Re: This wouldn't have happened with Foxbox...

[Michiel de Jong]

+1, we could start making Project Link into something people associate with "no mandatory cloud service".

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Christiane Ruetten <c...@mozilla.com> wrote:

... or at least I hope it wouldn't have:

http://www.businessinsider.de/googles-nest-closing-smart-home-company-revolv-bricking-devices-2016-4?r=UK&IR=T

This story nicely highlights the perils of a mandatory cloud service.


--

Christiane Ruetten
Connected Devices Security
Device Liberation

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FoxLink" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foxlink+u...@mozilla.com.
To post to this group, send an email to fox...@mozilla.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.com/d/msgid/foxlink/5225a36e-3ed7-f8dc-bb47-2b99fb117cbb%40mozilla.com.

[Fabrice Desré]

I don't think this story says anything about the perils of the cloud.
However It says a lot about relying on proprietary silos.
If all the code needed to use your box is open source and deployable by
anyone, needing some service in the cloud is not the problem.

On 04/04/2016 07:32 PM, Michiel de Jong wrote:
> +1, we could start making Project Link into something people associate
> with "no mandatory cloud service".
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Christiane Ruetten <c...@mozilla.com
> <mailto:c...@mozilla.com>> wrote:
>
> ... or at least I hope it wouldn't have:
>
> http://www.businessinsider.de/googles-nest-closing-smart-home-company-revolv-bricking-devices-2016-4?r=UK&IR=T
>
> This story nicely highlights the perils of a mandatory cloud service.
>
>
> --
>
> Christiane Ruetten
> Connected Devices Security
> Device Liberation

--

Fabrice Desré
Connected Devices
Mozilla Corporation

[Michiel de Jong]

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Fabrice Desré <fab...@mozilla.com> wrote:

I don't think this story says anything about the perils of the cloud. However It says a lot about relying on proprietary silos.
If all the code needed to use your box is open source and deployable by anyone, needing some service in the cloud is not the problem.

Even for self-hostable services it's a bummer when they're being shut down, especially if it's hard-coded into each box. IMHO we should avoid building a centralized killswitch that can instantly make each foxbox unusable if its hosting stops.

[Michiel de Jong]

That's not entirely correct; in the current proposal [1] there are two box-client discovery schemes, one based on mDNS + self-signed certs (this requires the Cordova-packaged version of our default app, but at least it's not centrally brickable, except for the tunnel functionality), and one which also works in browsers (that one uses the hard-coded registration_server and dns-server instance on knilxof.org).

So we *are* more resilient than Revolv in that respect. ;)

Cheers,

Michiel.

[1] https://github.com/fxbox/RFC/pull/12

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Sam Giles <sgi...@mozilla.com> wrote:

Unfortunately, in order for apps to use browser features such as push and service worker, we requires https (oh, and encrypted communication ;)) , https doesn't work with an mDNS name.  To get around this, we're relying on an external DNS service to resolve your box internally.

Without some standardisation around securing local connections, or a workaround in a native app, we can't be cloudless and have a very nice UX.

Sam

On 5 Apr 2016 9:57 am, "Christiane Ruetten" <c...@mozilla.com> wrote:

On 05/04/2016 10:25, Michiel de Jong wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Fabrice Desré <fab...@mozilla.com
> <mailto:fab...@mozilla.com>> wrote:
>
>     I don't think this story says anything about the perils of the
>     cloud. However It says a lot about relying on proprietary silos.

Good point. It certainly says something about that, too.

>     If all the code needed to use your box is open source and deployable
>     by anyone, needing some service in the cloud is not the problem.
>
>
> Even for self-hostable services it's a bummer when they're being shut
> down, especially if it's hard-coded into each box. IMHO we should avoid
> building a centralized killswitch that can instantly make each foxbox
> unusable if its hosting stops.

Indeed. You'd still end up with a bunch of bricked devices when an
integral cloud service shuts down (perhaps worse: becomes temporarily
unreachable). For the non-technical user it barely helps that it may be
possible to somehow unbrick their home again.

In my opinion, introducing a mandatory, single global point of failure
out of user control is a bad idea when it comes to their homes. To be
clear: I am fully supportive of optional cloud services for enhancing
user experience. I am sure that people will come up with some awesome
concepts there.

As far as I can see on our current trajectory, the combination of Foxbox
and its initially-paired app can't be cloudbroken when on the same local
network. As long as this fallback remains, we're good.

cr

>
>
>
>     On 04/04/2016 07:32 PM, Michiel de Jong wrote:
>
>         +1, we could start making Project Link into something people
>         associate
>         with "no mandatory cloud service".
>
>         On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Christiane Ruetten
>         <c...@mozilla.com <mailto:c...@mozilla.com>

>         <mailto:c...@mozilla.com <mailto:c...@mozilla.com>>> wrote:
>
>             ... or at least I hope it wouldn't have:
>
>
>         http://www.businessinsider.de/googles-nest-closing-smart-home-company-revolv-bricking-devices-2016-4?r=UK&IR=T
>
>             This story nicely highlights the perils of a mandatory cloud
>         service.
>
>
>             --
>
>             Christiane Ruetten
>             Connected Devices Security
>             Device Liberation
>
>
>     --
>     Fabrice Desré
>     Connected Devices
>     Mozilla Corporation
>
>


--

Christiane Ruetten
Connected Devices Security
Device Liberation

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FoxLink" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foxlink+u...@mozilla.com.
To post to this group, send an email to fox...@mozilla.com.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.com/d/msgid/foxlink/6e046eca-f306-5a94-73e2-c117e8458170%40mozilla.com.