Re: Win11 explorer bug?

"Don Y" <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote in message news:vjf6rs$2rvlf$1@dont-email.me...

On 12/12/2024 8:08 AM, Edward Rawde wrote:

"Don Y" <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote in message news:vjennd$24vi6$1@dont-email.me...

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!
>
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.

>
I hate this too.
I'm resistant to cameras which bounce off the manufacturer's server, which could be anywhere.

>
Also meaning subject to the laws of different countries (based on its
siting).
>
Is there any reason the camera can't talk to a phone that is also
hosted by the customer's access point?
>
If you want to let the camera access a phone that is NOT "local",
then let the user subscribe to a DynDNS service -- provided by
any number of competing firms (even the manufacturer -- via a nice
clean OPEN interface).

Inbound is problematic for various reasons.
Do you want your cameras accepting inbound connections from anywhere in the world?
Ok they don't have access credentials but there's still a risk of an 0-day in a camera system which isn't going to get any more
firmware updates.
I would do this myself because I can use a firewall to restrict inbound as necessary and I can quickly add any IP or network
attempting brute force to a blacklist.
But most people have no interest in that.
Most people just want the pictures on their phone wherever they are and they may wrongly assume that it's impossible for the
pictures to be viewed by anyone other than themselves.

>
E.g., that data, passing through the server, is no longer under
YOUR control.  And, can be monetized without your compensation.
>
This is possible with ANY device that passes through an unnecessary
server.  (Your smart thermostat knows when you are home, when
you are "active", etc.)
>