this post was submitted on 02 May 2024
362 points (97.6% liked)

Technology

59605 readers
3501 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 33 points 6 months ago (4 children)

I wouldn’t be surprised if someone reverse-engineers the protocol and codes up their own replacement backend as a one-file Python script in a weekend.

[–] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 20 points 6 months ago (3 children)

That truly depends on how secure Ecobee made it… I’ve seen some smart devices that use SSL (https) for all communication and do some sort of certificate authentication, making it virtually impossible to decrypt its communication protocol without a valid private key…

Having said that, it’d be nice if Ecobee took the initiative and opened up these older devices, if they could do so without comprising the security of all their others.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 3 points 6 months ago

Is the firmware enclosed in a SOC with no way of reading/extracting it? If not, if all else fails, someone will extract it and dissect it with Ghidra or something, extracting whatever encryption keys are needed. If so, and there aren’t any documented side-channel attacks for reading the firmware from this SOC, if firmware updates exist, they too constitute an attack surface. (They probably would be encrypted, but how strongly?)

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)