Programmer Finds Way To Liberate Ransomware Affected Smart TV, Thanks To LG (theregister.co.uk)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Programmer Finds Way To Liberate Ransomware Affected Smart TV, Thanks To LG (theregister.co.uk)

Posted by msmash on Tuesday January 3, 2017 @04:00AM from the power-of-social-media dept.

Television production factory LG has saved Darren Cauthon's new year by providing hidden reset instructions to liberate his Google TV from ransomware. From a report on The Register: The company initially demanded more money than the idiot box was worth to repair the TV and relented offering instructions for resetting the telly after Cauthon took to Twitter to express his displeasure. The infection came after the programmer's wife downloaded an app to the TV promising free movies. Instead, it installed the ransomware, with a demand of US$500 to have the menace removed. Cauthon said LG offered factory reset steps which are not publicly revealed nor known to its customer support technicians. He says a family member showed him the TV over Christmas laden with ransomware purporting to be a FBI message bearing a notice that suspicious files were found and the user has been fined.

161 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

programmers wife!... by Dave+Whiteside · 2017-01-03 04:03 · Score: 1

yeah right!

--
who where what when now?
1. Re:programmers wife!... by The-Ixian · 2017-01-03 04:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I am still trying to figure out why the person's profession or skill set even matters in this story?
  "LG gives user unpublished reset instructions" is more appropriate of a title.
  
  --
  My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
2. Re:programmers wife!... by TWX · 2017-01-03 04:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Well, a programmer is probably technical enough to understand that the device might have a factory reset function, and if it turns out that the wife is being scapegoated, a programmer is also likely in a position to know enough to be dangerous.
  
  One of the biggest problems in IT and CIS is the assumption that if one is capable on one's particular field, that one is capable in all fields. This simply isn't true in most examples; most people are jack-of-all-trades or are master of a single discipline, and some are jack-of-all-trades and maybe master of one or two in particular. No one is master of all trades.
  
  I will agree that the bulk off the summary is crap. It goes off onto a tangent but doesn't adequately flesh-out that tangent.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
3. Re:programmers wife!... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 04:23 · Score: 0
  
  yeah right!
  He married his right hand...
4. Re:programmers wife!... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 04:25 · Score: 0
  
  Because it solves the real story. A programmer is much, much more likely to pirate. This guy threw his wife under the bus.
5. Re:programmers wife!... by HornWumpus · 2017-01-03 04:39 · Score: 0
  
  IT and CIS
  Really? Same problem is rampant with shysters, particularly shysters who have been elected to federal office.
  It's rampant worldwide, the very worst cases are physicists. Who constantly repeat the mantra 'all science reduces to physics' forgetting the rest; 'Physics reduces to Math, Math reduces to Philosophy, Philosophy reduces to masturbation.'
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
6. Re:programmers wife!... by Oswald+McWeany · 2017-01-03 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  He married his right hand...
  That will only make it worse when she cheats on him.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
7. Re:programmers wife!... by DarkOx · 2017-01-03 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Physics reduces to Math
  
  Bullshit. I have never heard anyone but you say that. If anything math describes physics.
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
8. Re:programmers wife!... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 08:51 · Score: 0
  
  'Physics reduces to Math, Math reduces to Philosophy, Philosophy reduces to masturbation.'
  And d'batin' reduces to politics.
9. Re:programmers wife!... by gnick · 2017-01-03 09:18 · Score: 2
  
  A programmer is much, much more likely to pirate.
  A programmer is more likely to pirate "properly." A non-programmer (e.g. a programmer's wife) is more likely to screw things up by blindly installing Free Warez.
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
10. Re:programmers wife!... by HornWumpus · 2017-01-03 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  Semantics. If that is true than Physics describes Chemistry, Chemistry describes Biology etc etc etc. Making Sociology the 'king science'...We know that isn't true.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
11. Re:programmers wife!... by TWX · 2017-01-03 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see how math reduces to philosophy or sociology. If anything the concept of the mathematical proof helps demonstrate how mathematics seeks to be internally consistent without relying on untested assumptions or givens. Even fundamental integers have been subject to proofs.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
12. Re:programmers wife!... by HornWumpus · 2017-01-03 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  We're beating this to death.
  None of the statements in the standard physicists rant are true. Chemistry does not reduce to Physics, but if it did, then Physics would similarly reduce to Math etc.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
13. Re:programmers wife!... by TWX · 2017-01-04 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  I guess then, I'm not exactly sure what you intended with your original reply to me. I distinguished IT and CIS because while related, they're not the same field. There are some that are very good at maintaining hardware, troubleshooting, working with configuration issues, that are definitely not programmers or DBAs or systems architects, and there are programmers, that if you see them walking toward the server room with a screwdriver, you should call security...
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
14. Re:programmers wife!... by eric_harris_76 · 2017-01-04 13:41 · Score: 1
  
  Semantics
  Yeah. Just the meaning. Nothing important.
  
  --
  There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
15. Re:programmers wife!... by HornWumpus · 2017-01-05 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  You have to admit the same thing happens to lawyers and physicists. Physicists are so notorious for it, they even have a meme ('all science reduces to physics'), which I brought up and criticized.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
16. Re:programmers wife!... by HornWumpus · 2017-01-05 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  Theoretical physicists should have their car hoods welded shut, for their own protection.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I've got a way too by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 04:05 · Score: 0

My trash can. Smart TVs are garbage.
1. Re:I've got a way too by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  Nobody cares what you think.
Welcome by burtosis · 2017-01-03 04:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

Welcome all to a world where you don't own nor are allowed to alter the software on items you purchased outright. Be glad that you can still begrudgingly get the information you need on some products to restore an item to factory condition. Remember, only criminals want to tamper with the perfection companies provide. Want to modify something? Be prepared for jail time.
1. Re:Welcome by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 04:23 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Welcome all to a world where you don't own nor are allowed to alter the software on items you purchased outright.
  It cost the manufacturer millions just to develop that software. Do you think by you get the right to own it just by paying a few hundred bucks? That's like saying you ate at a restaurant, so you're now partial owner of that restaurant and demand access to their secret recipes. You have the right to use the product, but don't own the design. The manufacture won't hand you the source code, because that will compromise his trade secrets and therefore, harm his business.
  The main issue is that the "Smart" (read connected) TV is exposed to millions of hackers and that's the stupid part. More connected something is to the internet, the more vulnerable it is. If the world continues down this moronic path for more convenience, there'll be a day when hackers will lock you out of your house when they seize control of your smart door.
2. Re:Welcome by bickerdyke · 2017-01-03 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  No one said anything about owning the software. In the contraty, this is usually about NOT running the manufacture provided firmware. (OpenWRT for example)
  Or to stick to your restaurant example in its full absurdness: We are talking about paying a menu in a restaurant and then leaving early and cook at home instead. (The main difference is, that most of the money paid for a tv is for the hardware, and so writing of the cost for software you paid for by not using it is usually neglegible.)
  
