Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Should I Allow A 'Smart TV' To Connect To The Internet?
Slashdot reader GovCheese has a question:
I use Roku and also the client apps on my gaming consoles for Amazon and Netflix. But it seems less prudent to allow my television, a Samsung, to connect to the internet. My Phillips Blu-ray wants to connect also. But I'd rather not. Is it illogical to allow Roku and a console to connect to streaming services but prevent a "smart" television from doing so?
Slashdot reader gurps_npc argues there's a distinction between devices that need internet access and devices that want it, adding "Smart TVs overcharge in privacy invasion for the minimal advantages they offer."
Leave your own best answers in the comments. Should you let a smart TV connect to the internet?
Slashdot reader gurps_npc argues there's a distinction between devices that need internet access and devices that want it, adding "Smart TVs overcharge in privacy invasion for the minimal advantages they offer."
Leave your own best answers in the comments. Should you let a smart TV connect to the internet?
Pretty much the only reason I let my "smart" TV connect to the Internet is for firmware updates. Don't think I've had one in a while though now so assuming they've stopped being developed I may disconnect it soon.
The Blu-Ray player needs to connect to the internet for updates to be able to play the latest discs. The Smart TV does not, unless you are actually using its "smart" features.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Didn't Samsung get caught for their TVs always listening to everything around them, with no permission asked? LG was caught snooping on all files and filenames on the network, if my memory serves. Then there were a couple of others whose names I've already forgotten..Heck, pretty much every TV-manufacturer has gotten caught with their pants down by this point. A Roku is somewhat of a different beasts, because it needs Internet for streaming. I would hazard a guess that they track whatever you do on the Roku-box itself, but may not go to the same lengths as TV-manufacturers do, when it comes to overall spying in general.
Personally, I would rather give the TV a middle finger than any connectivity, whatsoever.
To expand on this: hell no. God no. Fuck no.
That seems to be ... pretty stupid and short-sighted. If you're not paying monthly, but get the updates free of charge as included in the original purchase price for the TV (or phone, or IoT Fridge or whatever), then it's still a real product.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
If your smartphone (modem firmware plus tons of closed source software) and x86 computer (IntelME, NIC firmware, closed source software) are connected to the Internet on a regular basis using the same network provider then you've already forfeited your privacy and security.
So, the real question is how much additional data you'd like to share with third parties. I'm thinking your movies preferences hardly constitute something to worry about.
My LG is hardwired. I use its DLNA features but I also block it by MAC from sending any traffic out of the local RFC1918. This obviously isn't going to work if you use the TV's streaming features but for locally hosted content it's ideal.
As for firmware updates, Samsung's recent brick debacle where it took a technician physically opening the case to get them back pretty much answers that question. The general rule for stuff held in programmable ROM is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." I understand many will want KRACK fixes for WiFi as soon as they're available, yet I also wouldn't be holding my breath thinking this is a priority for vendors; they have your money, you're on your own. However, if there's a flaw in the monetisation of your viewing habits they'll be jamming those bytes down your digital throat before you can blink.
Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
Plex is my current go to, the smart TV roku etc do not need internet access (have to fake a bit of it to get some to use the network). If you want privacy you have to avoid cloud-based anything. I still put them on their own vlan.
No sir I dont like it.
However with the holes in the firmware that you can find today it might be a good idea to put your entertainment system on a separate subnet at home compared to the other devices - and only open that net when you really need.
Segmentation of networks is a good security measure these days.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Your TV and Roku are both closed source. You have no idea what either one are doing, so you might as well let etiher one do whatever they want.
Does connecting your TV to the internet brings you something?
- Yes : connect it
- No : don't
It's that simple.
And the fact that you connect a device to the internet (because it is useful for you to do so) doesn't mean you have to connect everything. It is not all or nothing. From a security/privacy perspective you want to keep your attack surface as small as possible, but it doesn't mean you need to completely wall yourself in unless you have more to hide than normal people.
I just recently bought a pair of 55in Samsung Smart TVs
They each connected to the internet once for firmware updates, and were immediately disconnected afterwards. Unless there's a problem that requires me to update their firmware again, they won't ever be connected again.
