IoT network by design. Because it's separated by design, it means my mom is also better protected, by design.

Then there's another point: these wifi modules have, or are connected to, ARM chips. These powerful chips are way more attractive to malicious parties than an Arduino Nano. That's why I follow the principle of "minimal viable hardware" when I design IoT devices.

[scalz]

I wonder how many people without good router/firewall are running their rpi controller directly on their home LAN, without ddos and ssh protection, running unsecured mqtt (for a mysensors gw, or snips etc for example)+many others ethernet devices like camera, audio clients etc for example. all on same network as computers, phones, without good passwords management policy, better have no malware or key logger, "no, don't click on this!"..

[NeverDie]

@alowhum I hadn't quite looked at it this way before, but if you want something your mom can use which doesn't expose her PC or anything else on her home network, then those self-contained systems with cellular links back to the cloud start to look pretty secure. Then your mom looks at her home automation by opening a browser to some cloud URL, at which point she's' no more at risk than from regular browsing.

On the other hand, I'm guessing that even just regular browsing is higher risk than some hacker invading through your home automation. In other words, yes the risk is not zero, but is it really a dominant concern compared to regular internet browsing or whatever else our mom's might be doing on-line?

[NeverDie]

Well, to alowhum's point, yet another IOT wi-fi (ESP32) exploit was in today's news headlines: https://www.infoq.com/news/2019/12/esp32-fatal-fury/

[alowhum]

self-contained systems with cellular links back to the cloud start to look pretty secure

@neverdie: indeed, that's why the Candle smart lock has a built in GSM modem: to circumvent using the internet, while still allowing you to unlock the door when away from home. Of course, data should never be stored in the cloud.

I'm guessing that even just regular browsing is higher risk than some hacker invading through your home automation

Both are high risk, so I would avoid the trap of 'whataboutism'. Protecting a browser (using add-ons) is at least somewhat possible for end-users. As your ESP32 hack points out, when a hardware device is compromised, most people are completely at the mercy of the supplier.

Basically, it's all about keeping a minimal attack surface:

• Don't use IP based connectivity when zigbee/bluetooth/etc will do.
• Don't use ARM chips when a simple Arduino will do.
• Don't connect to the cloud unless you absolutely have to
• Don't store data in the cloud unless you absolutely have to.

[Sergio Rius]

This article @NeverDie published doesn't involve or talks about WiFi. It talks about physically accessing the chip and messing signals to program it.
That is a nonsense if you already have physically access to the device. And it should apply to any device.

That is what I mean. WiFi has been a nice word in the mouth of everyone for decades. It's so easy to simplify and confuse using a word as a flag.
If a company created a new ideal device for mys and this device would be easily hacked, would not mean that mys is the culprit or bad.

[alowhum]

@Sergio-Rius You're right, it requires physical access. That makes it much less of a risk.

There are other examples where wireless access was compromised though, such as the krakk attack.

If a company created a new ideal device for mys and this device would be easily hacked, would not mean that mys is the culprit or bad.

I don't think anyone is saying WiFi is without virtue. It's just a risk when deployed in IoT devices.

Let's be honest: most vendors use WiFi out of convenience. Both for the end user, and for them. Devices that use WiFi are the logical choice if you want to send data to the cloud directly without any pesky smart home controller acting as a potential gatekeeper and privacy protector. At best, using WiFi is lazy or uncritical design. At its worst, WiFi is the technology of choice if your businessmodel depends on the extraction of data.

[scalz]

@alowhum
of course, like we usually say, use the "best tool for the job".

I think with old 8bits mcu, and retrocompatibility, we may be kind of stuck to improve interesting points because of variety of hw setup (unprecise clocks etc).

Interested to know, when not using IoT, with no physical access (physical access is not secure by design), how can an advanced SOC (ARM, esp32 which is not ARM but tensilica, etc) using proprietary RF, be unsecure ??

I don't think adding plugins in browsers is enough to secure people, it helps sure. I spent lot of time cleaning friends computers and phones, even with plugins enabled.. when I ask them, why did you click/install again bad stuff, they reply it's certainly their wife or childrens :thinking_face:

[Sergio Rius]

Also... Continuing with the supposed vulnerability in the article. If you correctly program the arm chip, not with fancy joke web portal, but with secure protocols, etc... And then as the article says, you set the fuses to avoid firmware changes...
Where extreme risk would be? (Legit question)
Those chips are cheap enough to start consider them as one use.

[Tmaster]

I think i touch the rigth spot! WIFI :relaxed: :relaxed: ~
but my initial post was more about if they are reliable than if they are safe...
even a wood door it's not safe...an kick and you are in ... i don't believe someone will start robbing my house ,by entering in the shutter iot module by an wifi hack and open the shutter,brake doble glass windows and enter....
It's more a question if they are pratical and reliable? tey cost less than half of an zwave module..big point here...
and my main concern is ,are they all day comunicating with router or they usualy sleep? i'm not sure how wi-fi devices like esp8266 work. If they ping the router regularly or what?

[NeverDie]

Speaking just for myself, it's hard for me to rationally evaluate the risk of getting hacked by an IOT device without some statistics, like what percentage of the population it happens to annually. Otherwise, it's like worrying about how bullet-proof your home burglar alarm system should be: you can always think of vulnerabilities with whatever system you have, and then once you do it's only natural to worry about them.

[Sergio Rius]

@tmaster WiFi devices will behave as you program them, there are several "conventional" projects there for them, like espeasy, tasmota, espurna (my preference) and with luck one more by the next year.
They poll the network for several things, like mqtt and ping status messages. Some are configurable.
But on top of that, there's own wifi ttl, leases and other green implementations that need re-registering from time to time.
So for battery powered devices could be tricky as that increases drastically wakeup.

I had once a problem in a company where mobile devices where repeatedly disconnected from Cisco APs, due to a bad ttl config in them. That's how I know about it.

[zboblamont]

@tmaster I think the phrase "that escalated quickly" comes to mind..
I can only speak personally in that I dismissed "Wifi" as a Node communication methodology due to limited structural penetration issues and the desire for complete separation between monitoring and reporting. Z-Wave operates in the 800-900MHz band so is less prone to structural blockage, externally it would take a dedicated geek parked in your back yard to break into that.
My own issue with the blossoming of wifi incorporation in "a connected world" is that even your fridge can be used in a DoS attack, and it is pointless making comments about what CAN be done with a router, when the vast majority of consumers are only concerned they can check on their fridge 2,000m away without a ball's notion or concern who else may be affected. The comms protocol is less energy inefficient but it has a universal tag.
I can see the advantage of "the cloud" but have a serious beef with dependency on that service, the other is living in a rural area where candles are common due to power cuts which also cut off the internet service externally. Yeah, burglar's paradise... except for the large dog and a Gatling Gun on heat sensors... Ok, one of them may be true ;)
I almost went for Honeywell's Evohome system a few years back, local operations on 868MHz, well secured, but then came the spanner in the works, internet dependency.
All my home kit is self contained 433MHz, and happy it works away 24/7, with no local geeks acquainted with http protocols interested in researching or interfering, happy...
In short, the cheap options are cheap for a reason, one of which is insecurity for a price hence Zigbee etc.....