  --
  bickerdyke
3. Re:Welcome by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 05:01 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  >It cost the manufacturer millions just to develop that software. Do you think by you get the right to own it just by paying a few hundred bucks?
  There's a right to repair movement and I agree with them. If I can't repair it myself, I don't buy it. Simple. They can rationalize it however they want, I don't care. The argument "but it is so expensive to the manufacturers" doesn't really work. So are cars. So what?
4. Re:Welcome by Gr8Apes · 2017-01-03 05:14 · Score: 2
  
  Welcome all to a world where you don't own nor are allowed to alter the software on items you purchased outright.
  It cost the manufacturer millions just to develop that software.
  I'd be happy if they spent those millions in making better TVs. I have a cheap external box to deal with all the other features that no TV no matter how expensive can remotely compare to price-wise. I know they wish to own the consumer, but that boat sailed a long long long time ago.
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
5. Re:Welcome by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  If you don't like the terms, don't buy the product. Let the free market sort things out.
6. Re:Welcome by Lord+Kano · 2017-01-03 05:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That's like saying you ate at a restaurant, so you're now partial owner of that restaurant and demand access to their secret recipes.
  It's more like saying that since you paid for the food, you have the right to add salt, pepper or any other seasoning of your choosing in order to enjoy the food, that you purchased, in the manner that you choose.
  LK
  
  --
  "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
7. Re:Welcome by myowntrueself · 2017-01-03 05:31 · Score: 2
  
  If you don't like the terms, don't buy the product. Let the free market sort things out.
  Thats nice. I'll just buy out the water supply and include "Your first born become my slaves" in the terms of service. Let the free market sort things out, if they don't want to give me their first born they are welcome to die of thirst about 2 days later. That free market really works.
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
8. Re:Welcome by Aaden42 · 2017-01-03 05:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Show me where in the terms is said, "While this television is an Android-based computer and reasonably accepted industry standards include a way of reloading fresh operating software from scratch on such computers, this computer has no such function."
  The "everything's a computer" IoT industry has a LONG way to go in terms of disclosing limitations of the devices they're producing. Both sides of the techy and non-techy world have expectations for these devices that are generally agreed upon for other devices of their type in either the consumer electronics or computing device camps. Non-techies have a reasonable expectation that a TV is a box that shows pictures and can't be infected by malware. Techies understand that smart TV's are actually computer that might have malware vulnerabilities and further presume that like all other computers they should have some way to reset them and completely erase any infection.
  Manufacturers are falling short of both camp's expectations, and they're also failing to disclose the true nature of the devices to consumers. They're producing devices that are simultaneously unprecedentedly vulnerable by TV standards and unrepairable by computer standards. The only way for a consumer to find these things out is to buy it and find out the hard way. That's not acceptable.
9. Re:Welcome by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 05:40 · Score: 0
  
  Why was this so different years ago? What radically changed? Oh right, corporations are more greedy, that's the reason why.
  No. What changed was televisions didn't have operating systems.
10. Re:Welcome by Merk42 · 2017-01-03 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  No one said anything about owning the software. In the contraty, this is usually about NOT running the manufacture provided firmware. (OpenWRT for example)
  Or to stick to your restaurant example in its full absurdness: We are talking about paying a menu in a restaurant and then leaving early and cook at home instead. (The main difference is, that most of the money paid for a tv is for the hardware, and so writing of the cost for software you paid for by not using it is usually neglegible.)
  So since it's absurd to do that in your restaurant analogy, it's absurd to want the software for the TV, therefore proving GPs point?
11. Re:Welcome by Merk42 · 2017-01-03 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  If you don't like the terms, don't buy the product. Let the free market sort things out.
  Thats nice. I'll just buy out the water supply and include "Your first born become my slaves" in the terms of service. Let the free market sort things out, if they don't want to give me their first born they are welcome to die of thirst about 2 days later. That free market really works.
  I wasn't aware that LG had a monopoly on televisions.
12. Re:Welcome by bickerdyke · 2017-01-03 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it is absurd to want the rights to the tv software. But no one wants that.
  
  --
  bickerdyke
13. Re:Welcome by barc0001 · 2017-01-03 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  That's a terrible analogy. When you go to a restaurant you only "own" the food on your plate and your body gets rid of it a few hours later. A TV isn't a single serving electronic you have around for a few hours.
  More like you bought a car so maybe you should be able to do with it as you please, and even have the right to repair it yourself?
14. Re:Welcome by Mr.+Droopy+Drawers · 2017-01-03 06:19 · Score: 2
  
  It's getting to become the norm where the cost of developing the software IS a large chunk of the cost of goods of a piece of equipment. Such costs are called, "non-recoverable expense" and is amortized over the estimated number of pieces to be sold.
  
  --
  To Copy from One is Plagiarism; To Copy from Many is Research.
15. Re:Welcome by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  It cost the manufacturer millions just to develop that software. Do you think by you get the right to own it just by paying a few hundred bucks? That's like saying you ate at a restaurant, so you're now partial owner of that restaurant and demand access to their secret recipes.
  It's more like having an allergic reaction to your meal and expecting to be given the list of ingredients so you can figure out what you reacted to and how to treat it rather than just paying them for the antidote to the poison you just ate.
16. Re:Welcome by budgenator · 2017-01-03 06:35 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It cost the manufacturer millions just to develop that software. Do you think by you get the right to own it just by paying a few hundred bucks?
  Well since it runs on Android, which is a version of Linux, which is distributed under the GPL, for free, the short answer is basically yes, costing the manufacturer $Millions is unlikely, $10's of thousands is probably stretching it.
  
  The manufacture won't hand you the source code, because that will compromise his trade secrets and therefore, harm his business.
  The kernel portions are distributed under V2 of the GPL and they must absolutely be available, the Android portions distributed by Google/Android have source code available. My guess is that since the factory reset occurs during the device being in a switched off mode, it hooks into the linux kernel and is either GPL'ed or Google/Android source code.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
17. Re:Welcome by Archangel+Michael · 2017-01-03 07:05 · Score: 2
  
  That's not acceptable.
  It is acceptable to me. Your opinion is different, and I get that, but blanket statements like this are almost always untrue.
  These "Smart" TVs are incremental "feature" upgrades to regular TVs. They literally cost a small transaction difference in price to similar but non-smart TVs. That small incremental price difference is a huge profit center for the manufacturers. It literally costs them next to nothing to install, and increases the price $100. This feature differentiator is key to driving profits up, so much so, that they probably make the two models completely identically in the factory, and disable/enable features based on the price point they want.
  If you don't want or need a SmartTV, then don't get one. If you want one, then investigate a bit more than spur of the moment shopping decision, which is exactly what they are expecting. Get a ROKU or Googlecast (Chromecast) or build your own RaspberryPi version.
  Speaking of RaspberryPi, why didn't the "Programmer" have one of those setup to do the "SmartTV" bits in the first place??
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
18. Re:Welcome by kelemvor4 · 2017-01-03 07:08 · Score: 2
  
  Welcome all to a world where you don't own nor are allowed to alter the software on items you purchased outright.
  It cost the manufacturer millions just to develop that software. Do you think by you get the right to own it just by paying a few hundred bucks? That's like saying you ate at a restaurant, so you're now partial owner of that restaurant and demand access to their secret recipes. You have the right to use the product, but don't own the design. The manufacture won't hand you the source code, because that will compromise his trade secrets and therefore, harm his business.
  The main issue is that the "Smart" (read connected) TV is exposed to millions of hackers and that's the stupid part. More connected something is to the internet, the more vulnerable it is. If the world continues down this moronic path for more convenience, there'll be a day when hackers will lock you out of your house when they seize control of your smart door.
  No, it's more like saying he bought a plate of food at that restaurant and can do whatever he wants with the food. See how that works? He can eat it as they prepared it, add salt and pepper and steak sauce then eat it, take it home and make changes to it, give it away, throw it away, the possibilities are endless.
19. Re:Welcome by unrtst · 2017-01-03 08:10 · Score: 2
  
