Slashdot Mirror


Even the Dumbest Ransomware Is Almost Unremovable On Smart TVs (symantec.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Apparently even the easiest-to-remove ransomware is painfully hard to uninstall from smart TVs, if they're running on the Android TV platform, and many are. This didn't happen in a real-world scenario (yet), and was only a PoC test by Symantec. The researcher managed to remove the ransomware only because he enabled the Android ADB tool beforehand, knowing he would infect the TV with the ransomware. "Without this option enabled, and if I was less experienced user, I'd probably still be locked out of my smart TV, making it a large and expensive paper weight," said the researcher.

151 comments

  1. Monday, Monday !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is the one day, just like any other, that you are GOING TO GET SCREWED !!

    1. Re: Monday, Monday !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is Rebecca Black up to Monday already? Seems like She just blessed us with Friday a short while ago.

    2. Re: Monday, Monday !! by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      Well, you know how the weekends just fly by...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  2. "Reset to factory settings" button by ZorinLynx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why the heck don't these devices have a "Reset to factory settings" button?

    Flash memory is cheap. Have a permanent, unmodifiable copy of the firmware the device ships with. If you power it on while holding the button, copy that firmware over as the active firmware, clear out the user data area, and restart. Boom! TV is back to normal.

    This sort of thing is ludicrously easy to implement and would save the companies money on warranty repairs.

    I have a JBL speaker that I had to ship back to the manufacturer to be replaced because of a bad firmware update. A simple reset button like the one I described would have saved me a ton of pain and saved JBL money on shipping the speaker both ways. WHY isn't this sort of thing universal?

    1. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have a JBL speaker that I had to ship back to the manufacturer to be replaced because of a bad firmware update. A simple reset button like the one I described would have saved me a ton of pain and saved JBL money on shipping the speaker both ways. WHY isn't this sort of thing universal?

      Because, for every person like you, there are 10 that would just say "Speaker not work. Must buy new speaker." Repair options do not spur new sales.

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    2. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by ZorinLynx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is a $400 speaker. Are you saying people are such sheep that after doing a firmware update that breaks the speaker, they wouldn't bitch to the manufacturer? I find it hard to believe anyone would give up on a $400 speaker that quickly, unless they are rich and $400 is nothing to them.

    3. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because companies are lay, cheap, overly optimistic, and not really interested in designing robust products which can be maintained over their lifecycle.

      Extra money spent up-front cuts into profitability, adds cost and complexity, and would have to be done by an organization which is cautious and makes long-term plans.

      Do you think the marketing guys screeching to get the product out before Christmas give a crap about any of this stuff?

      Sure, lots of things can be designed robustly. But increasingly, nobody gives a damn. They just figure you'll just buy another TV.

      Consumer electronics aren't exactly being designed to the highest engineering standards known to man. They're being put out the door as cheaply as possible.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why the heck don't these devices have a "Reset to factory settings" button?

      Because that would just re-install the eDellRoot CA certificate and Lenovo Service Engine.

      Seriously, the only safe way anymore is to just build your own crystal radio and leave it at that.

    5. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      They do. You boot to recovery mode (or I think the bootloader can do it too?) and then wipe the /data partition, that should restore everything to defaults. Nothing should be able to write to /system (the OS) while the OS is running. I don't know exactly how Android TV is supposed to expose recovery mode functionality though, or even if it does, but it seems to me like it's essential for support.

    6. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by TWX · · Score: 1

      Because that would just re-install the eDellRoot CA certificate and Lenovo Service Engine.

      A running platform that needs a security audit is preferable to a broken platform that's already compromised or rendered useless.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    7. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I find it hard to believe anyone would give up on a $400 speaker that quickly, unless they are rich and $400 is nothing to them.

      I find it hard to believe a damned speaker needs firmware upgrades.

      Oh, but wait, it's controllable by an app, has Bluetooth and wifi, and connects to the internet, right?

      Yeah ... me, I don't want speakers which do that stuff. Precisely because time and time again companies demonstrate they're terrible at it, and you end up with a product with a MUCH shorter lifecycle -- because it's focused on 10 things besides being a good speaker.

      My guess, if it needs firmware updates, it's really a $100 speaker with a bunch of extra crap slapped onto it.

      These days, digital pretty much means disposable.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    8. Re: "Reset to factory settings" button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By and large, the people who spend 400 bucks on a speaker system have no idea what "firmware" is. They have no idea what broke. They probably have some i thing too.

    9. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      The premise is that somebody bought a crappy speaker for $400. In addition to that, they bought a computer that runs software that they can't maintain. And then they decided to give that unmaintainable computer Internet access.

      What makes you predict they're suddenly going to start making rational, safe or cost-effective decisions?

      What you call "hard to believe" I call "follows as being 100% consistent with the mentality that person has already demonstrated."

    10. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People toss out, rather than fix, $1k+ LCD TVs because one $0.50 capacitor in the power supply ghosted.

    11. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      More importantly they wouldn't have an un-modifiable copy in flash, as it would still be possible to modify this. You would be doing it in PROM, EPROM or EEPROM. These are not as cheap as Flash, and not as easy to configure as to implement in an affordable. This is in consideration is that the size for these are in the Megabytes, not Gigabytes. The one change would be to have at least a recovery option, but this is more of an android issue, as there is no easy way to recover a bricked phone.

    12. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by davidwr · · Score: 1

      This. Especially for consumer devices.

      The only reasons NOT to have a user-accessible "factory reset" button is if the customer specifically doesn't want one (such as for anti-theft firmware where the customer does not want the thief disabling it without entering a code or possessing a hardware "key") or where there is a legal requirement to not allow the person in possession of the device to reset it (such as an ankle-monitor used by some people on parole, probation, or out on bond awaiting criminal trial).

      Except for "so cheap they are disposable" devices and perhaps devices where there are national-security or very-strong-legal implications or where the end user specifically does not want one, there should always be a "reset switch" that is accessible to factory-authorized repair shops and, ideally, legal protection against price-gouging if an end user has to take the device into a factory-authorized shop to have it "reset" due to bricking.

      --
      Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    13. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

      Oh, but wait, it's controllable by an app, has Bluetooth and wifi, and connects to the internet, right?

      I get that. However, it is nice not to have to string up wires all over the place (or to crawl through the crawlspace above my ceiling to hide wires.)

    14. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by Noah+Haders · · Score: 3, Insightful

      i had to upgrade the firmware on my wireless powered speakers, and it was a pain. next time, i'm getting a pair of passive speakers and an integrated amp.

    15. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by Noah+Haders · · Score: 3, Interesting

      yes, but which capacitor was it? and how do you fix it? maybe they wanted to get a 4k anyway?

    16. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      It's a trade off you'll have to decide for yourself.