All of the apps that the TV offers are already present on my Roku's and quite franky, the Roku's do it better
I told it, you choose.
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
What kind of retarded question is this? If you use any features that require the internet, connect it to the internet. I watch Amazon Video on my Smart TV, so it is online. If you don't need anything like that you might as well not connect it.
If you are worried about the top-secret national security level stuff you have on your local network, well, ask you security team, not slashdot... And in any case from a security/privacy perspective you should probably be even more worried about other devices (starting with your mobile phone).
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Do you know your device?
Do not let anything connect to the Internet if you don't know why it should.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
In my home I implement two different networks. Each with it's own gate way. Now this requires more than your average level of IT skills in the home.
One network is for what I will call class one devices. These are devices that I specifically add to the it. These will be things like computers, tablets, gaming and phones. The second network and the default network is for every other device. Now this requires me actually promote devices the class one network. Typically be mac address.
Thus all those pesky iot devices end up in the default network. The default network is blocked from the internet.
Note a device that runs something like pfsense will do the job. There are lots of alternative setups.
Now. I can also tailor each device in each network to have slightly different network privileges than the each networks default. Example would be a security camera uploading data to my private cloud storage. But I also block all DNS resolution of add servers and malware end points etc in my class one network.
This is not something a regular I know how to turn on my laptop kinda person can do. This requires a reasonable amount of automated scripting, network monitoring and pro-active tuning as situations change. However it can all be done rather cheaply with couple hundred dollar pfsense box installed between the internet modem->pfsense->router(wifi).
So yeah I block everything. I only enable access when required and even then I can make it temporary. The more IOT crap that ends up in the house the more this setup is saving my backside.
( Note: I don't use pfsense I implemented all the services I need from pfsense myself in VM's. But it's basically the same thing. )
We actually got rid of our TVs. All of them. We are now a TV-free household. It just got to be too much of a pain to watch what we wanted to watch.
Our family life has gotten immeasurably better since now we do things together as a family instead of sitting around watching TV. Having made this transition, I am fully convinced that TV is the major culprit behind the destruction of the family and the decline of our society.
Came here to say the same thing. Create a separate, isolated network for your TVs. Avoid ones with cameras and microphones. Job done.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I lock all of my smart devices in a faraday cage.
I use Slashdot for a very long time and still some questions on main page kills me.
What was the reason you purchased Smart TV in the first place?
Did you buy it to be "cool" or what?
Or you just wanted standard TV but you have seen this one is "smart" so it must be better?
I use Samsung Smart TV and I bought it mainly for two reasons:
- Netflix
- Youtube
I understand you don't use these services. Because they don't work without internet access. Because they are internet services.
So what do you do on your "smart" TV? Watch "smart" programs or what?
First decide which device will be your primary content streaming device. Then updating the TV's system software and some of its basic apps can be followed by unplugging your TV from internet and leaving all the input from your BR player. I did it this way for my Mom's set-up, so she is not confused with Netflix on TV vs Netflix on her disc player. Same thing to us, different thing to them old folks.
Is convenience of watching YouTube cat videos worth your privacy?
That's a silly comment. I use Youtube a lot but have never watched a cat video. I watch it for car and camera repair techniques, for which it is invaluable.
Connect devices which need updates periodically and then disconnect them.
But do they "need" it/
I have a TV from 2011. It is a "smart" TV, and it is connected to the internet. When I subscribed to Netflix, I used it for that purpose. Although I've cancelled Netflix, I still use it to watch Vudu movies once in a while. It's still connected to the internet. So what? Where is the harm? What's the worst that can happen? Someone, somewhere, is going to be bored enough to hack into my TV? And then what? Brick it? Big deal. I will buy a newer TV that is better and a fraction of the price I paid for this one. Listen to my conversations? No Microphone on this TV, so good luck with that. Watch me? No camera on this TV, so good luck with that too. I'm sorry, but I'm just not paranoid enough to worry about someone hacking into my SmartTV. I've got much more likely shit to worry about.
That's cruel. I let mine roam free in my backyard.
#DeleteFacebook
Yeah, OK bud. Keep dreaming.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Should you allow a Windows computer to connect to the Internet?
Have gnu, will travel.
