Re: Win11 explorer bug?

On 12/12/2024 6:44 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2024-12-12 14:16, Don Y wrote:

On 12/12/2024 5:47 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2024-12-12 12:00, Don Y wrote:

Yeah, I'm REALLY eager to turn on the factory's WiFi interface
for the stove/oven... NOT!

>
There are devices that put the actual interface on the phone, via WiFi. The physical interface has a reduced set of features.

>
Yes.  Via a server located at the manufacturer's facility!

 Certainly. There is no other way unless ISPs provide IPv6 connectivity.

That assumes you want access from outside the "facility".  I.e.,
you can't use your smart doorbell, stove, refrigerator, etc. IN YOUR
HOME without inviting the outside world into it!

So, you have the application layer in the appliance, the network stack in the
appliance, all of the network infrastructure from your AP to the manufacturer's
server, then, back through the phone network, up through the stack in your
phone and, finally, through the app to the display.
>
Nothing can go wrong, there, right?  <rolls eyes>

 Well, it has economic advantages.

The advantages ignore the externalities that come with them.  The vendor
(manufacturer) has passed costs (risks, inconveniences) onto his customer.

If I can manage to hang (if not outright CRASH) the appliance using the
FEW controls available to me, how many more wonderful and exciting ways
might it be at risk with all this other fluff involved?
>
Do I *really* need to be able to turn the oven on as I leave work so the
roast has had extra time to cook while I'm busy driving?

 I really do *need* to handle the heating remotely.

I can do that, here.  With a VOICE connection.  So, I only rely on
the phone system to get my voice to the house -- not to a third-party
who THEN sends it to the house.

How might my "blind" actions interact with some activities initiated
by whomever happens to be IN the house (by the appliance) at the time?

 Not a concern for me.

If you came home to a house where the pipes had frozen (ruptured)
because the heat had been turned OFF (bug in the remote server,
the application that you use to interact with it, actions of a hostile
actor, etc.) it would be.
Banks, governments, large corporations somehow can't seem to keep
their servers "locked down"... but, a company selling thermostats
can?
I.e., its only a matter of time before we hear of a hack that
compromises all purchasers of "Product XYZ" -- simply because
the manufacturer KEPT itself in the service loop.

How many races remain in hiding in the implementation?  (clearly they
didn't test for ALL of these if I can tickle several of them so easily)
>

I'm thinking of a particular heating system with thermostat. You can program the times when the heating turns on automatically and the temps only via internet. On the thermostat on the wall there is only a manual control that sets the temp for "now", a knob.

>
This is a false design economy:  "Let's skip the interface on the actual
device in favor of one on some OTHER device."  It invites the two falling
out of sync with each other as there is nothing ensuring updates to one
are also propagated to the other.

 They save hardware and firmware, which was my point.

They MOVED those "savings" to a server that they now have to maintain
"in perpetuity".  You'd probably be annoyed to discover that feature
you wanted so much has stopped working because they shut down the
server (sold the company to someone who opted not to continue
supporting "legacy" products)
Again, the customer pays the price.  Always (no free lunch)