@CraginSThis is similar to the DYN DNS attacks and DDoS issues, already experienced, with the culprit organisation, actually whitelisting multiple organisations, all with different names, and not paying the IEEE registration fees and obeying some form of standardisation of the respective technology.
It appears everyone can be in business, whether ethically or unethically, but there is insufficient Sheriff's or willingness to validate or reject such organisations from actually being in business to the detriment of many, Many people are just plain gullible, in terms of not doing some basic pre-checks, before running down to their discount store for the greatest and best capabilities at the cheapest price available.
There will be plenty of these stories emerging, whether something is done about it is another matter - it really comes down to "how many lives must be destroyed or lost, before it becomes serious enough to cause authorities to do something about it".
Regards
Caute_cautim
@CraginS wrote:
OK, it's not that the designers of NEST security cameras said, "Let's make sure our products are easy to hack."
Rather, the situation is the result of a design intended to minimize the complexity of setting up and using the cameras for buyers. It's just inconvenient for both the buyer, and the Nest Help Desk, to get a new camera up and running with reasonable security.
That is the message in this 4/23/19 Chron article, lifted from the Washington Post:
How Nest, designed to keep intruders out of people's homes, effectively allowed hackers to get in
Same old problem: first to market and minimal initial hassles are the goals of even SECURITY products aimed at the home user. Hmm, are industrial products any better.
