<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Samsung tweet about AV scanning of their Smart TVs in Tech Talk</title>
    <link>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Tech-Talk/Samsung-tweet-about-AV-scanning-of-their-Smart-TVs/m-p/23858#M1399</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;On endpoint protection, I just wish the vendors wouldn't leave ports open on everything.&amp;nbsp; As much as I prefer local control to cloud control for IoT, the idea of having to make an authenticated cloud connection before a local one could help.&amp;nbsp; Some sort of certificate or other zero trusty method to make sure that the devices truly know who each other are would be great.&amp;nbsp; I know it would cost money, but is some standard were developed, it could be cheap and effective.&amp;nbsp; Maybe a little less magical, since it wouldn't "just work", but it also would be less likely to "just be pwned".&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2019 12:40:47 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>mgorman</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-06-18T12:40:47Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Samsung tweet about AV scanning of their Smart TVs</title>
      <link>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Tech-Talk/Samsung-tweet-about-AV-scanning-of-their-Smart-TVs/m-p/23801#M1397</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Well, this was a long time coming:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://gizmodo.com/samsung-deletes-terrifying-tweet-warning-that-its-smart-1835577964" target="_blank"&gt;https://gizmodo.com/samsung-deletes-terrifying-tweet-warning-that-its-smart-1835577964&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Given proliferation of the "Smart" devices and their susceptibility to compromises, I suspect will cause us to rethink the definition of "perimeter" once again.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;For a while now, EDR vendors were gleefully decrying the "death of perimeter". Perhaps its demise was greatly exaggerated.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;As it is unlikely to implement endpoint protection on all of the embedded devices, something got to keep them safe.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2019 16:47:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Tech-Talk/Samsung-tweet-about-AV-scanning-of-their-Smart-TVs/m-p/23801#M1397</guid>
      <dc:creator>vt100</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-06-17T16:47:36Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Samsung tweet about AV scanning of their Smart TVs</title>
      <link>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Tech-Talk/Samsung-tweet-about-AV-scanning-of-their-Smart-TVs/m-p/23858#M1399</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;On endpoint protection, I just wish the vendors wouldn't leave ports open on everything.&amp;nbsp; As much as I prefer local control to cloud control for IoT, the idea of having to make an authenticated cloud connection before a local one could help.&amp;nbsp; Some sort of certificate or other zero trusty method to make sure that the devices truly know who each other are would be great.&amp;nbsp; I know it would cost money, but is some standard were developed, it could be cheap and effective.&amp;nbsp; Maybe a little less magical, since it wouldn't "just work", but it also would be less likely to "just be pwned".&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2019 12:40:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Tech-Talk/Samsung-tweet-about-AV-scanning-of-their-Smart-TVs/m-p/23858#M1399</guid>
      <dc:creator>mgorman</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-06-18T12:40:47Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

