Thread replies: 15
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: DBzIkR7XgAEI55B.jpg (161KB, 900x1200px) Image search:
[Google]
161KB, 900x1200px
So I've been thinking how to reduce the botnet risk surrounding IoT devices after they get hacked and I could use /g/'s help.
What can we do to mitigate the damage Pajeets can do to us with IoT? I couldn't care less about the idiots who buy the damn things so don't tell me "let the user suffer" because you're not telling me anything I don't already know.
One thought I've had is physically limiting the bandwidth used by a device. Is there a way to do this that would make it impossible for a chinaman to remotely increase the bandwidth limit?
Assumptions:
*People are idiots and some will buy IoT decivices like networked toilets
*Pajeets will likely be programming these IoT toilets despite not knowing what a toilet is.
*These toilets will be used as part of a botnet to DDOS critical services that lives depend on.
Limitations:
*The retards who purchase IoT crap isn't going to know how to configure a network. Configuring QoS is not an option.
*This will have to be something that comes with the device.
Anti-limitations:
*Changing industry standards produced by standards bodies is an option.
>>
>>60920646
>networked toilets
If the tech giants had their way you wouldn't be able to take a piss without them knowing about it, and what liquids you've consumed for targeted advertisement.
>>
Put your iot stuff on a separate vlan so it can't backdoor the rest of your network.
>>
>>60920646
https://snips.ai
Voice Assistant without the botnet
>>
>>60922172
Not an option. Any user configuration on the network end is not an option in the slightest.
>>
>>60922073
They'd also probably do a drug test, and probably a pregnancy test in women's and unisex bathrooms.
Just a few years ago, it was considered weird if you bought in a camera into a bathroom or locker room. Now it's encouraged that you give your blood pressure, diet, sexual activities, menstrual cycle, and internet history to the botnet, and if you are not plugged into the botnet somehow you are considered a weirdo.
>>
>>60922238
That's marketing and astroturfing.
Don't buy into it.
>>
>>60922238
>and probably a pregnancy test in women's and unisex bathrooms.
>implying all bathrooms wont be unisex in the currentyear + 10 dystopia
>>
>>60922431
>unisex bathrooms
>dystopia
Are you gay? There is nothing wrong with unisex bathrooms, and they make having sex in stalls easier.
>>
BrickerBots. Destroy the fuckers with Mirai before they can destroy everything.
>>
>>60922736
This.
Also, in my uni many bathrooms have always been unisex without any sjw screeching about multiple gender, there's literally nothing wrong with it as long as it's not done to satisfy the mental issues of some tumblerinas
>>
>>60922736
>you are gay for not wanting some pervert in the same washroom as your female family members
First of all what does this have to do with sexuality, unless you have a scat fetish or something? Secondly I don't think its very flattering for women share a public washroom with men.
>>
>>60924339
Prevert is gonna enter the restroom no matter what. Doesn't matter if it's Unisex or not.
>>
How about not connecting things to the internet that have no reason to be connected to the internet.
Like every goddamn thing except for a computer that specifically needs to be connected to the internet. Not your photo/movie/design workstation, not your fridge, not your doorbell, not your TV, not your surveillance camera and not your printer.
>>
>>60924745
Yeah, but then they can get away with it.
Right now I can just go into it after them and punch them as say they where harassing my girl.
Thread posts: 15
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1