I only connect devices that need to be on the internet. When it comes to TVs, Blu-Ray players, etc, I temporarily connect them once in a while just to get the latest firmware updates and then I disconnect them.
Time and again various IoT crapware has proven that it is insecure. The reason for this is simple. Companies making TVs have experience making TVs. And even if the corporation behind it (like with, say, Sony) should have some experience with computers and securing them (ok, I admit, Sony is a bad example...), that doesn't mean that they talk with each other. Or that securing computers applies equally to securing IoT devices. If anything, IoT has more in common with cellphones, and even here you can easily see (with Samsun, no less) that experience in one area does not translate to the other.
Embedded devices and developing them has fundamentally different rules than developing "real" computers or cellphones. Unlike with computers and cellphones, you're not only responsible for the hardware, you're developing the software, and you either even have to develop your own OS or at the very least tailor a Linux distribution to your needs. If you're lucky, you have someone in your team (or you buy one) that can actually tailor Linux.
Your chances of this person also being a security expert is slim to zero.
What you're dealing here is a very newly developed piece of software, a veritable "v1.0" (which, as anyone in IT knows is more akin to a "v0.9beta"). And you pit that against people who have literally decades of experience hacking machines on the internet who know all the old tricks and the new 0days. This is a pitched battle if there has ever been one.
And all the old tricks that every security conscious developer of internet facing computer software knows by now work again. Because the people developing the IoT-Software, i.e. people developing embedded software, have no experience with security issues. They developed for closed systems, with a focus on small code and optimal use of resources rather than sanity checking and input testing.
If you throw someone into a job where he suddenly should react to a threat he cannot even assess because he doesn't even KNOW what the threat is, the result is the IoT crap we have today.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I use my TV pretty much just as a display for whatever devices I connect to it. Even for the firmware update, the TV does not need internet connectivity (just put the file on a USB stick). I have read too many horror stories about the TV phoning home what channels you watch, what video files you play etc. to use the internal apps of the TV and allow it network access. That, plus the internal apps usually suck.
If you want only local WiFi, set your gateway and dns to invalid address. This will prevent internet access to your t.v.but allow your local network to access the t.v..
I installed a custom firmware on my TV (they all run Linux anyway) and this lets me do all sorts of stuff on my TV. If you already have a Linux box that does all that, and you just need a âoedumbâ TV then I probably wouldnâ(TM)t bother given it has no added value, then again, I wouldnâ(TM)t purchase smart TVs if Iâ(TM)m not going to use the functionality, itâ(TM)s a waste of money (~$100-300 in added cost)
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I would say buy a dumb TV but it seems that all larger models are now smart. I bought a Vizio smart TV and returned it to the store. I actually read the agreement I had make before I could even turn the TV on. I found the terms and conditions to be unacceptable.
How long before it's ubiquitous to include a cellular modem that phones home all the juicy private information with no need for other connectivity? Sure, none of the smart parts would work for you without official connectivity, but that won't stop them from spying on everything anyway.
Is this something that's easy to set up on routers now? Both wired and wireless subnets?
Mine certainly doesn't make it either easy or obvious. I haven't upgraded my router firmware in quite some time, but if this is a thing, I'll certainly do it.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Not really, you will have to use separate boxes, one for the public internet, behind that more boxes, one for each subnet.
Unless you are willing to work with a Linux server with multiple interfaces and iptables that is.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
I tried this and had issues when certain devices couldn't connect to the TV. The better solution was rather than putting the TV on the "untrusted / less trusted" network segment to lock down the trusted segment to only allow very specific items (my & wife's computers) to go out. This also contains the traffic of other objects to the trusted network (printers, hdhomerun, future IoT items, NAS media server, UbiFi's extra chatty wifi devices, etc.).
All cell phones, windows computers, and visiting family & friends devices all sit on the untrusted network segment, including a separate wifi AP for the untrusted network. They can't see the trusted side (just the internet)
- Sig
I would put everything on separate subnets, especially smartphones that you let connect to Wi-Fi. Given that Google lets you track a device by simply querying the MAC address and that SSDP seems to be built into everything now, this seems essential.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
You allow your smartphone to connect to the Internet, right?
