[iot-wg] some suggestions on "work items" for the WG

> On 16 Feb 2018, at 16:58, Marco Davids (SIDN) <marco.davids at sidn.nl> wrote:
> 
> We envision more functionality in CPEs to better deal with the risks of
> compromised IoT devices in the homenet.

This particular point was also discussed at the IoT Roundtable event in September last year, quoting from the meeting report:

> "A key discussion point was whether providers have an ethical obligation to protect users. A presentation by Enno Rey from ENRW introduced the idea of using CPE as a shield to protect customers' devices at home. He noted that, by default, many ports are open that people will never need or use – so providers should consider closing some of these (e.g. Telnet). This approach would have prevented the Mirai attack. It was noted, however, that providers should be wary of creating an “assisted Internet experience” that disempowers users in the name of protecting them. It was added that manufacturers had a responsibility for devices that couldn't be addressed by blocking ports.”

(https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/roundtable/september-2017/ripe-iot-roundtable-meeting-21-september-2017/meeting-report)

Apart from the CPE, I also see a bit if trend in dedicated gateway devices, such as SENSE, being announced or actually shipped for the purpose of securing home IoT networks.

Certainly an interesting area that I would encourage people to discuss further, also in relation to the talks regarding duty of care that appear in various Internet governance venues.

MarcoH
RIPE NCC