Comment on Detroit man steals 800 gallons using Bluetooth to hack gas pumps at station
foggy@lemmy.world 1 year agoTransport level is absolutely a security vulnerability vector.
TCP is absolutely low security if not configured correctly.
I don’t know what it is you’re trying to say. I agree that this instance was probably security through obscurity, but to say that Bluetooth, and TCP are not security considerations is absolutely ridiculous.
MeanEYE@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Of course wired connection is inherently safer than wireless. There’s no question about it. And yes you can absolutely exploit at every layer of communication, but this here is not the case of exploiting Bluetooth as transport layer. It’s simply someone not configuring anything or adding any additional verification and just hoping no one finds out.
foggy@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Okay, but your claim that my comparing Bluetooth to USB being like comparing Bluetooth to TCP is misinformed at best.
MeanEYE@lemmy.world 1 year ago
My comment had nothing to do with Bluetooth vs. USB comparison. I only said Bluetooth is a transport layer and claiming it’s “notoriously bad security” is not all that correct since most of the security parts come on top of it. So in many ways Bluetooth is quite similar to TCP, at least from point of communication. From the software point of view, both with Bluetooth and TCP, you create a socket then send and receive data through it. Literally the same interface. Protecting data that goes through either method is meant to be done at that point be it with encryption, identity verification, whatever.
Same thing applies to USB, but being physical it has added benefit of having to connect to it but that opens whole set of new potential issues. So it’s easier to physically protect it, but should that protection fail, you might end up in even more trouble.
foggy@lemmy.world 1 year ago
You can disable a USB port and require remote SSH to enable it.
USB is way safer.