I'm pretty sure your smartphone (that generally has 3 microphones and 2 cameras, and you carry it around) is a way, way bigger privacy concern.
Yet you wouldn't ask Slashdot, should I allow my smartphone to connect to the Internet. Right? See my point?
No, in point of fact I don't. I have a $70 dollar data disabled flip phone. It replaced my egonomical disaster "John's cellphone." Nor do I carry the phone when I leave the house, unless for a long road trip. And I take nothing with me when I travel overseas. For photos, I use a digital camera. It's getting more difficult to maintain a small monitoring footprint and I believe and fear it will soon be impossible. The entire ecosystem is insecure and this is not the internet we dreamed we'd get.
"He's using a quantum encryption scheme! That'll take hours to break!"
I run the pihole software on an early raspberry pi.
This allowed me to watch dns activity. With what I saw, which was the tv constantly accessing certain addresses, I blocked those addresses with the blacklist feature of the pihole.
This allows me to use things like netflix, etc while keeping the data collection to a minimum. This allows me to get updates to the tv's firmware while terminating the tracking and spying on my daily activity.
The pihole can be used for a lot of other reasons too.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
If there's a compelling reason to connect the TV then do so, otherwise hell no.
If you've got a Roku and a gaming console that are already connected, what do you need the TV connected for? Not for gaming or Netflix or Amazon. Unless there's some service you really want that is available on your "smart" TV that isn't available on your Roku or gaming console why is this even a question?
I think I must have bought one of the last dumb TVs that Samsung made, but the Samsung BluRay player I bought with it was "smart". Just about every time I fired it up it had to update its firmware. None of the apps would work without an internet connection and the updates were mandatory - as Bryant said in Blade Runner "no choice, pal", but the apps were mostly crap anyway. The ones that weren't crap were just duplicating what the Roku could do (e.g. Netflix).
Eventually the firmware updates broke the BluRay player. NONE of the "smart" features work anymore and it struggles to play discs now. It won't do BluRay anymore. DVDs mostly work though.
I can't say for sure that the disc problems are due to firmware updates but I find it hard to believe the hardware suddenly stopped being able to read BluRays. I've got a 25 year old Sony Discman that still plays CDs despite being somewhat abused over the years. The BluRay player lost its shit about 3 years after I bought it and it had led a charmed life compared to the Discman.
My Panasonic TV is "smart" too, but the last time I checked they had removed all but one app from it and that wasn't even anything I was interested in. I can't even use it for Netflix.
I want a dumb monitor, not a "smart" TV. And my experience with the "smart" BluRay players killed buying movies for me. When I stuck in a disc that I only saw once and it wouldn't play - and all the other discs I had wouldn't play on either my Samsung or my "smart" Panasonic BluRay player I just gave up.
Buy a "dumb" TV and a Raspberry Pi. Install Kodi and some emulators. Get rid of cable. And as far as 4K TVs go, a lot of people don't realize that with 50 inch, you have to sit 3 feet or closer to notice the details for 20/20 vision. If it's 1080p 50 inch, you can be 7 feet away. http://carltonbale.com/1080p-d.... Maybe it's the Hz's we're noticing? Watching 1930's Dracula on a 120Hz TV is just weird.
Problem is that it isn't unheard of for firmware updates to come with other things that are useless, be it some sort of ad mechanism, some way to invade privacy, or even code to disallow the TV to work if it doesn't have an always-on connection.
I wish TVs would just have a SD card, and accept signed firmware updates through that. Online updates is just a vector for attackers, similar to how CCleaner was hijacked.
Vizio TVs log your habits, and the others probably do too. I have a Vizio smartass TV but use it purely as a dumb display, primarily because:
I have zero incentive whatsoever to let me TV do anything more than display the output of other, better, more respectful devices. There's literally nothing a TV can do for me that requires a network connection of any sort.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I read about people putting the TV on its own VLAN, or other ways around it. However, I prefer something simpler than that. If the TV has network functionality it gets disabled. If it requires to be connected to the Internet to work, it goes back to the store as defective. It technically is legally defective, because this is not an internet appliance, this is sold as a TV. Because it fails to do its primary function, it is defective, and goes back.
