Re: Win11 explorer bug?

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 19:58:36 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2024-12-12 16:41, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

On 12/12/24 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!
 
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>

 
Apart from the obvious security and reliability worries, there is
the issue that the *manufacturer* gets to decide when *your* device
is obsolete.

>
The device has a limited life expectancy, anyway. About 10 years. The
boiler needs replacement of rubber gasket every year or two. There is a
mandatory yearly maintenance visit. With the remote controller,
maintenance visits are every two years, because the remote server
monitors the parameters and decides when a visit is needed.
>
So, that convenience is decisive for me. Win win.

A dodge occurs to me:  Install a simple firewall between external
Internet and internal network that hosts such things as cameras and
furnaces.  Set the firewall to accept only one of a small set of white
listed sources, and otherwise not to reply.

White lists have the advantage of immunity to attempts from random
places.  The lack of response if not white listed will defeat most
port IP address and scanners, even though the firewall most likely can
be hacked if known. 

Upgrade the firewall from time to time, to sorta keep up with the
threats.

Joe Gwinn