Home thermostats can now get infected with ransomware

>It’s worth noting that for a device to be infected, an attacker would need physical access, or the owner would have to be tricked into infecting their own thermostat.

>So far, the name and manufacturer of the device affected hasn’t been publicly announced. That’s because the researchers only identified the vulnerability two days before the conference was scheduled to start, and have not been able to contact the manufacturer in order to arrange a fix.

>Thankfully, Tierney and Munro both believe that it will be an easy problem to patch.

>This episode illustrates the troubling fragility of Internet of Things devices.

>There are far too many of them that have shipped with vulnerabilities that leave their users at risk, from Wi-Fi enabled kettles that leak network passwords, to “smart fridges” that broadcast the user’s Gmail credentials in plaintext.

>As the number of IoT manufacturers and users proliferate, and as the devices become mainstream household appliances, it seems probable we’ll see even more high-profile security issues.

Couldn't you just buy a new thermostat?

>>65645
You can just reset it because the files arent important

>>65634
>It’s worth noting that for a device to be infected, an attacker would need physical access, or the owner would have to be tricked into infecting their own thermostat.

So basically it's fucking nothing and this is just sensationalist garbage.

>>65667
It sounds like an invitation to invent more malware to me.

Like ransomware in a reaper drone?

>>65674
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QhfkmEbQto

ALIEN FOUND

>>65667
Most viruses require tricking the user to give access. A simple fake advertisement like "Software update for your SmartTherm! Just download into your phone and transfer by bluetooth!" would do the trick on maybe 1/1000 of people in a mass email -- maybe more since the file you send, being for neither your phone nor comp, might not be detected on virus scanners.

>>65667
>>It’s worth noting that for a device to be infected, an attacker would need physical access, or the owner would have to be tricked into infecting their own thermostat.
>So basically it's fucking nothing and this is just sensationalist garbage.
so the majority of viruses these days then

>>65634
>There are far too many of them that have shipped with vulnerabilities that leave their users at risk, from Wi-Fi enabled kettles that leak network passwords, to “smart fridges” that broadcast the user’s Gmail credentials in plaintext.

Why aren't companies required by law to encrypt user/customer information? Seems like something that would be common sense in 2016.

>>65787
What Congress would pass something like that? Certainly not this gridlocked one.

>>65646
>implying my porn collection isn't important

I mean it's not easy standing in the hall fapping to the thermostat, but at least my mom doesn't find dirty pictures on my computer.