      For me, if there was a $400 JBL speaker which had wireless and internet and could be controlled by an app, and a $400 JBL speaker which simply took inputs over wires from an amplifier ... I'm going to assume the one which needs the wire and the amplifier is, all things considered, a significantly better speaker.

      Because it doesn't have all that extra stuff in it.

      When the poster says it's a $400 speaker ... it's not really. It's a much cheaper speaker with electronics and other features slapped around it which cause problems down the road, and jack up the price of a cheap speaker that people think is a $400 speaker.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    17. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      A simple reset button like the one I described would have saved me a ton of pain and saved JBL money on shipping the speaker both ways. WHY isn't this sort of thing universal?

      Not sure how much help a reset to factory settings button would be for either a corrupted firmware update but yes, it might help against ransomware that installed as an application and didn't infest the firmware.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    18. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Even if they were too stingy for the extra flash; something like this TV is going to have at least one USB port; possibly an SD slot or the like. Something as trivial as just looking for a suitably structured flash drive as the first boot device; and booting normally if one isn't present, would make DIY recovery trivial for anyone not afraid of 'download this and write it to a flash drive'; and allow even the technophobe to be mailed a flash drive/SD card; told to plug it in, unplug the TV,and plug the TV back in.

      I don't know if they just care that little, if they don't want to make it easier to remove the 'smart' TV spyware that is usually included, or what; but anything small enough to not have easy-to-use external mass storage probably has so little firmware that a backup would be vanishingly cheap; and anything large enough to have some user-friendly option would just need a bootloader that checks for recovery media first in order to be effectively impossible to brick. Doesn't seem that tricky.

    19. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the poster says it's a $400 speaker

      Oh come on it is a JBL, it isn't worth $40 even with WiFi in it. You can get 4 foot tall Polk 3 way speakers with bass so tight you could shove coal up its ass and get diamonds for $400 a piece.

    20. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      I find it hard to believe anyone would give up on a $400 speaker that quickly, unless they are rich and $400 is nothing to them.

      I find it hard to believe a damned speaker needs firmware upgrades.

      Oh, but wait, it's controllable by an app, has Bluetooth and wifi, and connects to the internet, right?

      Yeah ... me, I don't want speakers which do that stuff. Precisely because time and time again companies demonstrate they're terrible at it, and you end up with a product with a MUCH shorter lifecycle -- because it's focused on 10 things besides being a good speaker.

      My guess, if it needs firmware updates, it's really a $100 speaker with a bunch of extra crap slapped onto it.

      These days, digital pretty much means disposable.

      My B&W M1s don't connect to the Internet. They do, however, benefit from a factory update that I recently installed that dropped their standby power consumption down considerably.

      Incidentally it is quite literally the best sounding pair of little speakers that I have ever heard and with regard to life-cycle, I've already had them for several years and I have no reason to expect them to die any time soon.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    21. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Define "good speaker". If you're sitting on the couch listening to music a good speaker is one that produces the best sound at the best price while still being good looking enough that the wife doesn't complain about how it looks in the living room.

      While going camping, or pick-nicking on the beach, or hosting a little backyard party a "good speaker" is the one with the longest battery life, biggest durability and best bluetooth range. In that regard I'll take my little do everything JBL over my fantastic sounding bookshelf speakers + cables + amp + source connection any day.

    22. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you paid $400 for JBL speakers you are an utter idiot.

    23. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever had a TV with good sounding speakers? The first thing I do with a new TV is wire it to my audio system. Even my bedroom TV is hooked up to a soundbar.

    24. Re: "Reset to factory settings" button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "tight bass" is just an excuse for speakers that don't play below 50hz.
      Polk is a toy next to jbl's better offerings:
      http://www.cnet.com/news/jbls-ultimate-speaker-everest-dd66000/

    25. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by mattventura · · Score: 2

      Better question is why does a TV have anything more than basic firmware (or just an ASIC) to begin with. This "Smart TV" crap (which seems to be more and more TVs, it's harder to buy a "Dumb TV") would be much better suited for a cable box or other peripheral.

    26. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      If you are using eMMC flash(not universal; but pretty common; since handling the ugly details of raw flash memory is annoying; and you pay a surprisingly tiny premium over raw flash for the controller); you can define multiple 'general purpose partitions', each with its own write protect status(including permanent write protect).

      I'd be utterly unsurprised if more than a few eMMC devices have defects of various flavors that make device-specific attacks on what are supposed to be one-time-writeable settings possible; but, barring a sufficiently motivated attacker, with enough privileges to send whatever malformed mmc commands are required to confuse the specifc eMMC part used in your device, it is fairly trivial to carve out a chunk of your eMMC device, write the restore image there, and then write lock it without needing additional packages, one of the intrinsically write-once flavors of silicon storage, or any other fancy measures.

      If you are really pinching pennies, and don't want to dedicate that much space on the onboard flash; you also have the option of making one or more user-accessible ports higher on the boot hierarchy than the internal flash(whether it be an SD slot, USB mass storage, or booting to fastboot or similar if connected to a USB host device). In that case you can shove all the storage requirements to some external location; while still making it virtually impossible to render the device unbootable.

    27. Re: "Reset to factory settings" button by sudon't · · Score: 1

      JBL makes some very good speakers, just not at that price point! I disagree with you about "tight bass", though. To me it means that a speaker is actually reproducing low frequencies, rather than using tuned cabinet resonance, (boomy bass), although I suppose that phrase might be used as a euphemism.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    28. Re: "Reset to factory settings" button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it hilarious that you are all shelling out hundreds of dollars for high end top notch speakers...

      then most likely shoving compressed MP3s through them... or if not compressed MP3s, compressed Bluetooth link...

    29. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you paid $400 for a cow that won't moo you are an udder idiot.

    30. Re: "Reset to factory settings" button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, tight bass means when the kick drum hit is a "bop" the speaker doesn't turn it into "booooooooom".

      Time-domain response, not frequency-domain.

      (And yes, sometimes that just means "no actual bass response.")

    31. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Define "good speaker".

      And there's the rub ... if you ever describe the sound of your speakers as "moist, peaty, and with chocolate overtones" ... well, I have no idea what you consider to be a "good" speaker. I sure as hell can't hear what you claim to be able to.

      I currently own four of these, and highly recommend them.

      They still use old-fashioned head-phone jacks, can be daisy chained, have hours of battery life and can be charged from USB ... utterly compatible with everything from an original Walkman to an iPhone, because everything still uses that headphone jack. There's no app or custom software, just a little 3.5mm jack. There's also no firmware updates.

      Those little suckers have traveled with me for the last 4 years ... they've been in hotels, in tropical resorts, in my backyard, poolside ... all four of them weigh in at less than a pound and take up very little space. Two of them have traveled with me everywhere I have flown since I got them, the other two are much newer but give me a little more flexibility.