  That's a terrible analogy. When you go to a restaurant you only "own" the food on your plate and your body gets rid of it a few hours later.
  I think you're on to a better analogy.
  For TV, you "own" the show content until you're done processing it (ie. you rent it, or have a temporary license to it). So, where's the TV/software/restaurant fall in there?
  * food = content/shows/etc
  * salt/pepper = ff/pause/rewind/mute
  * restaurant = network (abc/nbc/etc)
  * chef/waiters/staff = content producers (director/actor/etc)
  * tv = plate/fork/knife/etc
  * tv OS = Miss Manners rules for using your utensils and how to properly consume your food
  If you eat at a restaurant, it's then like going out to the movie theater.
  If you order delivery (and thus supply your own dishes and your own house rules for the handling thereof), it's like watching the content on your TV.
  As such, they have no business enforcing Judith Martin's rules while in the privacy of your own home.
20. Re:Welcome by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-01-03 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  This exactly, and until the DMCA gets gutted, the consumer will continue to get screwed over. The DMCA won't get fixed until people stop with the us vs them trap and demand that politicians represent the interests of the voters instead of the interests of the lobbyists.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
21. Re:Welcome by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 08:40 · Score: 0
  
  Well, based on this story, it seems that only criminals do want to "tamper with" what the company provided. And the company helped them anyway.
  If you want to make a rational argument, then go for it. But for polemical appeals like this, wait for a more sympathetic test case.
22. Re:Welcome by radarskiy · 2017-01-03 09:00 · Score: 0
  
  Is a CPU made of discrete transistors sufficient for your needs, or do you insist on vacuum tubes?
23. Re:Welcome by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 10:59 · Score: 0
  
  It cost the manufacturer millions just to develop that software. Do you think by you get the right to own it just by paying a few hundred bucks?
  I own the television. I can do with it as I may. That includes removing or resetting any included software, if that is my choice. The manufacturer may not like that and may try to withhold the information needed to do so, but it is absolutely my right.
  
  That's like saying you ate at a restaurant, so you're now partial owner of that restaurant and demand access to their secret recipes.
  Just the kind of moronic analogy I'd expect from someone who made your first statement. And just to help you out, it's more like saying I ate at a restaurant and didn't like the steak, so I added a little salt or steak sauce or ordered something else. Which I can absolutely do, no matter how much money the restaurant may have spent developing that recipe.
24. Re:Welcome by david_thornley · 2017-01-04 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  I can legally demand copies of the source code from any manufacturer who's distributing televisions with GPLed software without also providing source code. As long as we're talking about GPLv2, I cannot require anyone to allow me to install any changed software on my TV, so I can't necessarily use it.
  This is one of the differences between Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman: Torvalds is happy being able to look at any adaptations of the Linux kernel and incorporate what he likes into his version, and Stallman wants to be able to change the software on any device he uses.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
25. Re:Welcome by david_thornley · 2017-01-04 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with copyright reform is that copyright problems are a small cost to very many people, and sometimes an opportunity cost (the makers of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" would have included Popeye characters if not for copyright protection), while people who benefit from copyright abuse make a considerable profit from it. Therefore, a politician can represent the public's interest, and get essentially no credit for it, or the MAFIAA's, and get campaign contributions.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
26. Re:Welcome by Swave+An+deBwoner · 2017-01-04 13:33 · Score: 1
  
  But electronic devices (radios, televisions, ...) used to typically include detailed schematics so that they could be repaired by somebody other than the manufacturer.
  
  I know it's hard for someone who has access only to epoxy-embedded devices to believe that, but it's true.
27. Re:Welcome by Swave+An+deBwoner · 2017-01-04 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  Yup.
  https://munchies.vice.com/en/articles/a-florida-chef-is-inciting-a-class-war-over-ketchup
Saved his new year? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 04:08 · Score: 0

What a pathetic life if that's all it takes to ruin it to begin with.
Programmer throws wife under bus by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 04:09 · Score: 0

She's a pirate and a moron, apparently. Good job humiliating your wife!
1. Re:Programmer throws wife under bus by Trax3001BBS · 2017-01-03 18:35 · Score: 1
  
  She's a pirate and a moron, apparently. Good job humiliating your wife!
  In all honesty I'd open a message titled as a " FBI message bearing a notice that suspicious files were found and the user has been fined.". I'd open it as a text file as normal, but open it just the same.
Twitter by Fire_Wraith · 2017-01-03 04:09 · Score: 2

Twitter seems to be a pretty effective place to take your complaints about a product/company in order to get satisfaction. It's far more likely to get a response, it seems, than other methods like contacting them directly. I suppose the lesson is that companies are eager to quickly (or more quickly) react to potential bad publicity than they are about the complaints of one specific customer.
Android bootloader by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 04:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

FTA: "With the TV powered off, place one finger on the settings symbol then another finger on the channel down symbol. Remove finger from settings, then from channel down, and navigate using volume keys to the wipe data/ factory reset option."
It sounds like the common procedure to enter the Android boot loader. Anybody wants to "fastboot oem unlock" that TV?
1. Re:Android bootloader by trevc · 2017-01-03 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  I'm assuming that at some point you have to 'power on' ?
  
  FTA: "With the TV powered off, place one finger on the settings symbol then another finger on the channel down symbol. Remove finger from settings, then from channel down, and navigate using volume keys to the wipe data/ factory reset option."
  It sounds like the common procedure to enter the Android boot loader. Anybody wants to "fastboot oem unlock" that TV?
2. Re:Android bootloader by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 16:57 · Score: 0
  
  Now that the damage is done, anyone can go to friend's (and not so-friend's) house and wipe their Android powered TV to factory default settings.
  Chaos ensues.
Don't buy a smart TV by Viol8 · 2017-01-03 04:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

They have no purpose. Most people now simply use TVs as monitors for a set top box and if you need any more functionality simply plug your computer or tablet into a normal TV. Why anyone would pay a significant extra amount of cash for an oversized underpowered android tablet I have no idea.
1. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by nasch · 2017-01-03 04:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It will probably get harder and harder to find a TV without these "smart" features. If you don't want them, just don't give the TV your wifi password.
2. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by vux984 · 2017-01-03 04:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It will probably get harder and harder to find a TV without these "smart" features. If you don't want them, just don't give the TV your wifi password.
  We are fast approaching a time where the TV will come with built in cellular data, and lifetime subscription (for specific uses). I've already seen several devices that have this scheme... for example a 'cloud punch clock'.
  You might have to enter your wifi password to stream 4k from netflix, but it might send its telemetry, get advertising updates, firmware updates, and its cloud 'siri/cortana/google voice recognition stuff' via a separate always-on cellular network connection.
  The price of the chipset itself is small in a $2000+ TV; and the cost of prepaid data measured at likely less than 500MB per years for 10 years, bought at wholesale for a million TVs at once... well... that's also going to be pretty small.
  Right now the IoT is at least theoretically constrained to our wifi and runs through our firewalls. But we're fast approaching the time where it's just directly connected to the carrier bypassing our home networks entirely.
  Indeed, our home networks themselves may become a nerd relic, the way home servers are. Your computer connects to the cloud, your printer connects to the cloud, your TV connects to the cloud... who needs a LAN? Sure a LAN would be faster... but once its good enough the average user will be happy to forgo having to maintain a home network in exchange for 'it just connects to the cloud'.
3. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by tacroy · 2017-01-03 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  I dunno, my sister really enjoys that her tv can play netflix without needing a separate "thing".
4. Re: Don't buy a smart TV by corychristison · 2017-01-03 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing a screwdriver and soldering iron can't fix.
5. Re: Don't buy a smart TV by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 05:07 · Score: 0
  
  Nothing a screwdriver and soldering iron can't fix.
  But then the following generation will refuse to function without a network. :(
6. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by nasch · 2017-01-03 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  That is a bit disturbing as there probably won't be a way to disable that without voiding the warranty. And possibly ruining the device unless you really know what you're doing.
7. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by dgatwood · 2017-01-03 05:28 · Score: 2
  
