On Nov 15, 2011, at 1:43 PM, Joel jaeggli <[email protected]> wrote: > A decade and a half worth of bluetooth security associations including > really bad ones says otherwise.
Yes, and the reason it works is because for most devices, there is no security, and for the remaining devices, there's a screen that can give you instructions. Have you ever owned a bluetooth headset that didn't have a PIN of 0000? > Personal devices by in large are shedding data-ports where possible and > especially for low speed interaction. Maybe so. Do you expect the iPad three to get rid of its USB port? What about my next Android phone? If your point is that networks are increasingly going to be wireless-only, with no means of plugging a physical token into the device, then yes, I agree, we can't solve this problem for those devices. Either they aggressively autoconfigure, and form networks that shouldn't have been formed, or they are configured manually, by grandma's grandson. > And I see that as a usable outcome, as rather unlikely. No offense, but I don't really care what your opinion is. What I care about is what actually happens. It may be that you are right, but if so, then I don't really think we can solve this problem. > As a consumer I want to bring the thing home, turn it on, and have it work. As a consumer, I want it to strew flowers at my feet as I walk into the house, and clean them up afterwards. What you want as a consumer is probably more possible than what I want, but what you will get will be a system that has some really bad failure modes. _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