      Being small little speakers, they have the benefit that in a relatively short distance you can't hear them at all. Which means the wife and I can have music that people 30 feet away can't even hear -- which is a bonus when you're in the back yard or lounging by a pool and don't want to disturb other people.

      I have literally hundreds if not thousands of hours on the damned things. I consider them awesome speakers, mostly because of their utility and portability.

      I'm with you, for overall utility and convenience, I define "good" as "good enough". But they completely eschew any form of network or wireless technology, because they don't need it.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    32. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by mlts · · Score: 0

      This, in a nutshell.

      I see this with computers. Someone has an issue with their desktop machine, they toss the old one and buy a new one. Phones? Instead of worrying about ROMs, they just toss theirs and buy a new one.

      People are conditioned to buy something new when stuff breaks. The TV goes bad? Buy a new one, and make sure to get the Geek Squad warranty so it can be exchanged if it breaks.

      Lets look at scenarios:

      Scenario 1: The TV maker puts in an "oh shit, reset all", which reloads a "1.0" OS from a ROM, or at least some onboard flash with writing disabled. This costs money for them to have it, and support costs to tell the user to press these keys while turning on the TV.

      Scenario 2: The TV maker just has their support tell customers they are hosed, and buy a new unit. Support costs are far less, since it is far quicker to tell someone to go to Best Buy than it is to hang on the phone. In addition, the TV maker makes a profit on a new set.

      With Scenario 2 being more profitable, which would they go with?

    33. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by mlts · · Score: 1

      For a little bit more, I can get a pair of studio grade monitors and perhaps a subwoofer. No, they may not have Bluetooth or whatnot, but that is what a stereo receiver is for.

      Of course, monitors are supposed to have a flat response across the board, but that is what equalizers are for, if one wants boominess.

        For a decent home system, speakers should have ports for audio, and that's it. Other equipment takes care of the other items. This way, no matter what upgrades to audio receivers happen, the speakers will always be usable. Adding electronics just means the component now is dated. For example, with 4K coming out, unless every component of a system is HDCP 2.2 compliant, you will wind up with blank video.

      Of course, it is quite obvious that none of this should be connected to the Internet other than maybe the audio receiver which is used for streaming. Everything else, if a firmware upgrade is needed, should be done by a USB flash or a SD card. Ideally, another physical switch or button used so the flashing process requires someone to actually have initiated it.

    34. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      The one with all its goo oozing out. By desoldering it and soldering in a new one. They would have done so and sold the old one on Craigslist already.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    35. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by crow_t_robot · · Score: 2

      Don't forget that it probably has a web browser written in-house by the manufacturing company that absolutely sucks ass and drained a massive amount of development manpower and money away from the speaker as well.

    36. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by LessThanObvious · · Score: 1

      A way to reject software updates or uninstall updates that break the device functionality is kind of a must also. Factory reset would be ok for that. They broke my TV with an update that was forced on me and I had to wait four months for another update that fixed it. It's my fucking TV I should have a choice.

    37. Re: "Reset to factory settings" button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like our users:

      "OK I moved my desk to be freestanding in the middle of the office, can you hook my PC and phone back up? Oh yeah... I don't want to see any wires."

    38. Re: "Reset to factory settings" button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if it's not connected how can the *AAs implement their plans to sue us all per play for every piece of music we already bought and paid for. Think it won't happen? Look me up in a few years (if you're not in jail).

    39. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because TV makers don't want you to fix your TV in any way. They want you to buy it, say "this is great", keep it running just long enough that it starts to seem a little old compared and tired to the new! shiny! model, then have it die so you replace it. If the death occurs in a way that implicates something other than poor manufacture (eg nasty people haxored it, or "it's just getting old and slow like a computer, you can't expect it to last forever grandpa") then that is the perfect scenario for them.

      (I'm not saying that this is a good thing. It's not. I'm just trying to explain their mindset, and the mindset they wish to instill in their customers).

    40. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Much of the time the bad capacitors are visible. The radial caps, the ones that stand upright, generally have a big "X" cut in the aluminum at the top of the can. Due in part to operating in a hot environment, caps degrade with either high leakage current or higher effective series resistance, both of which cause internal heating and pressure. That pressure often leads to a visible upward bulge in the middle of the "X" and sometimes goo out the bottom. The caps may be hot to the touch, sometimes even melting the plastic. I just revived a DTV converter box that was afflicted with the bulge. I'd be surprised if anyone else in my town had actually fixed one of those. It was an easy fix. The last PC I had fail is showing three bulging caps on the motherboard. A few years ago at least, many an iMac had chronic cap failures. Although caps commonly have rated temperatures of 85 or 105 degrees C, parts which have 20 plus year lifetimes at room temperature commonly fail in six months if run at the top of the temperature range. The quest to keep things small has made caps handing high ripple currents less able to radiate internal heat produced by series resistive losses.

      I've dealt with early JBL amplified computer speakers which performed surprisingly well (much better than the monstrous creatures that came later), but sadly they have the cases glued together. One set had the amp blown by an accident applying way too much voltage to the input. That wasn't JBLs fault, but the was no getting in to replace that $2 power IC. Another set gradually got to sound bad from dried out electrolytic caps serving bypass/feedback path functions. There's no getting to the amp board, but I may pull a driver and chop the wires headed to the closed-off amp, adding a connector through the side for an external amp.
      The speakers were expensive enough that I believe they easily could have made them in the U.S. Going so far as to make them not even serviceable here is unforgivable. I doubt that I will buy from them again. That's a vote that matters.

      The frustration of things glued together often extends to AC adaptors. Access into those could allow replacing output cords either to deal with failure or to help interface them for alternate uses. Getting to the electronics would permit replacement of failed caps (or as preventative maintenance), and minor changes to feedback resistors to a different output voltage output for another use.
      Such access reduce what goes to the landfill, ease separating electronics/casing for recycling, would provide better value for consumers, and would foster the education of experimenters.

    41. Re: "Reset to factory settings" button by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      They'll melt your amp too with the current they demand.

    42. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by vandamme · · Score: 1

      You're talking about people who don't own a screwdriver.

    43. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right. I'm also talking about people who most likely have cars in which they can drive their TV to a repair shop, and smartphones with which to find one. $100-200 is definitely cheaper than a new TV.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    44. Re:"Reset to factory settings" button by Lotharus · · Score: 1

      A good idea in theory, but that "unmodifiable" version will quickly become out-of-date. What happens when the showstopping bug is discovered in that rushed-to-market-we-can-issue-updates snapshot? Revert to the snapshot and then update from the internet? The hole so neatly plugged by having a ROM copy is now reopened by the update process.

