There is no Big Bang in IoT!
This perspective is not shared by a lot of people. A lot of hype is around the new greenfield of IoT. It is my contention that IoT is the new term for a lot of technologies that previously existed. RMM, Telematics, M2M, PLC, HVAC and SCADA predate the adoption of the term IoT. Yet, if you read the news out of MWC, many of the new solutions are talked about as if they live in a bubble.
Some solutions announced attack new problems. They are amazing. I am not arguing that there is nothing new under the sun.
My contention is that their is no longer a greenfield when it comes to networking. Read the stories of IoT breaches, I find that the issue of legacy systems being now reachable with the additional connectivity is the problem.
Now certain systems are bound to be attacked. Often Bryan Krebs writing on Krebs on Security is telling us about skimmers and other Point of Sale systems. These kind of breaches come with their own alarm system (namely the consumer's bill).
We do have cases though where the reach into systems, is far less detectable. As Richard Soley points out. There are two kinds of companies. Those that know they have been breached and those that do not.
So my contention here is that deploying IoT is augmenting an existing system. Hardening your IoT system on existing structure may still mask the existing breaches.
Therefore deploying IoT represents an opportunity to rethink and retool your security strategies.
Experienced Sales & Engineering Leader | Technology Expert |Telecom Expert |Trusted Advisor to Fortune 500
7 年Hi Carl, what do you think about this blockchain trend as it relates to moving into IOT? https://hbr.org/2017/02/a-brief-history-of-blockchain?utm_campaign=hbr&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Chief Architect @ GAIN Credit | Founder, Strategic Advisor
7 年IOT seems to be built on 40+ years of microprocessor and software "prior art". It would be hard to create something truly "Big Bang" in my opinion since everything has been incremental. The security posture appears to be a problem with living too far up the abstraction model and not understanding what is really going on at the kernel or micro code level. Too many developers are grateful their project compiled or loaded and do not profile or examine "how it works". In the container space there is a lot of talk about "Least Privilege Model" that tries to turn off "everything" that the container does not explicitly need. If IOT wants a Big Bang it will need to Move toward a least privilege model and spend the time to minimize the threat surface dragged along by living too far up the abstraction ladder. Standing on the shoulders of giants is great, building on top of ancient programming models with implicit trust models is not.
Entrepreneurial Innovation Pioneer * Trusted Advisor & Virtual Keynote Speaker
7 年Uncanny that should post my thoughts and the very discussion I was having with an industry colleague only yesterday!
Good post. This point needs to be made, but I would like to make the obvious statement that IoT has the word 'internet' in it. This is why it should be viewed as distinct to M2M and previous approaches. Devices and people will be equal in accessing resources and data in a collaborative way. The reason why I like your post is because, like the traditional web, information structures build up from the small activities of many disparate things. The world wide web was a success because it resisted the attempts of larger players to create this big bang.
?????????? ??????????????, ??????????????, ????????????????, ????????????????
7 年Agree. IOT started a long journey way back in 1999. Like identity, privacy and many other topics it keeps morphing. However digital fabrication makes it easy and possible - imho that is the difference right now. Ideas can become real in weeks with close to no budget, just like the early apps