  We are fast approaching a time where the TV will come with built in cellular data, and lifetime subscription (for specific uses). I've already seen several devices that have this scheme... for example a 'cloud punch clock'.
  The best part, of course, is that "lifetime" will mean "for the expected lifetime of the device", which means that after a few years, they can stop paying for the cellular service and brick the device, forcing you to buy a new one. And even if they don't, the carriers will drop support for the device after three or four standards shifts renders it impractical to support the legacy device because the frequency band it uses is getting freed up to make room for 7G or whatever. (See also: OnStar)
  "Free" cellular service is the ultimate in planned obsolescence—particularly if the device doesn't work without cellular service.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
8. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by irrational_design · 2017-01-03 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Easier said than done. I've been looking for a 40" 1080p LED TV without smart tv that comes from a major manufacturer and have been coming up fairly empty.
9. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by peragrin · 2017-01-03 05:37 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Also if you do give the smart tv your wifi password be prepared to block its MAC address at the router if you want it to not connect anymore.
  My samsung tv I gave it the wifi password and ten switched inputs to wired network connections to prevent the tv from getting online. That I thought worked until I checked the router logs one day and noticed the tv was still trying to and sending data via wifi even though it was disabled.
  So I blocked the MAC address of the wifi adapter and no more hidden data to be sent
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
10. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by myowntrueself · 2017-01-03 05:39 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  They have no purpose. Most people now simply use TVs as monitors for a set top box and if you need any more functionality simply plug your computer or tablet into a normal TV. Why anyone would pay a significant extra amount of cash for an oversized underpowered android tablet I have no idea.
  Yet a 50+" monitor costs a LOT more than a 50" TV. Even more than a smart TV. A 55" monitor costs about $1400, at the low end. A 55" smart TV costs about $450 (going by Amazon).
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
11. Re: Don't buy a smart TV by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 06:34 · Score: 0
  
  Nothing a screwdriver and soldering iron can't fix.
  BIT failure. Please contact customer service for repair options.
12. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by rhazz · 2017-01-03 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  It will probably get harder and harder to find a TV without these "smart" features.
  If you shop at BestBuy and their ilk, sure. Go online, do your research, and order a commercial model. They can even be very similar to the consumer models, but with the bloat removed. My current TV is the commercial version of a consumer model, which means the TV tuner and speakers aren't included. It even cost less.
13. Re: Don't buy a smart TV by The-Ixian · 2017-01-03 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  loopback plug....
  
  --
  My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
14. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 07:00 · Score: 0
  
  Faraday and interference aren't going to void a warranty. There's other issues with those, though.
15. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by citizenr · 2017-01-03 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  if you are in Europe try the bargain bin brands, they are almost all manufactured by one company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  those are very basic big panel + super basic _non smart_ controller at very low prices.
  
  --
  Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
16. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by BitterOak · 2017-01-03 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  It will probably get harder and harder to find a TV without these "smart" features. If you don't want them, just don't give the TV your wifi password.
  I've heard of TVs sniffing around for open access WiFi connections. So if any of your neighbors has open WiFi, or the coffee shop at the end of the street offers free public WiFi, your TV could be connecting anyway. And don't forget, the GPS in the TV will let them know where you live, so it won't give you any anonymity either.
  I really think it is worth the extra money to get a non-smart TV if you can find one.
  
  --
  If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
17. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by budgenator · 2017-01-03 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Where I'm at, Internet through the satellite and is metered, but 4Glte through my phone isn't, so anything that gets to the TV from the internet goes through my Android phone, with anti-virus software installed on it first. The whole concept of a smart TV just seems weird.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
18. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by TheRealMindChild · 2017-01-03 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  Why would I want to connect a computer, be it a desktop, laptop, or a tablet (really?) into my television just to watch hulu or netflix, or listen to pandora or spotify? It is overkill, requires yet another device, and costs me more. It isn't any more convenient either.
  
  --
  
  "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
19. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 08:34 · Score: 0
  
  Unfortunately even that may be difficult. It may become increasingly common that TVs will need over-the-air firmware updates just to function properly.
  dom
20. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-01-03 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  Don't plug in the Ethernet cable/give it your WiFi password. Smart TV becomes dumb again.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
21. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 09:18 · Score: 0
  
  Was in the same boat recently, you have a choice of wired or wireless, that's about it. 40" is now considered small, which means few choices. Eventually, falling prices on bigger models will make the 40" size less profitable, meaning quality will be cut back to 720p to cut costs. But the "smart" features will stay because the smarts will be the same as in the bigger models and it would be more expensive to develop a dumb version. You will buy whatever the manufacturer can make the most money on and you will like it!
22. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  Insignia branded tv's are cheap, offered in not-smart models, and it's Best Buy's brand, I think they used to be made by LG and Toshiba, not sure about now. But i know 2 people with them and both are happy.
23. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by Darinbob · 2017-01-03 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  Just buy a Roku, it will last longer and is inexpensively replaced if there's newer must-have stuff in the future.
  How do you connect to the "cloud" without a network? Wi-fi is LAN, or are you assuming LAN is only ethernet? Nobody out there is going to give you a free cellular data plan, or any cellular data plan as convenient as broadband.
24. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by nasch · 2017-01-03 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  Well personally I want a TV tuner and speakers with my TV, so that wouldn't work for me. Maybe there are other models with those included though.
25. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by nasch · 2017-01-03 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  Quite right, it could still report quite a bit of information. At least it wouldn't have access to your home network though.
26. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by vux984 · 2017-01-03 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  How do you connect to the "cloud" without a network? Wi-fi is LAN, or are you assuming LAN is only ethernet?
  
  I said cellular. I meant cellular.
  
  Nobody out there is going to give you a free cellular data plan
  Yeah. They will. It's already happening.
  http://www22.verizon.com/whole...
  "Verizon's Mobility Services include wireless voice, text messaging and wireless data packages for both 3G CDMA & 4G LTE. Adding our Mobility Services to your product suite lets you offer variety in voice and data services that keep your customers productive - at the office and on the go. Additionally, you will retain and grow your customer base with Verizonâ(TM)s Mobility Services as the technology platform to deliver IoT applications and solutions."
  It won't be free, it will be "free"... the cost will be front loaded into the purchase price; or covered by some other subscription fee, or advertising revenue. How much do you think 1GB of data per unit over a 5 year period is going to cost at wholesale x 1 million units...
27. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 11:44 · Score: 0
  
  The thing is that most people don't need TV tuners in their TVs anymore and could probably get away with using monitors instead. Nowadays, the boxes do all the work for the TV, which is itself just a dumb display device. Plus, with the trend in TV speakers being towards small and tinny, soundbars and surround systems are also more common to the point where many don't need speakers anymore.
28. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by Darinbob · 2017-01-03 14:37 · Score: 1
  
  1GB of data over 5 years isn't going to get you very much television.
29. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 15:16 · Score: 0
  
  Remember, the cellular data transfer will only be for the purposes of marketing data collection and spying. It's not for anything useful to the end-user, such as video streams.
30. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by nosfucious · 2017-01-03 21:56 · Score: 1
  
  And if there is some dumb arse in an apartment nearby that has an open and unsecured wifi access point?
  And lets not forget the possibility that these devices are just passively scanning wifi nets and running basic cracking techniques against secured spots. Dictionary scans, then trying keys with a-z, A-Z and then harder keys. They can keeps this up the entire time it's in standby mode. The device just sits there.
  Now, if they would just mine bitcoins passively and with low power consumption, they would actually be useful.
  
  --
  Q:I was listening to a CD in Grip and it sounded horrible! What's up? A:Perhaps you are listening to country music
31. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by antdude · 2017-01-04 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  But where do we buy a new dumb TV these days? :(
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
32. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by greenzrx · 2017-01-04 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  How do you connect to the "cloud" without a network? Wi-fi is LAN, or are you assuming LAN is only ethernet?
  i subscribe to optimum as my cable provider. Their optimum wifi hotspots extend into my home, and i suppose if i wanted to, i could forgo a lan, and use their infrastructure instead. I can't forsee myself doing that, but i wouldn't put it past someone who's less technically inclined.
  
