it’s definitely cool that we have the capability of things like thread/matter zigbee and zwave now.
I would be more ok with local IoT devices being IP based if they were intended on being used with an “offline” network. Though that’s a little funky to setup, and causes interference issues, so i think i prefer the zigbee and zwave solution of using a different protocol entirely, especially since it mandates offline handling.
My two biggest concerns with IP connected devices are most home networks are not properly delegated, so people aren’t creating a second subnet specifically for IoT devices for example, and they most definitely aren’t properly providing access controls through that network as well. So if someone manages to get into one of the devices, you basically have the entire network at that point.
One of the big advantages of non IP based systems is that you have a “point of relay” or gateway between all of your IoT devices and your network, which becomes the attack vector, making it a lot easier to secure, and manage. Even if you managed to hack into a zwave/zigbee network, it would only be locally, and IoT devices only, so it’s not going to be hugely problematic.
theoretically you can do all of this on a traditional IP based network, i just don’t think it’s the correct approach. Sort of like making a carboat, or a boatcar. You could, but why?
I think at minimum, a standalone IoT device should not be capable of connecting to the global internet, period. Through something like a gateway or “point of relay” sure, that’s fine by me, but even then i would prefer open standards and documentation on that specific feature set.
it’s definitely cool that we have the capability of things like thread/matter zigbee and zwave now.
I would be more ok with local IoT devices being IP based if they were intended on being used with an “offline” network. Though that’s a little funky to setup, and causes interference issues, so i think i prefer the zigbee and zwave solution of using a different protocol entirely, especially since it mandates offline handling.
My two biggest concerns with IP connected devices are most home networks are not properly delegated, so people aren’t creating a second subnet specifically for IoT devices for example, and they most definitely aren’t properly providing access controls through that network as well. So if someone manages to get into one of the devices, you basically have the entire network at that point.
One of the big advantages of non IP based systems is that you have a “point of relay” or gateway between all of your IoT devices and your network, which becomes the attack vector, making it a lot easier to secure, and manage. Even if you managed to hack into a zwave/zigbee network, it would only be locally, and IoT devices only, so it’s not going to be hugely problematic.
theoretically you can do all of this on a traditional IP based network, i just don’t think it’s the correct approach. Sort of like making a carboat, or a boatcar. You could, but why?
I think at minimum, a standalone IoT device should not be capable of connecting to the global internet, period. Through something like a gateway or “point of relay” sure, that’s fine by me, but even then i would prefer open standards and documentation on that specific feature set.