  3. smart tvs are not smart by The-Ixian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is there any "smart" TV that actually works well?

    I have owned a few and I always end up hooking up the Roku because it just works.

    Seems like this is another reason not to hook up your smart TV to the Internet.

    --
    My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    1. Re:smart tvs are not smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Vizio apps work ok. Netflix/Hulu. But I much prefer the speed of my Google Nexus Player boxes so I never use the TV apps.

    2. Re:smart tvs are not smart by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have a LG 3D Smart TV and the apps on it suck. They're slower than my Apple TV or my XboxOne. I had one roommate that liked to push his Netflix from his phone to the TV, but that was the only time it was used like that.

    3. Re:smart tvs are not smart by wkwilley2 · · Score: 2

      This is just more evidence of the pace of tech vs. the pace of security.

      All of these processes are being put in place and the security of them is an afterthought.

      It's literally wide open right now.

      --
      Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
    4. Re:smart tvs are not smart by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well there's also the other problem that the software works fine for a while. But often they get few updates if any. So the features, UI, etc remain stuck for years. Take Netflix, for example, which has changed their interface and added more features. Most likely a smart TV's Netflix app will never see them. Little changes like changing the search alphabet layout, prominently displaying what you were watching last when it opens, etc. make a big difference.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    5. Re:smart tvs are not smart by TWX · · Score: 1

      Consumers don't like having to contend with making things work properly. Remember those crappy Fisher audio systems that looked a bit like a stereo stack, but were basically hollow shells? People bought them because they operated with one remote, even though they produced crap sound and would eat cassettes.

      It's not as easy to have separate discrete parts. I know, I still have a receiver/amplifier, VHS, cassette, phonograph, Laserdisc, Blu-ray, HDTV tuner, and projector, and at one point I had a stereo receiver that needed an external Dolby Pro Logic decoder for surround. On the one hand I feel it's a better experience than an all-in-one in terms of quality and of options, but on the other hand we watch most casual TV on the more-integrated stuff in another room and use this system when we're specifically sitting down to watch a movie.

      We're getting to where we'll need to push for greater consumer protections at a regulatory level. Companies still refuse to acknowledge that their products have problems. Obviously if they won't correct these problems themselves then they need to be forced to do so.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    6. Re:smart tvs are not smart by edtice1559 · · Score: 2

      Another poster commented that they hate their LG SMART TV. I particularly love mine and it just got updated to have Google Play Movies and TV App. (Doesn't help me since I am an Amazon Prime customer but still a feature useful to many). The magic remote is fantastic. It's MiraCast compatible (hopefully Chromecast too soon, but for now it works). I have two Rokus sitting in the garage. Having to use only one remote is really nice. I hate switching back and forth between Roku remote and TV remote for volume. I would buy mine again.

    7. Re:smart tvs are not smart by Rob+Lister · · Score: 1

      Is there any "smart" TV that actually works well? I have owned a few and I always end up hooking up the Roku because it just works.

      Perhaps the new LG powered by Roku TV

      :)

    8. Re:smart tvs are not smart by avandesande · · Score: 1

      I am sure most are aware but these smart tvs are riddled with manufacturer installed spyware.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    9. Re:smart tvs are not smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LG were the first to get caught logging your activity. Everything you watch, regardless of source (OTA, NAS, stream), is logged back at LG HQ. It's in their ToS, which you obviously didn't read. Samsung also do this, and will disable your networking functionality if their screens cannot talk to base. Yes, that means when they're doing maintenance, you lose functionality in your home that has nothing to do with any Internet service.

    10. Re:smart tvs are not smart by Crowd+Computing · · Score: 1

      What is there to ransom in a smart TV? Is it like a PC where a cyber-criminal can scramble your spreadsheets until you pay up? A more feasible threat would be the installation of password sniffers and the like, malware types which don't fall under the category of ransomware anymore since the information is in itself valuable to the cyber-criminals. On the other hand, simply getting locked out of your smart TV doesn't seem that catastrophic to me.

    11. Re:smart tvs are not smart by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Yes. I have one and I love it. It runs fast and has a ton of apps. It also gets a lot of updates.

      I just bought a google player box to replace my amazon fire tv in my bedroom. I was seriously debating getting a roku bx instead - would have if I could have gotten KODI/XBMC to run on my roku.

    12. Re:smart tvs are not smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got a 55" JVC "smart tv". It's a tv with a Roku stick bundled with it. I gotta admit it's pretty awesome though.

    13. Re:smart tvs are not smart by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Is there any "smart" TV that actually works well?

      Short answer: no.
      Long answer: analyse this release: http://www.extremetech.com/com...
      Samsung's new Quad Core TV is fast enough to be smart. Now let that sink in a bit. These systems are so incredibly poorly coded that they actually *require* a quad core processor to be usable.

      Disregarding the absurdity of reading a news article on the TV from the couch, or typing in characters into a Youtube search using a TV remote, the Smart TVs on the market are outright slow and painful to use. Really painful. Like screw it I'll go get my phone to watch this youtube video scale of painful.

    14. Re:smart tvs are not smart by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Seems like this is another reason not to hook up your smart TV to the Internet.

      Seems to me this is another reason to never bother with so-called 'smart TV' in the first place. It should be just a monitor. You want network connectivity? Hook a computer up to it, then.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    15. Re:smart tvs are not smart by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      First off, if your $1000 smart TV is suddenly rendered useless, that's not exactly a minor inconvenience ... if I stole your TV it would have about the same effect as rendering it inoperable.

      Second, why the hell would you assume malware would give a crap about what it's infecting? Do you really think think the writers of ransomware are sitting around thinking "Oh, we better put in checks to make sure we don't fuck up some poor guy's TV"?

      I think the real lesson here is these 'smart' devices have such inherently bad security that they can be rendered useless fairly easily, and that fixing them can be damned near impossible.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    16. Re:smart tvs are not smart by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      My Smart TV works very well. I use it as a dumb TV and everything works fine. It's not even connected to the internet.

    17. Re:smart tvs are not smart by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I have a Panasonic smart TV and it's pretty good. Runs a custom OpenBSD. Reasonable app support, everything works as you would expect. The best part is that it supports screencasting, so you can just beam stuff from your phone or tablet to it. No need to reply on Panasonic for apps or support or even updates. You can firewall the TV from the net if you want, and just stream stuff from apps on your phone.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    18. Re:smart tvs are not smart by Holi · · Score: 1

      And Vizio, who is being sued over this.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    19. Re:smart tvs are not smart by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      It was even better than that: not only did it log what you watched, it went poking through anything accessible on the local network(via SMB or DNLA, if memory serves) and sent the dossier back to HQ.

