One of the questions that comes up during the great debate on the security of Internet of Things (IoT) is the responsibility of device manufacturers to support those devices. When we buy a refrigerator or a toaster, we expect that device to last through the warranty date and well beyond. Assuming it is a well-made unit it may last for a long time. But what about devices that only live as long as someone else wants them to?

Time's Up!

Remember Revolv? The smart hub for your home that was purchased by Nest? They stopped selling the device in October 2014 after being purchased, but a year and a half later they killed the service entirely. The Internet was noticeably upset and cried out that Google and Nest had done a huge disservice to their customers by killing the product. The outcry was so fierce that Nest ended up offering refunds for devices.

The drive to create new devices for IoT consumption is huge. Since most of them require some kind of app or service to operate correctly, it also stands to reason that these devices are reliant on the app to work properly. In the case of Revolv, once the app was shut down the device was no longer able to coordinate services and essentially became a huge paperweight. A few companies have chosen to create a software load that allows devices to function in isolated mode, but those are few and far between.

The biggest concern for security here is what happens when those devices that are abandoned by still function are left to their own ends. A fair number of the devices used in the recent IoT botnet attacks were abandonware cameras that were running their last software update. Those devices aren't going to have security holes patched or get new features. The fact that they work at all owes more to them being IP-based devices than anything else.

Killing In The Name Of IoT

However, if those manufacturers had installed a kill switch instead of allow the cameras to still work it would have prevented some of the chaos from the attack. Yes, the buyers of those cameras would have been irritated that the functionality was lost. But it could have made a massive security issue easier to deal with.

Should manufacturers be responsible for installing a software cut-out that allows a device to be remotely disabled when the support period expires? That's a thorny legal question. It opens the manufacturer up to lawsuits and class action filings about creating products with known defects. But it also raises the question of whether or now these same manufacturers should have a greater duty to the safety of the Internet.

And this isn't taking into account the huge issues with industrial IoT devices. Could you imagine what might happen if an insulin pump or an electrical smart meter was compromised and used as an attack vector? The damage could be catastrophic. Worse yet, even with a kill switch or cut-out to prevent transmission, neutering those devices renders them non-functional and potentially hazardous. Medical devices that stop working cause harm and possibly death. Electrical meters that go offline create hazards for people living in homes.

Decisions, Decisions

There's no easy answer to all these problems. Someone is going to be mad no matter what we decide. Either these devices live on in their last known configuration and can be exploited or they get neutered when they shutdown. The third option, having manufacturers support devices forever, isn't feasible either. So we have to make some choices here. We have to stand up for what we think is right and make it happen.

Make sure your IoT policy spells out what happens to out-of-support devices. Make sure your users know that you are going to implement a traffic kill switch if your policy spells it out. Knowledge is key here. Users will understand your reasons if communicated ahead of time. And using tools from Solarwinds to track those devices and keep tabs on them helps you figure out when it's time to implement those policies. Better to have it sorted out now than have to deal with a problem when it happens.