Security Researchers Expose Vulnerability in Philips Hue Smart Bulbs

Even more reason not to have such a ludicrously high level of connected devices. ;)

Yeah instead of fixing the issues and continuing to enjoy smart devices, let's go back to the stone age, I agree. Hang on, I'll get the candles lit and then we'll go out hunting

Are you sure about that? I have separate 2.4 and 5 GHz networks, and some of my devices are on the 2.4 and some on the 5, but they all still communicate with each other. Would it be the same with a VLAN?

No. In your case both Wifi bands are connected to the same IP subnet, so they are not isolated at all. When using VLANs with Wifi, you'd typically use multiple Wifi SSIDs and connect them to different VLANs.

Or is the entire idea that you can’t communicate across that barrier?

Yes, that's the point. Once you have set up separate VLANs (which are used to create separate IP subnets), you can control the traffic flow between them by setting up routing and firewall rules between them with an appropriate router. It does require some networking knowledge.

Even more reason not to have such a ludicrously high level of connected devices. ;)

Or just doing an update like you do on your smart watch, phone, laptop, TV or tablet? Or did you abandon those as well after their first security flaw?

So what a hacker is going to change the color of my lights :oops:

How far is too far with connected devices, lightbulbs, door locks, doorbells, refrigerators, toasters. Do we really need all that much connectivity?

They get access to the machines on the same network.

Even more reason not to have such a ludicrously high level of connected devices. ;)

Given this is down to a Zigbee vulnerability there are non IoT ramifications. Many alarm systems use Zigbee for their sensors to talk to the control unit. Using the same underlying vulnerability could you trick a sensor into saying everything is fine when it isn’t?

Did any of you read the article? To gain access to the ENTIRE network the device must first be compromised and unresponsive, then you must take action to remove that device and re-add it to your zigbee hub. Only at that point, as I understand it, your network becomes infected.

So if you have a zigbee device that goes unresponsive, be very weary of it. We've been running zigbee devices for too many years to count and I haven't had one go unresponsive yet (knocks on wood). So thank you MR for this tip that if one ever does go unresponsive it needs to be dealt with accordingly.

Given the frequency of vulnerabilities being found in internet connected devices, is it reasonable to connect all such devices to your router’s ‘guest’ network, rather than your core Wi-Fi network, which holds your computer/PC/iPad/phone?

Would that restrict access to devices on the guest network only, if compromised and hacked? ie your core computers would be safe..

I keep seeing this suggestion but I can only picture how frustrating this would be in reality.

Lets put the Hue Hub on a secondary network.
Start with HomePod. Tell one of our HomePods to turn on or off a Hue device, but now it cant because the Hue Hub is on our secondary network. Hmm...
Ok so lets put the HomePods on that secondary network. But if the HomePods are on the secondary network I cant stream audio from my phone or ipad to the HomePod because those devices are on the primary network. I also cannot stream audio from apple TV to homepods.
Ok so lets put the apple TV's on that secondary network. But if apple TV's are on the secondary network then I cant stream movies and TV shows to the apple TV's from my mac Mini that acts like a pseudo-server.
Ok so lets put the mac mini to that secondary network. But now all we have left on the primary are phones, ipads and a rarely used macbook pro that is usually asleep. We still cannot stream anything from those devices to the HomePods or Apple TV's but hey, we're more secure, right? If we move phones and ipads to the secondary network all we have left on the primary is that rarely used 2010 MacBook Pro that is usually asleep; but again, more secure!
Or you have some crazy combo here and your constantly switching from primary network to secondary network wasting so much time to avoid a very small chance you'll ever be hacked.

Given the frequency of vulnerabilities being found in internet connected devices, is it reasonable to connect all such devices to your router’s ‘guest’ network, rather than your core Wi-Fi network, which holds your computer/PC/iPad/phone?

Would that restrict access to devices on the guest network only, if compromised and hacked? ie your core computers would be safe..

It is generally a good idea to connect IoT devices to an isolated network from a security perspective. However, in many cases this means you'll no longer be able to control the devices from a phone unless it is also connected to the isolated network. The latter, in turn, makes it difficult to use some of Apple's integration features such as Continuity, ('https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204681') since they generally require that the phone and other Apple computers/devices are on the same network.

Given the frequency of vulnerabilities being found in internet connected devices, is it reasonable to connect all such devices to your router’s ‘guest’ network, rather than your core Wi-Fi network, which holds your computer/PC/iPad/phone?

Would that restrict access to devices on the guest network only, if compromised and hacked? ie your core computers would be safe..