    20. Re:smart tvs are not smart by Flavianoep · · Score: 2

      That's because the "lay people" some commenter mentioned earlier (#51001373) don't understand that a SmartTV is just a fancy name for an all-in-one computer with a specific purpose.

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    21. Re:smart tvs are not smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why bother at all with TV's software?
      This is something I don't get. Why do people even try? Every manufacturer makes it's own software, own GUI and standards AND again for every piece of hardware something gets added/left out, making each one a new experience. Then there are those owned by friends and relatives with yet more brands of hardware and software...
      Chromecast & Friends, are few, popular and tend copy each other for the important parts.

    22. Re:smart tvs are not smart by Flavianoep · · Score: 1

      SmartTVs are so vulnerable right now that crackers can infect them in bulk and profit from small payments.

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    23. Re:smart tvs are not smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this any different than all the other boxes?

      Most devices require you to sign in to whatever service is backing them to "access your content". Some even force the content through their own servers, so it's guaranteed they're spying...

    24. Re:Smart TVs Are Not Smart by sudon't · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right. Here's what I worry about - the next time I need a new TV, (or any other appliance), am I gonna be able to buy a "normal" one? Really, I fear manufacturers and app developers more than I fear actual malware. As it is, my TV is basically a monitor, and that's how I like it.
      The less shit connected to the internet, the better, as far as I'm concerned, and I don't use wireless for any device except my phone.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    25. Re:smart tvs are not smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.

    26. Re:smart tvs are not smart by laurencetux · · Score: 1

      Admiral Grace Hopper would use a microsecond to strangle most of todays programmers

      Of course she might be able to do the job with 3-5 nanoseconds

    27. Re:Smart TVs Are Not Smart by MrLogic17 · · Score: 1

      Yes. It will be called a monitor.
      They all take the same cable standard these days, and depending on what's sending a signal to the display, a monitor may have better resolution & features anyway.

    28. Re:smart tvs are not smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a LG 3D Smart TV and the apps on it suck. They're slower than my Apple TV or my XboxOne. I had one roommate that liked to push his Netflix from his phone to the TV, but that was the only time it was used like that.

      I was using mine for DLNA, but the last update screwed the video/audio sync up so bad that I can't correct it with the TV's settings.

      So, yes, I just took the Roku that the kids weren't using anyway and plugged it in. Works fine with the same material.

    29. Re:smart tvs are not smart by steveg · · Score: 1

      Does it still work as a screen?

      Because I would "neglect" to tell it the wifi password. If all they were to do was disable my networking functionality, that would be just fine, since I would have disabled it myself already.

      I've got Roku, I've got Kodi, why would I need their networking functionality? If they disable the screen, that would be another matter entirely.

      --
      Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
    30. Re:Smart TVs Are Not Smart by steveg · · Score: 1

      Judging from what I see on Amazon, a "monitor" of a given size and resolution is going to cost quite a bit more than a TV of the same size and resolution. And you don't have a lot of choices.

      The trend of most manufacturers seems to be to add smart features. That adds around $100-150 to the price. Take away the tuner, speakers and the smart features? Well, that's going to add another couple of hundred.

      --
      Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
    31. Re:smart tvs are not smart by steveg · · Score: 1

      Good luck finding one. There may be some used ones still around.

      --
      Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
    32. Re:smart tvs are not smart by kheldan · · Score: 1

      You mean a non-smart TV? Bought a brand new one last year, a Samsung. At the very least, if I had no choice, there's no way I'd ever connect ethernet to it anyway. All it needs to be is a monitor for my DVR.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    33. Re:smart tvs are not smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Far better to just get a "dumb" TV with HDMI inputs and then hook up a Roku / Chromecast / AppleTV / etc. -- The TV will (hopefully) last 8-12 years, but you can't predict which of the various technologies / companies that support the "smart" part of your TV will still be in business by then. At least if you go the "dumb" TV route, you can just hook up a different dongle to the TV when the current one becomes obsolete.

      Plus, the "dumb" TV probably costs you a good bit less for the same features / picture size / quality.

    34. Re:Smart TVs Are Not Smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it adds about 50rmb to the price. (8$).
      That 8$ cost turns into 92$ - 142$ profit.

    35. Re:smart tvs are not smart by steveg · · Score: 1

      There were some available last year. There *may* be some available this year (although if you find a non-smart Samsung this year it's probably old stock.)

      I just bought a new Samsung myself. It has an ethernet port *and* built-in wifi. My solution is to not allow either to connect, but it's annoying.

      --
      Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
  4. Give me a dumb tv by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least it will match my IQ. I don't want a tv smarter than me.

    1. Re:Give me a dumb tv by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      Yeah, unfortunately, you can hardly find a "dumb" TV anymore with decent features. I had to buy a smart TV the last time I upgraded only because it was the only model I could find with a decent set of inputs and outputs. But I've found that it's a lot less "smart" and intrusive when you don't plug it into the router or give it your wifi password.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    2. Re:Give me a dumb tv by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I suppose that that's the one blessing of the relatively high cost of US market cellular data: it isn't yet economic for TVs to literally phone home if they are denied free internet access. The hardware to do so is chillingly close to be plausibly cost effective; but the cost of exfiltrating any nontrivial amount of data, or serving ads, is presumably still too high.

    3. Re:Give me a dumb tv by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, unfortunately, you can hardly find a "dumb" TV anymore with decent features. I had to buy a smart TV the last time I upgraded only because it was the only model I could find with a decent set of inputs and outputs. But I've found that it's a lot less "smart" and intrusive when you don't plug it into the router or give it your wifi password.

      Google commercial display TV. You will find plenty. Not as cheap because they are not subsidized by apps, tracking and adware.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
  5. Sideloading by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 2

    Sounds to me like the researcher sideloaded a package, which of course carries the risk of malware, MitM attack or not. I imagine Google Play Store has protections against MitM attacks, at least I hope it would.

    1. Re:Sideloading by nuckfuts · · Score: 1

      I imagine Google Play Store has protections against MitM attacks, at least I hope it would.

      FTA: "Infection of his device was made possible due to the lack of SSL encryption for sensitive communications between the TV and remote servers".

      SSL would be the main defence against MitM attacks. If the TV manufacturers aren't even checking for a valid SSL cert on the server they're downloading from, they fail.

  6. Wait what? by kbg · · Score: 1

    So are you telling me that user apps can modify the OS and run as root? Are Google developers complete morons or are the TV developers complete morons?

    1. Re:Wait what? by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      So are you telling me that user apps can modify the OS and run as root? Are Google developers complete morons or are the TV developers complete morons?

      3rd option, anyone who manages to install ransomware on their TV is a complete moron. This isn't something that just happens, you have to work at it.

    2. Re:Wait what? by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      If I had to guess, I'd say the latter ... with the caveat that, like all consumer products, product management, marketing, and the accountants make all the decisions.

