Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.endofthelinebbs.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Edward Rawde" Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: Win11 explorer bug? Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 14:32:30 -0500 Organization: BWH Usenet Archive (https://usenet.blueworldhosting.com) Lines: 52 Message-ID: References: <13vgljdqp79a2onuijph2om08fk99u2fdm@4ax.com> Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 19:32:31 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com; logging-data="1448"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blueworldhosting.com" Cancel-Lock: sha1:cQm1GBcb3tIhGCRmPWcfxIbBCJ4= sha256:rMQ6QfcVMKdiBae0oVpJrW85mSiAAQeGbY3AU+a8sPQ= sha1:aAkp/l6i0XIaPHZ3+IamjkbJSTc= sha256:9WlJvmFoE9E+K3F+gbp4ZjxCu8EfCRB2E0H585Zm+s8= X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Priority: 3 Bytes: 4310 "Don Y" wrote in message news:vjf6rs$2rvlf$1@dont-email.me... > On 12/12/2024 8:08 AM, Edward Rawde wrote: >> "Don Y" wrote in message news:vjennd$24vi6$1@dont-email.me... >>> On 12/12/2024 5:47 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> On 2024-12-12 12:00, Don Y wrote: >>>>> Yeah, I'm REALLY eager to turn on the factory's WiFi interface >>>>> for the stove/oven... NOT! >>>> >>>> There are devices that put the actual interface on the phone, via WiFi. The physical interface has a reduced set of features. >>> >>> Yes. Via a server located at the manufacturer's facility! >>> >>> So, you have the application layer in the appliance, the network stack in the >>> appliance, all of the network infrastructure from your AP to the manufacturer's >>> server, then, back through the phone network, up through the stack in your >>> phone and, finally, through the app to the display. >> >> I hate this too. >> I'm resistant to cameras which bounce off the manufacturer's server, which could be anywhere. > > Also meaning subject to the laws of different countries (based on its > siting). > > Is there any reason the camera can't talk to a phone that is also > hosted by the customer's access point? > > If you want to let the camera access a phone that is NOT "local", > then let the user subscribe to a DynDNS service -- provided by > any number of competing firms (even the manufacturer -- via a nice > clean OPEN interface). Inbound is problematic for various reasons. Do you want your cameras accepting inbound connections from anywhere in the world? Ok they don't have access credentials but there's still a risk of an 0-day in a camera system which isn't going to get any more firmware updates. I would do this myself because I can use a firewall to restrict inbound as necessary and I can quickly add any IP or network attempting brute force to a blacklist. But most people have no interest in that. Most people just want the pictures on their phone wherever they are and they may wrongly assume that it's impossible for the pictures to be viewed by anyone other than themselves. > > E.g., that data, passing through the server, is no longer under > YOUR control. And, can be monetized without your compensation. > > This is possible with ANY device that passes through an unnecessary > server. (Your smart thermostat knows when you are home, when > you are "active", etc.) > >