  ...Nobody out there is going to give you a free cellular data plan...
  7 years ago, i bought a kindle with a free cellular data plan. Amazon is still paying the freight on books that I purchase from them over that device.
33. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by Swave+An+deBwoner · 2017-01-04 14:33 · Score: 1
  
  I really think it is worth the extra money to get a non-smart TV if you can find one.
  
  I agree. But how does one know for certain if the TV really is not smart or if it's just playing dumb?
34. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by vux984 · 2017-01-05 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  Quite so, but my hypothesis was that that the cellular channel would be for advertising, telemetry, forced software updates, etc. You'd still need to put the TV on your wifi to stream netflix etc.
35. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-07 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  And if there is some dumb arse in an apartment nearby that has an open and unsecured wifi access point?
  Disable their AP for them (what are the chances of them having changed the default password), and when they get it working again (probably with help from someone who knows better than to run an unsecured AP), they may actually secure it.
The fuckers should be sued for blackmail! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 04:14 · Score: 0

"The company initially demanded more money than the idiot box was worth to repair the TV", WTF?!
1. Re:The fuckers should be sued for blackmail! by Holi · 2017-01-03 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  Company demands money to service out of warranty product. News at 11.
  
  Sure the courts are gonna slam them for their completely legal and common business practice.
  
  --
  Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
2. Re:The fuckers should be sued for blackmail! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 08:40 · Score: 0
  
  No. Company demand money to tell them how to factory-reset their locked down piece of crap.
"Programmer finds" by Gaygirlie · 2017-01-03 04:19 · Score: 4, Informative

No, programmer didn't find shit. He was given the instructions, it's that fucking simple.
1. Re:"Programmer finds" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 04:24 · Score: 0
  
  I'd wager $5 that if you ask the "programmer" where he works, it'll be McDonalds or Ikea or the like. I've run into many people that say shit like this and they're usually working at some no skill job.
2. Re:"Programmer finds" by Oswald+McWeany · 2017-01-03 05:00 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  He found them in his e-mail inbox.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
FBI has an image problem by mi · 2017-01-03 04:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

ransomware purporting to be a FBI message a notice that suspicious files were found and the user has been fined.
That people believe such "warnings" in large enough numbers to make it worthwhile for the crooks to make them, is a sign, that FBI has an image problem.
It is an organization we fear, rather than one we trust (such as to hunt the scammers down). And they had this image problem for so long now, one can begin suspecting, it is not just a perception...

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
1. Re:FBI has an image problem by c · 2017-01-03 04:31 · Score: 2
  
  That people believe such "warnings" in large enough numbers to make it worthwhile for the crooks to make them, is a sign, that FBI has an image problem.
  Ironically, the same people that fall for these scams usually think nothing of ignoring the FBI warnings that play at the beginning of movies...
  
  --
  Log in or piss off.
2. Re:FBI has an image problem by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 04:36 · Score: 0
  
  Isn't that by design though?
  I seem to have this image of SERIOUS text on a blue background of nearly every film I've watched at home since the 80s about how I would be PERSECUTED specifically by the FBI for the heinous crime of dubbing
  Of all the agencies scammers could pick the FBI was absolutely the correct one for a television.
3. Re:FBI has an image problem by mi · 2017-01-03 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  Of all the agencies scammers could pick the FBI was absolutely the correct one for a television.
  The ransomware described in TFA was not made for television. The picture shows the letter on its side — no one watches TV that way. The scammers targeted phones and tablets — the TV just happened to run the same OS.
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
4. Re:FBI has an image problem by zifn4b · 2017-01-03 05:00 · Score: 2
  
  It is an organization we fear, rather than one we trust (such as to hunt the scammers down). And they had this image problem for so long now, one can begin suspecting, it is not just a perception...
  You're veering off-topic but if you do a relatively small amount of research into the topic including Gallup polls, you find that social trust in the United States has plummeted for many years and the latest generation, the Millennials, have the lowest social trust. It's been gradually declining: Silent > Boomers > Gen X > Millenials. If you really care about this issue do your research because it's going to take a monumental effort to change the course of our culture. We're essentially devolving back into a more tribal society.
  
  --
  We'll make great pets
5. Re:FBI has an image problem by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 05:00 · Score: 0
  
  After you've seen it a few hundred times, well, yeah, it's just noise at that point.
  I ignore it long enough to rip the media I legally purchased, specifically so I can elide what the FBI doesn't want me to skip past.
  Then I never see it again.
6. Re:FBI has an image problem by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 05:13 · Score: 0
  
  It is an organization we fear, rather than one we trust (such as to hunt the scammers down). And they had this image problem for so long now, one can begin suspecting, it is not just a perception...
  Either that, or Americans REALLY are such criminals, that they believe they can pay off the FBI with a bribe paid for with iTunes cards.
7. Re:FBI has an image problem by irrational_design · 2017-01-03 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  A monumental effort on who's part? It seems to me that this monumental effort would have to be on the part of the politicians and government workers. But how likely is this? Especially with Trump coming into office.
8. Re:FBI has an image problem by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2017-01-03 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  ransomware purporting to be a FBI message a notice that suspicious files were found and the user has been fined.
  That people believe such "warnings" in large enough numbers to make it worthwhile for the crooks to make them, is a sign, that FBI has an image problem.
  I disagree. It's really a people problem, such as people not understanding technology very well. I know a guy who is a blue collar worker and he can barely use a PC enough to read and send email and surf the web. He has admitted to me that he's clicked on one of those "We've found a virus on your PC. Click here to pay for our scanning program to save your PC!" popups and sent money to those people. People often don't understand the technology well enough to know what's real and what isn't and they're often too embarrassed to ask for help from people who do understand. This same guy if he ever has a PC problem, it's a bad, time consuming one to fix. I've had to tell him he's got to go to Geek Squad for this kind of thing. I have a better friend who is a middle school teacher and he's not much better with PCs. He doesn't know how to save any file to a location other than the default location that comes up. There are lots of people who just don't get technology very well.
9. Re:FBI has an image problem by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 06:53 · Score: 0
  
  No, it is a US Gov't agency that FOREIGN ransomware developers believe to be authoritative. They hope the 'clout' of a heavy-weight agency will convince some people. Because remember, in those countries, a gov't agency will ruin your life (if not take it). So they interpret our agencies to be just as threatening.
  This is a foreign perspective/hope. Oh and PS: there are gullible idiots everywhere around the world and all through history of every gender & age- some people falling for this has nothing to do with US citizens of this era.
  _
10. Re:FBI has an image problem by Frank+Burly · 2017-01-03 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  People have always feared law enforcement. The FBI's reputation has little (if anything) to do with it. The ransomers just just as easily have said INTERPOL, except that too few people have heard of them.
11. Re:FBI has an image problem by wbr1 · 2017-01-03 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  The FBi has had an image problem since COINTEPRO or since he first dreamed of Tolson's schlong.
  