      So you start off with a vanilla Android.

      And then you put in all your proprietary stuff, figure out how to skin and brand it, add in the stuff so you can monetize the user experience, a little telemetry to call home .. next thing you know, you've got yet another horribly insecure piece of consumer electronics which has had a bunch of security holes installed.

      Time and time again, we basically see that these kinds of products end up with these problems because of lazy/bad choices made by product managers and the marketing department.

      Nobody is designing a TV and thinking they need to design a sure, robust architecture. They're trying to figure out how to keep making money off you after you buy it.

      This same stuff happens on pretty much EVERY device which wants to connect to the intertubes these days. Because companies are more concerned about putting in a damned "like" button than they are anything to do with security.

      I've reached the point where I assume any consumer electronics which wants to connect to the internet is inherently insecure and not worth owning.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Wait what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The amount some people are willing to pay to get "free cable" is astonishing.

  7. It's very annoying by BeeArt · · Score: 1

    Showing clips of lady products, detergent and chocolate, every 10 minutes or so

    1. Re:It's very annoying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hang on, are you sure that isn't just broadcast TV?

  8. +1 headline by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

    Even the Dumbest Ransomware Is Almost Unremovable On Smart TVs

    sometimes they bungle the headline, but you have to admit that this time they nailed it. kudos!

  9. Smart TV by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

    Is there really any reason to buy a "Smart" TV, versus a standalone display?

    Even things like this aside, it seems like the TV equivalent of having an "all in one" model for your desktop, where you're pretty much stuck with replacing the whole thing if you want to do anything more than swap a hard drive or such. It also seems like buying a separate device, whether you're using a Roku or AppleTV or XBoxOne/PS4, and then hooking it to a giant monitor, is by far the better option.

    1. Re:Smart TV by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      It is but it is getting harder to find dumb TVs. I usually try to find those because a TV + a roku box or a google play/amazon fire box is usually cheaper. But nowadays, you almost have to order one online to find one.

    2. Re:Smart TV by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Is there really any reason to buy a "Smart" TV, versus a standalone display?

      Yes there is a reason. Smart TVs exist. Standalone ones don't.

      Okay maybe that's not 100% accurate but go down to your local electronics shop and watch the people collectively scratch their heads when you ask for a TV specifically without the smart features. In the world of thrown together displays manufactured by one or two companies for all TVs around the world about the only thing that vendors really have to differentiate themselves on is the "value added" features they put in. I.e. number of ports, display processing, and smart features.

      I didn't buy a smart TV. I ended up with one when I bought one based on picture quality vs price.

    3. Re:Smart TV by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      The only real reason(aside from a pathological hatred of having your ATSC/DVT-B tuner not be inside your display) is that 'big monitor' becomes increasingly hard to find if you want something fairly low resolution but physically large enough to suit a biggish living room, signage application, or the like.

      You can get 'normal' monitors up to ~32 inches, with 1920x1080 being fairly cheap, even at that size, '2k' and '4k' rather more; but offerings thin considerably, and what is available gets very pricey, if you want anything bigger(the nominally-34-inch ultrawide screens are also fairly cheap; but are a poor fit for even 16:9 video, much less 4:3).

      When sold as 'TVs' by contrast, you can get 1920x1080 in pretty much any size from 24-ish inches on the low end, to 65 on the high end; with '4k' up to about 80 inches in the reasonably priced section; with prices rising steeply thereafter.

      It really depends on your intended viewing distance. A 32 inch panel dominates a desktop; but can look pretty anemic in a larger room; and if you can even find monitors much larger than that, they are likely to be staggeringly expensive specialty items; which is serious overkill when you plan to be sitting far enough away that the pixels will be harder to see anyway.

      Assuming a suitably close viewing environment, definitely, TVs suck; but if you really do need or want a big image(and not a projector); it's pretty much a matter of picking the 'smart' TV that will whine least when you never ever connect it to the internet.

    4. Re:Smart TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a few years you will not be able to buy a "dumb" TV anymore. Just like for cellphones...

    5. Re:Smart TV by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Is there really any reason to buy a "Smart" TV, versus a standalone display?

      There are good "dumb" TVs out there. I picked up a "hisense" which is apparently a very popular brand in south east asia, it's a dumb TV with HDMI input, component input and that's it. The remote is simple and it looks great. The speakers are even surprisingly good, much of the time for regular sitcom TV I just use those rather than my Onkyo reciever and surround system.

      These things are out there, just be willing to go to a different brand than the usual line up. (BTW Hisense is available at Costco. Not sure where else, try Target.)

  10. Why Are They Called Smart TVs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You have to be pretty dumb to buy one.

    1. Re:Why Are They Called Smart TVs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a relative term. If you're dumb enough to buy it (or rather to give it a network connection), then there's a good chance the TV is smarter than you, hence smart TV.

    2. Re:Why Are They Called Smart TVs? by avandesande · · Score: 1

      You can be pretty sure that any consumer product with 'smart' on it, isn't. Like those minivans that say 'sport' on the side.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    3. Re:Why Are They Called Smart TVs? by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      I had to laugh at the "sport" reference. So true.

      I also don't particularly like the new(ish) "smart" labeling trend and eagerly await its decline in popularity.

      About 10 years ago, everything had an "e" label... which, while annoying, was at least more-or-less accurate as it stood for "electronic".

      I mean, where to do we go from here? What happens when we truly do have smart electronic devices (AI)? What do we call those?

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    4. Re:Why Are They Called Smart TVs? by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      Sir and Ma'am, most likely.

  11. Smart TVs use the integrated face system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Smart TVs use the integrated face system that gets infected by viruses.

  12. Mine's Been Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got a VIZIO 70-Inch 4K Ultra HD Smart LED TV back in the spring. I've been very pleased with its exceptional picture quality and size. Even 1080p Blueray is stunning on this display.

    I've been surprised to find that its "smartness" is also quite good. It uses Yahoo!'s app store and has lots of good apps including Amazon, Netflix, Ultraflix, YouTube, Plex, and more. The only app that it lacks, that I miss, is HBOGo, but my game console has that. The YouTube app usues YouTube's Direct To TV feature allows the app to interact with YouTube apps on smartphones and tablets. This makes for a very nice screen transfer experience, where videos van be sent form a phone or tablet onto the big screen without the clunky misery of Miracast and other proprietary screen sharing attempts.

    4K content is relatively hard to find. Amazon has some and Ultraflix is all UHD/4K. But the libraries of 4K is limited.

    I've also been pleasantly surprised that Vizio has been providing updates for it. I think it has had three firmware updates since I got it, my previous years old Vizio with VIA still has never had an update but needs it desperately, in terms of smartness and apps. That older TV smartness is utterly useless, but it's still a great display.

