On 09/28/2016 01:31 PM, Sean Lynch wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net
> <mailto:admin@pilobilus.net>> wrote:
> "Physical access is game over" so it may turn out that whoever owns
> the most Things wins after all.
>
>
> Ownership of Things is not permanent, though. Maintaining a botnet
> is a neverending battle.
I need to understand Things better. It makes sense to me that one can
buy or borrow a Thing, disassemble it in the hardware then the
firmware sense, and options for taking over that whole family or
series of Things should present themselves - hard coded back doors for
vendor configuration updates or etc. should be quite common. What I
don't understand is how one would go about identifying the right
addresses to send bogus vendor patches or other exploit code to,
without access to the vendor's own database of incoming pings from
Things. MITM the vendor's connection and collect them as they pass?
Send connection requests to Things at whole IP address ranges and see
who answers?