  --
  Silence is a state of mime.
12. Re:FBI has an image problem by mi · 2017-01-03 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree. It's really a people problem, such as people not understanding technology very well.
  My point was not about scamware in general, but rather a subset of it, that purports to be FBI. You don't need to understand technology to trust a law-enforcement agency to not accuse you, if you've done nothing wrong. Frightening victims with such accusations should be a net-loss for scammers — some of us may, indeed, get scared, but most should, upon seeing a reference to FBI, relax: "FBI? They'd never make such a bogus accusation! This can only be a scam."
  That we do not have such trust, that we fear FBI making our lives miserable, is a problem, which a properly self-governed country should not have.
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
13. Re:FBI has an image problem by Archangel+Michael · 2017-01-03 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Why would politicians care about what people think of them? They get elected over and over again. Most people can't stand politicians, but their own isn't too bad, it is everyone else's that is horrible.
  I don't know about you, but I am pretty sure that there is good reason to NOT believe government agencies (like the FBI) are not fully working FOR the American people.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
14. Re:FBI has an image problem by budgenator · 2017-01-03 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  We Boomers rocked,
  
  Rubin's appearance before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) hearings is a good example of the Yippies emphasis on conducting political protest as theater, and creating as much attention as possible to their dissent by turning it into a spectacle. Rubin was subpoenaed by HUAC in Washington but instead of pleading the Fifth Amendment as was common, he entered the room dressed in a rented 18th-century American Revolutionary War uniform, proudly claiming to be a descendant of Jefferson and Paine. "Nothing is more American than revolution," he told the committee.[10] Rubin showing total lack of concern or worries, lightheartedly blew soap bubbles as members of Congress questioned his Communist affiliations. He subsequently appeared before the HUAC as a bare-chested guerrilla in Viet Cong pajamas, with war paint and carrying a toy M-16 rifle, and later as Santa Claus Jerry Rubin
  
  and COINTELPRO
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
15. Re:FBI has an image problem by fedos · 2017-01-03 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  The thing is that ransomware doesn't just flash a warning: it prevents you from using your device. This isn't just people falling for a fake FBI image; it's people desperate to get back their expensive hardware (and possibly files).
  The scam would work just as well if the ransomware flashed a legitimate-sounding, but fake, name for a government organization.
16. Re:FBI has an image problem by zifn4b · 2017-01-04 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  We Boomers rocked,
  Rocked in what sense? Mastering the art of charlatanism? The majority of Boomers were not very well educated because their journey of self growth and exploration so much more important maaaan to the point that they ditched formal education. When it became apparent to you that was not a sustainable way to live in a socio-economic system, you realized you actually needed to get a decent job but didn't have skills nor the means to pay for education. You didn't want to lower your standards to the bottom rung of the labor force because you were so far above everyone else, so what did you do? You used your remarkable influence skills and social engineering to convince many people that your grand wisdom was necessary in the form of consultative services but all you were really doing was conjuring a job for your own self interest to support yourself out of thin air. What a DRAG on society man. And you have the audacity to curse every generation that came after you claiming they are doing this to a far greater extent than you did. Tsk tsk. Hello pot, meet kettle.
  
  --
  We'll make great pets
17. Re:FBI has an image problem by david_thornley · 2017-01-04 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  If you illegally torrent your movies, I doubt you'll see the FBI warnings. Another advantage of copyright violation: you can get a superior product. This is preaching to the choir when you're positive the sinners who need the sermon are not in the church.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
18. Re:FBI has an image problem by david_thornley · 2017-01-04 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  Especially with Comey running the FBI. A lot of people I run into are either upset at him for his information release days before the election, or upset at him because they think he lied to help Clinton escape prosecution (I couldn't find a case of unintentional mishandling of classified material in my search that resulted in criminal prosecution, BTW).
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
19. Re:FBI has an image problem by david_thornley · 2017-01-04 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  It's also a problem with technical devices behaving differently from earlier devices. Until cars became computerized, I wasn't going to find that driving past a particular billboard or tuning to a particular radio station would cause problems with it. I could understand what was a threat to the car, and what sort of threat it represented, by a very basic knowledge of the mechanics involved. It was fairly easy to tell whether X was a threat to Y, and what sort of threat it was.
  Fast forward to when visiting websites like the New York Times can cause arbitrary harm to your computer. Given some capacity for abstract thought, it's not difficult to learn computers to the same extent that I knew cars back then. (I hated shop class.) That isn't anywhere near enough to allow you to detect threats and figure what they can do.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
20. Re:FBI has an image problem by budgenator · 2017-01-05 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  Rocked in what sense? Mastering the art of charlatanism?
  Bingo! Trump, Clinton and Sanders, the millennials are still falling for that crap! Global Warming, Affordable Healthcare Act, Russian Hackers, need I go on.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
21. Re:FBI has an image problem by zifn4b · 2017-01-05 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  Rocked in what sense? Mastering the art of charlatanism?
  Bingo! Trump, Clinton and Sanders, the millennials are still falling for that crap! Global Warming, Affordable Healthcare Act, Russian Hackers, need I go on.
  Um you need to check your facts here. Bernie Sanders is in Silent generation. Trump is BARELY in the Boomer generation. The silent generation went through 1945, Trump was born in 1946. Hillary is also barely in the Boomer generation but moreso than Trump being born in 1947.
  Better examples would be Jamie Dimon, John Stumpf, Jordan Belfort, Jeff Bezos, Steve Ballmer etc. Those are the kind of droids you're looking for.
  
  --
  We'll make great pets
...discontinued Google TV. by martiniturbide · 2017-01-03 04:22 · Score: 1

Let's remember that Google TV has been discontinued. Now it is Android TV, and if I don't get it wrong LG newer TV's now ship with WebOS. So, there is Ramsonware for the unsupported old Google TVs ? And I thought that having a discontinued OS that you can not update on a TV was bad enough.
1. Re:...discontinued Google TV. by klingens · 2017-01-03 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  It's normal Android ransomware. "Good" ransomware doesn't care on what Android it runs, be it your phone, tablet, TV, smartwatch or car: it's all the same system, same API. Since that old software in this old TV never got any security updates by the manufacturer, it was probably much easier to root for the malware to install itself very deepy into the system too.
Not Simple by freeze128 · 2017-01-03 04:33 · Score: 3, Informative

I have an LG smartphone, and I can tell you that the procedure for getting into the recovery is not as simple as other brands of phones (e.g., HTC). Usually, you would just hold down a button while the device powers on and boots up. With the LG device, you have to hold the button down until it STARTS to boot, then release the button, and then press it again. The timing is critical, and it doesn't often work the first time.

With the television, you have even more buttons to worry about, so trial and error would take a very long time.
What's the alternative? by mi · 2017-01-03 04:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Don't buy a smart TV. They have no purpose.
They offer, what the manufacturer believes you want in one package.
I too would rather just buy a nice 65" monitor — because I have a capable set-top box running my IPTV apps and a nice surround-sound setup already — but there aren't any good ones for sale. Or, rather, there are, but they all have the "smart TV" built into them — and I am as annoyed about paying for the "smart" features and the extra hardware they require (USB-readers and WiFi), as people used to be about paying the "Microsoft Tax".
But there is no alternative at the moment. Which means, people like me (and you) are a tiny minority... I guess, it would cost the manufacturers more to make and ship the separate models without these add-ons, than to simply bundle it all in.

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
1. Re:What's the alternative? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 06:02 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, look at Wal-Mart. One of the things I don't like about them is that their aggressive price-cutting monopsony forces manufacturers to cut corners, leading to unique SKU's that are only available at walmart to both cut costs and avoid price-matching (eg kitchen aid mixers with a cheaper motor that is a few HP weaker than the regular, more expensive model elsewhere), but a few years back my parents were black friday shopping and they found themselves a nice large big screen TV (I think it was a Samsung?) that was the Wal-Mart-only model, that was mostly identical to the regular model except with fewer inputs and no smart features. Nowadays, "smart" TV might be too ubiquitous to get cut to save pennies at Wal-Mart, but it might be worth a shot.
2. Re:What's the alternative? by Darinbob · 2017-01-03 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  There are alternatives, but you have to look for them. You won't find them at the mass market big box store, and certainly not on prominent display.
3. Re:What's the alternative? by mi · 2017-01-04 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  There are alternatives, but you have to look for them
  Citation needed. Do give an example of a 4K-capable 65" monitor, that costs significantly less than $1200 without the "Smart" features (and, preferably, without built-in speakers as well).
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
4. Re:What's the alternative? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 07:28 · Score: 0
  