    1. Re:Mine's Been Good by Holi · · Score: 1

      Hope your happy sharing what you watch and whats on your network with Vizio, Cognitive Networks, and whoever else they share it with.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    2. Re:Mine's Been Good by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Are you equally pleased with Vizio's deep and intrusive interest in fingerprinting everything you display on your TV?

  13. Roku by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why I still use a separate device to stream on my TV. Much rather lose a $50 device than a $500 one.

    1. Re:Roku by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      plus the purpose-built device will out-perform and be more reliable than the half-assed software baked into the TV.

      I have a 2013 Samsung smart TV that came loaded to the gills with all kinds of bells-and-whistles and a pretty beefy quad core processor to run it all and yet I ended up using the Roku anyway because the apps kept breaking, malfunctioning and performed sluggishly... It's not like I had a ton of apps either... Netflix, Hulu and Amazon are about the only ones I use.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  14. Not so smart afterall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just one more reason why I prefer my TV to be as dumb as possible...

  15. I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't get this desire to have EVERYTHING connected. Why does everyone need everything connected to the Internet all the time? I don't think it's even desirable. This so-called IoT is going to have a serious backlash. Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT a Luddite. I work in IT and have across three decades now, BUT... I don't think it's wise to have all of ones "appliances" connected. My fridge doesn't need connecting to the Internet. Ditto my other appliances. I don't want my fridge telling me I need milk. I'm human. I want to be human, I want to look in my fridge and make these simple human determinations for myself. We are becoming completely dependent on tech and it's nonsense. We are losing our humanity in the name of convenience and connectedness and I will not go along with this. Anyone who sits and considers to possibilities and security implications and ramifications will be forced by sheer logic to agree.

    I'm a simple man. When I'm in my home, I'm in my castle, as it were. I don't want anything but my router and laptop talking to the outside world. I want to be able to choose if and when connections leave my home.

    1. Re:I don't get it... by malditaenvidia · · Score: 1

      I guess it's because they have to market these planned obsolesence devices somehow, make people think they need the latest device with facebook integration and iPhone controls, because otherwise, there aren't significant advancements in the last few decades in terms of fridges, or toasters or washing machines. To sell a new one to someone with an already functioning device, they have to make it shinier, more exciting, with connectivity to their latest iOS and android device, so the customer feels like he's living in the world of tomorrow, today. In reality, the novelty wears off after a couple of weeks, you never use your TV to check your facebook and the fridge just turns into a fridge.

    2. Re:I don't get it... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      The point isn't whether you want to be connected. The point is that when you aren't connected it's harder to 'monetize' you; and that just isn't acceptable.

  16. don't understand the math by avandesande · · Score: 2

    Wouldn't your rather spend the money used for 'smart' features on better screen or electronics?

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
    1. Re:don't understand the math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My experience has been that the better the television screen the more "smart" features they add to it. I don't see the options being buy a 65" TV with "smart" features or a 70" TV without "smart" features.

    2. Re:don't understand the math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather the 'smarts' in my product corresponded with 'working'.

      When 'smart' == 'broken' it's not very 'smart'.

    3. Re:don't understand the math by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      The ushering in of the LCD screen has pretty much made every TV the same. I think manufacturers are partly counting on the 'smart' functions to draw people into the more expensive level.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  17. Short version: don't be stupid by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

    Smart TVs are a Dumb Idea. Don't buy one.

    If you don't mind something smaller, get a dumb computer monitor.

  18. Don't buy IoT by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    Don't buy things with internet connection that don't need to have internet connection. Appliance companies specialize in appliances, not networking, not internet security, and not privacy. On any modern appliance, the thing that is going to break down first is the electronics. Washing machines used to last for decades, now they last for years, but require costly board replacements because the mechanical dials and switches have been replaced with software and firmware, and the boards don't last very long in environments in which you might find a washing machine. Instead of buying a new "start" knob when it wears out, or string a new wire if it breaks, you have to buy a $300 control board. It's a giant leap backwards in the name of progress.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  19. Chop it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To me, there is something very stupid about integrating too much stuff in one box. A 'smart TV' consists of a receiver (for broadcast TV), a computer (for playing files/streaming/apps) and a monitor (the bit that shows the picture)

    If these were nicely separate, a problem (of any sort - not just malware) would not force replacement of the whole lot.

    In our living room we have an old 50" Samsung dumb plasma TV, connected to a DVD player, a satellite receiver and a computer.

    If the computer gets pwned I boot it from USB and restore its SSD. If any of the other bits break, I only have to replace/fix/do without whatever is missing.

    The only downside is having several remotes on the coffee table... and I could probably find a universal remote to do it all if I had to, though my 2 year old daughter has no problem at all with telling the TV to show her the computer, and then telling the computer to play her Hello Kitty videos.

    Having said all that, a "Factory Reset" button is a SERIOUSLY good idea and should be present on anything with any kind of firmware.

  20. Android == Windows? by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    It seeming more and more like Android is repeating all of microsofts mistakes about security. What's worse, andorid is getting embedded everywhere. Windows CE didn't have that sort of penetration.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Android == Windows? by webmistressrachel · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Windows CE didn't have that sort of penetration" - this is not actually accurate, companies just didn't Internetwork all of their rubbish embedded systems, leaving them unexposed

      I'm still surprised every time I see a new example of a living installation of CE still in use in 2015.

      Examples still in use today include:

      - POS and cash registers (Fujitsu, others)

      - ATMs (newer ones use a variant of 7 called Embedded, the successor to CE)

      - devices with a display in a supermarket that can read barcodes, and check stock or prices (so called "guns", ASDA, Wal*Mart, Tesco)

      - devices used to take signatures for postal delivery and parcel delivery (Royal Mail, UPS)

      - devices to log utility meter readings in the field (G4S, British Gas)

      - Police Airwave terminals of various descriptions (the Compaq iPaq with peripheral for fingerprint reader paired with a PCMCIA II Airwave modem, gives Greater Manchester Police an ID for a suspect in less than 30 seconds.)

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    2. Re:Android == Windows? by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      I still maintain a CE 5 system for a logistics company. Written in VB (puke) no less. I have to install VS 2008 to make code changes.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
  21. dumb by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    It's pretty dumb to buy a smart TV. What is going to happen when all the software on it is obsolete but the screen still works? People are going to be throwing out perfectly good TVs just to replace the software! Terrible for the environment.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  22. Already DIsabled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for the old news. I turned off "Smart Interactivity" quite some time ago.

    It's just not the big deal they tried to make of it. I'd be far more worried about the sets with cameras and microphones than a TV providing viewer data to websites. Cable providers are FAR worse offenders in the data acquisition arena. But, I'll be you think(falsely) that your Netflix use protects you from that.