As of now, there are many other choices of TVs that I don't have to deal with yet another potentially insecure, spying device.
Reader's Digest version answer: Oh Hells NO.
Long answer:
There is no reason whatsoever to connect a TV/display device to the Internet. Only exception would be if there was a serious flaw in the firmware that actually prevented the TV from working as a TV and the update can not be done from a USB storage device. In that case you connect the cable, update, and disconnect.
A simple HTPC (Home Theater PC) can do Youtube, Hulu, Netflix, etc., and it's OS is far more likely to get regular and timely security and software updates, unlike a TV. You can replace/upgrade the hardware/software easily and without costing a bundle (usually). And you have far more control over what the HTPC does and what software is installed than the embedded system in your TV. Plus you can add features that are unavailable with the TV's firmware.
On a personal note I will never own a TV, or other "commodity" device, that requires an internet connection to function and except for the limited exception noted above my TV, dishwasher, refrigerator, etc. will never be connected to the Internet.
No smart TV where the firmware and the hardware come from the same company will connect to any internet connection I control. I will allow Roku and Amazon TVs to connect, but that's because of the at least slightly adversarial relationship to the other vendor - the firmware vendor has an interest in the hardware vendor not screwing up their reputation, and vice-versa. It's harder to cover up misfeatures like Samsung's telescreen behavior when there's more back-and-forth involved in launching a product.
Also, it's just harder to keep secrets when lots of external communication is unavoidable and teams are larger - there are mathematical limits to the scale and security of any conspiracy.
I could not believe the User Agreement for software updates actually thought I might press "Accept" to this, which I never did, but still get software updates. Just to be sure they keep up their side of that User Agreement, Tape and glue work just fine.
It's amazing how many remote connection attempts i get on my samsung tv. I don't know if it's ever been hacked.
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
There is a website called shodan.io . They try and look for IOT devices that are accessible
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
remote connection attempts.... why does your tv have a public ip address?
NEVER! We only use our TV for DVD videos. No network connection, and no TV connection. KEEP OUT OF MY LIVING ROOM!
Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.
What needs to connect to the TV? The original question says there is already a Roku for streaming, and I honestly can't think of any other use a TV would want to be on the internet for (except firmware updates, but you don't want or need those if you're not on the internet).
If you don't connect it to the internet, it's not a smart TV anymore. So your choice, did you want a smart TV or not?
Their "smart" TVs' built-in media players suck ass anyway.
Put the video clip on usb, play from a usb stick. Sneaker net. No need to allow your smart tv to collect on what files are been watched.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
HELL no. Full stop.
Unless it's using something like Android TV or an embedded Chromecast, which some recent TV offerings do, the answer is a definitive no.
If it's a Samsung TV, then it's an pretty blatant and obvious NO, all caps. Samsung, LG and Vizio were already caught red handed with active spying practices, and some of them are facing or faced lawsuits because of it.
Just unplug it. Without smart TV features, it's just a plain TV, which is the safest option as it always was.
https://www.pcworld.com/articl...
https://www.theguardian.com/te...
http://bgr.com/2014/10/31/smar...
http://abcnews.go.com/Technolo...
https://www.consumerreports.or...
https://www.cnet.com/news/sams...
http://bgr.com/2013/11/20/lg-s...
And no, it's not illogical to prevent some devices from connecting to the Internet. The reality of it is that the less stuff you have connected, the less chance you have of getting spied upon and your data being collected. This also applies to IoT devices and other Internet connected devices. If it does not make sense for a service to be connected to the Internet, it shouldn't be. You already have a proper dedicated device for all the "smart" needs, you don't need the often poorly updated with crappy hardware duplicate that came with the TV.
Basic principle of privacy and security standards, limit the stuff you have connected, always measure the convenience of devices versus the privacy risks they can bring. Something that it just seems that lots of people don't realize these days, which is why we'll soon miss the days we didn't have all details of our lives exposed to hackers, advertisers and big corporations.