  3 (?) years ago I purchased a dumb 65" samsung TV during Black Friday for less than $1k. The equivalent smart versions were $1700. I took the $700 and put it towards a surface pro 2 so I could use mirrorcast to stream to my TV any time I want it to be 'smart'. I also got a nice laptop out of the deal. Much better setup. This way my TV isn't going to become outdated in a year or two (one reason TV manufacturers are pushing smart TVs), and when I get around to buying a new laptop my TV will get a free upgrade too.
  The only downside to this is I can't browse on the laptop while streaming to the TV. Not a big issue as I can always do that from my phone anyway.
5. Re:What's the alternative? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  https://www.amazon.com/Sceptre-U658CV-UMC-Ultra-3840x2160-Solid/dp/B0198XNF6U/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1483558760&sr=1-1&keywords=sceptre+65+inch+4k+tv
  Sceptre TV's.
6. Re:What's the alternative? by mi · 2017-01-05 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you. That's neat, but this is still a TV — with a tuner and built-in speakers. It is unclear, what OS it has, but it must be something capable of making use of the USB-port, that is listed in the specs. So, it may not be as "smart" as the LG in TFA, but it still has features well beyond, what I'd like. It is not purely a monitor...
  It may be a good value for $800, but there are still features I don't want.
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
340 USD for this information? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 04:43 · Score: 0

This was reported on slate.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/12/28/ransomware_reported_on_smart_tv.html
, LG representatives “told him to visit one of their service centers, where one of its employees could reset his TV.” That service came with a hefty price tag attached—$340, enough that Cauthon’s family member might have been better off buying a new television outright.
'With the TV powered off, place one finger on the settings symbol then another finger on the channel down symbol. Remove finger from settings, then from channel down, and navigate using volume keys to the wipe data/ factory reset option.' ®
And now that he has posted this information I imagine LG will sue him for releasing this copywrited information....
LG Customer Support Fail by zifn4b · 2017-01-03 04:54 · Score: 1

Why is it that you can call Sony and they can tell you similar steps to get into safe mode on your PS3/PS4 and do the equivalent and their front line customer support is educated enough to help you with this but LG not so much?

--
We'll make great pets
1. Re:LG Customer Support Fail by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 05:14 · Score: 0
  
  Sony sucks. I'm still waiting for their fucking CSRs to call or email me back regarding the fact that the fucking sony fucking tv that I just fucking bought two fucking weeks ago cannot fucking play fucking videos from USB or network in the fucking correct fucking aspect. What the fuck is wrong, sony?
2. Re:LG Customer Support Fail by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  It's all the fookin XML in those fookin things.
3. Re:LG Customer Support Fail by fintux · 2017-01-04 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  Yea I also just found this out. I bought a pair of their headphones (a very expensive model), and they were defective from the start. I bought them from another country within EU, but they were supposed to have an European-wide warranty. Technically that is true, but I have to pay for the shipping to the repair workshop in my home country, and the waiting times are just absurd (more than 2-4 months depending on whether I want to have a defective part replaced or the whole headphones replaced). The repair workshop says they are not getting the replacement parts from Sony and Sony says that they I should ask from the workshop why they cannot get the replacement parts from Sony any quicker!
  The headphones as such are impressive, but the warranty struggle has just ruined the whole thing for me.
4. Re:LG Customer Support Fail by Swave+An+deBwoner · 2017-01-04 14:52 · Score: 1
  
  Next time try to buy your stuff from a shop that allows returns with full refund (I'm assuming that is as normal in the EU as it is in the US). Then you would have simply returned the broken headphones and bought another pair; a pair that, hopefully, were not defective.
5. Re:LG Customer Support Fail by fintux · 2017-01-04 21:15 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah they do have a return policy, but since the store is in another country, I don't yet know how this will end. Actually, the EU consumer protection directives require a two-year warranty for everything within the EU, with a cost-free repair, replace or refund. But it does not say about the shipping (so the cost-free might simply mean that no specific charge is done for the service itself) or which of the three options must be followed.
  So I did send them a query, but did not yet get a reply. If I had staid in the country for one day longer, or had noticed the defect one hour earlier, I would have returned the device. I still do have a chance of getting a refund and purchasing a new pair in my home country. I just don't want to end up paying too much for the shipping (the shipping within EU is generally more expensive than within the US).
  At this time, my best option might be to return the equipment to the store for refund and just purchase a new headset in my home country. But if Sony had played this well, they would just have replaced the headset themselves within a reasonable time. The end result would be the same: Sony would be returned one faulty headset and I would get a functional one. But due to their internal policies, this is not going to happen in a reasonable time.
6. Re:LG Customer Support Fail by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-07 08:52 · Score: 0
  
  That would mean going back to where he bought them, which from his comment is in another country.
Re: cloud punch clock by slashrio · 2017-01-03 05:14 · Score: 1

So now we have to buy aluminium hats for our clocks???!!

--
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Every current name brand smart TV... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 05:59 · Score: 0

Is running Linux, and most of them are running some form of pseudo-open source userspace on top of it. Hell, most of the 'dumb' tvs currently available, especially the 4k ones are all running linux behind the scenes, even if they have no network operation or other features.
Most of these companies have decidedly *NOT* spend millions of dollars developing the software operating these TVs, except insofar as they have had to write hardware-specific drivers to interface them with the kernel. And in such a case their distribution of Linux on the device requires them to provide the end user with the option of requesting source code in either physical media or digital download format for a nominal copying fee.
The scam of companies spending millions developing software for average consumer goods hasn't been true in decades, without either significant licensing or pilfering of existing people or company's work.
Re: Hosts stop ransomware before you can get it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 06:38 · Score: 0

Jesus Christ. Here we go. Let the fucking chaos commence.
Reset pinhole required by DigiShaman · 2017-01-03 07:02 · Score: 2

How hard would it be to engineer a reset pinhole into the next model for user factory resets?? Id be fine with clearing all memory and loading from a static ROM. It's not that difficult to load the upgraded OS/Apps from online again.

--
Life is not for the lazy.
1. Re:Reset pinhole required by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 08:33 · Score: 0
  
  How hard would it be to engineer a reset pinhole into the next model for user factory resets??
  It's not hard at all, even after market. However - getting the funding for such a change, even though minuscule in cost, is much harder...especially depending on who the engineer/engineering technician works for.
2. Re:Reset pinhole required by Gilgaron · 2017-01-03 09:01 · Score: 2
  
  It probably isn't malice, it probably just didn't occur to them. My in-laws were showing me their new WiFi thermostat/security camera system. It would not surprise me if there is no clear way to reset it if it were to be compromised by malware... I look at all that stuff and feel like Adama from Battlestar Galatica refusing to network his computers...
'IoT' nightmare by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 07:04 · Score: 0

Three months after leaving the hospital where your pacemaker was installed in your chest, you experience five seconds where your heart stops beating -- then, after scaring the hell out of you, resumes beating normally, like nothing ever happened. You go to call your cardiologist, but as you pick up your phone you receive a text message: "We just stopped your heart for 5 seconds. We can stop it for longer, or for good. Send us 100 Bitcoins and you'll never skip a beat again." With ice in your belly you call your cardiologist anyway, scared out of your mind, and explain what happened. He's shocked, and sympathetic, and apologies for your 'inconvenience' -- and tells you there's nothing he can do for you now, you must pay the ransom, assures you that once you do, this 'problem' will never occur again, or at least never has in any of the other patients who have been affected this way..
Of course this is complete fiction.. for now. This is what the 'Internet of Things' is bringing us: More attack vectors for criminals. Do yourself a favor and reject the 'Internet of Things'. It'll never be secure enough. How can I say this, you ask? Look at daily tech news: Every single day there are new exploits uncovered, new weaknesses in devices and software that we thought were 'secure enough'. What makes you think that any of these devices can ever be secure enough?