  23. Seems unlikely by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Because, for every person like you, there are 10 that would just say "Speaker not work. Must buy new speaker."

    Perhaps they would say that, but why on earth would they then buy a speaker from a manufacturer who had screwed them over like that?

    In fact if a manufacturer did that to me, I'd tell friends not to buy that brand, and be inclined to tell future generations not to do so also. To this day I don't buy Sony audio equipment because of bad experiences in college.

    So I hardly think it likely they would produce something crappy in this way on purpose.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re: Seems unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then your friends will get one and try to rub it in your face how cool it is and how ultra responsible they are because it still works for them. Then it breaks and they avoid you like the plague.
      See, bad tech is bad for tons of reasons!

  24. Why is a robt the opposite of a human? by istartedi · · Score: 1

    A: Because when it's smart, it's dumb.

    Q: How many robots does it take to screw in a light-bulb?

    A: Wow! I didn't know there were little robots in my light-bulbs.

    Thank-you. I'll be here all week.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  25. You're right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    everyone wants to "monetise" everyone. Personally, I don't allow it, but most go about their day not knowing, or caring, they are being used to make money for others. I thank God my wife is on board with me in being somewhat old fashioned. We have mobile phones and each of us has a laptop running Linux, but neither of us wants to be connected all the time. Half the time I don't carry my mobile when I leave the house. I see people around me glued to their mobiles like expectant fathers. It's disgusting, really. People really have made "gods" of their things.

  26. Again: Big Dumb Co by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 4, Interesting

    After I win All The Lotteries, I will form Big Dumb Company, with the principal division being Big Dumb Appliances, such as clothes and dish washers that are so well built, they can be handed down at least two generations, stupidly fixable with decades-long part availability, and that are designed to accomplish one task: WASH THINGS.

    Same with TVs - or should I say monitors - with the best display possible, replaceable power supplies, interface ports (sans wireless nor Ethernet) out the kazoo, AND DUMB AS A BAG OF HAMMERS. Tuner? game console? Roku? Fantastic: PLUG THEM IN. What will the TVs do? DISPLAY THINGS, PERIOD.

    Now, onto phone / Internet service: BIG DUMB PIPE.

    1. Re:Again: Big Dumb Co by rsborg · · Score: 1

      After I win All The Lotteries, I will form Big Dumb Company, with the principal division being Big Dumb Appliances, such as clothes and dish washers that are so well built, they can be handed down at least two generations, stupidly fixable with decades-long part availability, and that are designed to accomplish one task: WASH THINGS.

      Same with TVs - or should I say monitors - with the best display possible, replaceable power supplies, interface ports (sans wireless nor Ethernet) out the kazoo, AND DUMB AS A BAG OF HAMMERS. Tuner? game console? Roku? Fantastic: PLUG THEM IN. What will the TVs do? DISPLAY THINGS, PERIOD.

      Now, onto phone / Internet service: BIG DUMB PIPE.

      Sadly you will likely go out of business - profit margins to sustain a business that doesn't sell out its customer base must be pretty big unless accompanied by a cult-like early adopter crowd.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    2. Re:Again: Big Dumb Co by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kick start it please. Let us donate.

    3. Re:Again: Big Dumb Co by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sign me up. Big Dumb Costumer #1.

    4. Re:Again: Big Dumb Co by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      You would go out of business FAST as people would have not incentive to buy something if it is not broken.

      Hacked TVS are GREAT for manufactors and retailers. More money :-)

    5. Re:Again: Big Dumb Co by sootman · · Score: 1

      It might surprise you to know I've wanted to do the EXACT SAME THING -- start a company to make dead-simple appliances. I can't tell you how many 20-30 year old appliances from the 80s I've replaced in the last 2 decades, and the replacements are good for 5-10 years. I'd pay $1,000 for a washing machine TOMORROW if it had quality components (switches, motors, hinges, etc.), user-serviceable parts, and if it would last 50-100 years. No reason it couldn't. I don't care if it's a bit heavier and has thicker parts and is a bit less efficient, as long as it lasts. You know what's inefficient? BUYING NEW DAMN APPLIANCES EVERY 8 YEARS.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    6. Re:Again: Big Dumb Co by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly you will likely go out of business - profit margins to sustain a business that doesn't sell out its customer base must be pretty big unless accompanied by a cult-like early adopter crowd.

      Actually, reliable and durable appliances are a profitable business. For example, Miele washers, tumble driers etc. sell rather well, considering their price.

  27. Facebook is the Dumbest App that my devices won't by MindPrison · · Score: 1

    Facebook is the most annoying and dumbest app my devices refuse to remove. They all come with my recent mobile phones, but they refuse to remove the facebook apps from my phones.

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
  28. I agree, don't buy IoT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A few years ago, the wife and I purchased a rather spendy "state-of-the-art" front loading washer/dryer set. They both failed within the year. I complained to the vendor from where they were purchased and made a warranty switch for some old-school Maytags. Plain, white, basic analog knobs, noisy. Still working...

    My grandparents are still using the same set they purchased for their retirement house in 1977. Kenmore, I believe.

  29. Why was this problem allowed to happen? by CTU · · Score: 1

    What I don't get is why is the original OS/settings not stored in some read only memory where say the OS gets a virus the user would then be given an option to restore the software to factory and then fix it from there. Sure it is not the most ideal of soultions, but it is still a good one that a virus would not likely be able to destroy.

    its 2015 FFS why is that not a thing for any piece of tech with an OS?

  30. This didn't happen in a real-world scenario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FUD

  31. Another good reason by Trogre · · Score: 1

    Another good reason to never, ever, under any circumstances, directly connect a smart TV, or any IoT appliance to any computer network whatsoever.

    This is information Security 101

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  32. Who needs ramsonware by Pope+Raymond+Lama · · Score: 1

    I have a LG Smart-TV - non android. Just browsing the web trying to see videos in sites, you are covered by a rain of pop-up adds that make it impossible to navigate. One can't even remove a cookie from the built-in TV browser. It is just a matter of time before smart TVs stuck bloated by adware, unless the TV vendors offer more control to the TV owners - android platform or not.

    --
    -><- no .sig is good sig.
  33. Koss Porta Pro: Best cans under a C note by tepples · · Score: 1

    [My favorite speakers are] utterly compatible with everything from an original Walkman to an iPhone, because everything still uses that headphone jack.

    Not for long though. Apple wants to phase out 3.5 mm.

    Being small little speakers, they have the benefit that in a relatively short distance you can't hear them at all. Which means the wife and I can have music that people 30 feet away can't even hear -- which is a bonus when you're in the back yard or lounging by a pool and don't want to disturb other people.

    Know what else has great sound, can't be heard from a short distance away, and sells for $50? Koss Porta Pro.