A single smartphone and a computer is bad enough as is, adding security cameras, TVs, refrigerators, thermostats, smart bulbs, automated blinds, always listening assistants, and whatever more is out there is not simply wrong, it's just plain stupid. People barely have any knowledge or control of simple routers and their desktop computers, let alone all these smart home crap that most don't even really need. People and the tech industry in general are just marching towards a path of no return, we already have growing evidence on how damaging the move is, but people are usually blind to it because they still didn't face their first identity theft case, or something of the like. By the time most people realize the problem it'll already be too late. Data is out there, either publicly exposed or being sold in huge packages of information to be exploited on the dark web, and there will be nothing you can do about it.
I'm not using a hosts.txt file. The pihole uses dnsmasq's features.
It is a nice implementation of ad blocking and tracking. It provides far more than just blocking sites with a hosts.txt file. Your raspberry pi is turned into a dns server. It also analyzes the log file and then shows you which sites are being accessed.
It is a similar implementation to the features of the pfsense pfblockerng.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Most people like watching Netflix with one remote. You also have choices of Roku/Android/etc Smart TVs where you have same interface you would have on an extra stick. If not, or you changed your mind, by all means disable WiFi to cut back on overhead/eliminate unnecessary attack vectors. But in general, your TV will connect to Samsung, Netflix, and so on. They may spy on you but, if you are not on the radar of major intelligence agencies, this spying is not likely to have any practical impact on your life. So use functionality which you find useful and free to disable anything you have no interest in.
At the very least, it should be on a different subnet. Ideally, it should have a firewall on that subnet.
Cheap storage VM.
not really, but it's not very expensive to procure a device that supports this, either something flashed with ddwrt (or merlin), or something like an ubiquiti, routerOS, or pfSense device.
If you want to optimize for cost (because your cheap), you can just put another consumer router behind your existing router. Any devices behind that router will be able to get to the internet, but this internal subnet will be unrouted for anything trying to get to it, unless you do something to propagate a route.
Cheap storage VM.
Why do we need all these toys and why do we need toys connected to the internet. Really.
Being that connected is a curse. And that curse has you on your cellphone at family mealtimes or at any mealtime.
Those who eat and text are the ones who become overweight -- forgetting how much you consumed while distracted.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
You gain nothing from connecting your smart TV while you've already got your consoles and media boxes in the stack.
Don't even bother with fancy routing and shit. Trade it straight across for the same size set from a few years ago, before they made it nearly mandatory to connect the damn things.
Funny story, when the ps4 first came out, I had to update the firmware on my then 3 year old 54'' SONY TV to support it.
It was done through USB, and the TV to this day has never seen the inside of a network. It never nags at me, and has no problems playing content from the plex server served via connected PC. It works perfectly, and is just as sexy as the new ones without all the smart-shit.
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
Why not just get the non-smart model and connect an [Xbox/PS/Roku/media player of choice] instead? The price difference between normal and smart is about the same as a basic Roku.
Last time I bought a TV (for my in-laws) I made the conscious decision to avoid a smart TV in part because of privacy, in part because they live in a rural area so only have Satellite Internet.
Maybe I just "don't get it", so excuse my ignorance but what possible benefit could a smart TV have if you're not going to be connecting it to the Internet for the purpose of using the in-built apps/services and are instead only going to have a cable/satellite/media box connected to it?
Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com)
Are you serious? Have you not heard of VLAN's. I have a WRT1200AC setup and VLAN the network. I also use separate virtual AP's that are on separate networks but use the same radio. You can alias/virtual networks inside of most Linux systems as they each have a different SSID to ident traffic. If you install OpenWRT it's fairly easy to d and then you can configure the firewall to prevent the two subnets from talking to each other. Here is a link to how to make a guest WLAN in OpenWRT. Below that is a link on how to configure the firewall. If you know how to use UCI there isn't much to learn. As a tip when using the -J drop/reject the direction is if you are inside the house already like a living room, and each subnet is a bedroom door attached. Think of it in that way and you will have the direction fine. Usually most errors with the rules are you got the directions mixed up. https://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/r... https://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/u...
Updates may also remove features, like certain codecs.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Since VLANs aren't physically separated copper but just virtually separated on the same copper they are merely a convenience feature and not a security feature.
Anyone that want to sniff on your network would just look for VLAN tags and then see everything anyway.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Only through a Mackintosh.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"