You don't need internet-connected coffeemakers, stoves, ovens, refrigerators, thermostats, washers, dryers, lightbulbs, etc etc etc. You do not need them at all. Stop drinking the marketing kool-aid and stop buying these devices; stop inviting criminals into your home, into your life, buy giving them ways to attack you, extort you, or make you complicit in their crimes (i.e. make your entire house part of a bot-net).
"Gosh I'm SO 'surprised'" (not) by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 07:27 · Score: 0

Out of your "downmopoints" loser https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10073035&cid=53598121/ as you troll by unidentifiable anonymous posts?
* Go ahead, downmod my posts here too IF you're not run dry of them already - as in the end as always? I'll RUN YOU DRY of your abused "downmodpoints" dolt!
(Wouldn't be a 1st - & it shows HOW EASILY I smoke you limited stooges!)
APK
P.S.=> See subject - downmods & unidentifiable ac trolling's the BEST YOU GOT vs. myself & you know it proving it loser (& don't use Jesus name in vain you cowardly little asshole)... apk
1. Re:"Gosh I'm SO 'surprised'" (not) by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 10:11 · Score: 0
  
  Good luck getting that host file loaded on your LG TV.
Blame Trump (FBI has an image problem) by mi · 2017-01-03 07:32 · Score: 1

Especially with Trump coming into office.
Trump is fairly unique — though sometimes compared to Reagan, he is different from him in many ways too. So, it would seem, that it was other kinds of politicians, who got the country into its current state of social distrust. Whether Trump will help alleviate the problem or not, making such nasty predictions about him as you just did reveals nothing, but your own hateful partisanship.

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
My TV will always remain dumb by macbass · 2017-01-03 09:23 · Score: 1

Another reason to avoid using smart TV features. Nobody cares about security anymore.
Hosts stop ransomware before you can get it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 10:06 · Score: 0

See subject & (1st bolded entry = 'proof thereof') https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10010777&cid=53510613/ for a total of 10 botnets stalled in the past week++!
Stops other botnets & malwares too, speeding up your PC @ the same time (unlike other "so-called 'solutions'" that are riddled w/ security bugs + inefficiency (remote DNS/antivirus))!
Does far more for far less vs. browser addons that don't even work fully (adblock) by default & are inefficient slower usermode layering in more messagepassing overheads in browser vs. hosts in kernelmode (as part of the IP stack itself) via NEW version:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-5 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/
P.S.=> FREE + safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/ ... apk
Hating on Walmart? by mi · 2017-01-03 10:39 · Score: 1

One of the things I don't like about them is that their aggressive price-cutting monopsony forces manufacturers to cut corners, leading to unique SKU's that are only available at walmart
What's to dislike about that?

a nice large big screen TV (I think it was a Samsung?) that was the Wal-Mart-only model, that was mostly identical to the regular model except with fewer inputs and no smart features
What's to dislike about that?
It is almost like someone has told you to hate Walmart, but you just can't help yourself saying good things about them and recommending the store to others...

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
1. Re:Hating on Walmart? by david_thornley · 2017-01-04 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  The problem here is that Walmart sells things of inferior quality without properly communicating that to the customer. I've never seen any signs in a Wal-Mart pointing out that the Levi jeans are a special Walmart-only version without the quality of Levi jeans elsewhere. That's something I found out elsewhere.
  Without adequate information, cheap crap drives expensive quality out of the market. Walmarts have a habit of showing up and selling apparently identical merchandise for less, driving the stores that sell the better stuff out of business.
  If you want the lower-quality stuff, sure, shop at Walmart if you don't mind how they treat their employees.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
2. Re:Hating on Walmart? by mi · 2017-01-05 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  I've never seen any signs in a Wal-Mart pointing out that the Levi jeans are a special Walmart-only version without the quality of Levi jeans elsewhere.
  That's new — the Anonymous OP I was replying to made no allegations of the Walmart-only TVs being lower quality. Reduced feature-set — yes. But he never mentioned quality issues — indeed, his parents are, reportedly, happy enough with the purchase for him to recommend the shop to /. colleagues.
  
  Without adequate information, cheap crap drives expensive quality out of the market
  Well, whatever the quality of Walmart's wares, there is obviously still plenty of places to get other kind of stuff on the US market.
  
  if you don't mind how they treat their employees.
  I'm unaware of anybody being forced to work there. If people do so voluntarily, I certainly am not going to pay attention to Communists and their rent-seeking running dogs at the various Unions.
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
that reset info should be public knowledge by FudRucker · 2017-01-03 10:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

customers should be allowed to do factory resets on their televisions, WTF is wrong with LG, that info should be in the documentation that comes with every new television sold!!!

--
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
1. Re:that reset info should be public knowledge by david_thornley · 2017-01-04 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  Says you. What if the factory reset makes the TV unusable or crippled without doing something requiring special tools or knowledge? What if it's an attack vector? I'm not claiming that these would be well-designed TVs, just that they could happen. IIRC, LG provided a reset procedure that they thought adequate against the threat models when the set was designed, but which didn't get around the malware.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
2. Re:that reset info should be public knowledge by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-07 04:47 · Score: 0
  
  What if the factory reset makes the TV unusable or crippled without doing something requiring special tools or knowledge?
  Then it's not a "factory reset" function, it's an "install the OS" function. Factory reset implies that it resets to exactly how it was from factory. All that's needed there is a non-rewritable ROM chip with a backup copy of the OS to be reloaded into NAND when asked. Or if you want it cheaper, a recovery DVD. Why? Because that data is static the second the product goes into production, and does not need to be altered afterwards. Yes you can update it that's what the NAND is for, but for a recovery mechanism, at the very least starting a network connection and downloading the current version of the OS is all that's really needed.
  
  What if it's an attack vector?
  That's the fault of the manufacturer. If the factory reset function can be abused to 1. Install malware downloaded to a temporary area, and 2. be triggered and completed without user intervention, then yeah it's going to be an attack vector. That's just bad design. Most products require user intervention to trigger the recovery function. The real issue is that most people (as per the article) don't know how to use them or if they even exist.
  
  provided a reset procedure that they thought adequate against the threat models when the set was designed, but which didn't get around the malware.
  It's not a good recovery mechanism if it's infect-able. It's a poorly designed one. A proper design includes some level of WORM (Write Once, Read Many times) media to prevent infection by malware. This is also why PC manufacturers deciding to save a dollar on recovery DVDs by shoving it onto the hard-drive is bad for the consumer. The malware can infect the recovery media, and most people won't produce it until they need it. (Worse, some of the manufacturers only allow the recovery media to be made once.) The fact that they didn't use WORM media is proof that they didn't do due diligence and actually considered those threat models seriously.
  The problem is the manufactures wanting to save a buck, and the less scrupulous ones wanting to make a buck. This whole thing worked just fine in the late 90's, no reason it won't work now, beyond the lazy manufacturers not implementing it correctly that is.
i still have a crt by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 11:27 · Score: 0

but then again, i only turn it on at lunch, so probably wont break anytime soon
Get with the times bro! by sonamchauhan · 2017-01-03 16:59 · Score: 1

Install the latest microcode for your processor
https://sites.google.com/site/...
Knew it! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 04:07 · Score: 0

When this story first appeared my immediate response was that someone had tried using illegal apps on it loaded with malware, no way it was infected remotely without the user causing the infection. Fucking idiots that consider themselves experts and infect themselves out of nothing more than greed.
Programmer was an idiot by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 04:24 · Score: 0

Took 2 seconds searching on Google to find the factory reset instructions and forum threads from others that infected their LG GoogleTV televisions with viruses. For reference, here's how the reset is done: http://factory-reset.com/wiki/...