The blog post "Bad Smart Watch Authentication" details a vulnerability discovered in a smart watch's companion app. The app, when requesting sensitive fitness data, used a predictable, sequential ID in its API requests. This allowed the author, by simply incrementing the ID, to access the fitness data of other users without proper authorization. This highlights a critical flaw in the app's authentication and authorization mechanisms, demonstrating how easily user data could be exposed due to poor security practices.
The original Pebble smartwatch ecosystem is being revived through a community-driven effort called Rebble. Existing Pebble watches will continue to function with existing apps and features, thanks to recovered server infrastructure and ongoing community development. Going forward, Rebble aims to enhance the Pebble experience with improvements like bug fixes, new watchfaces, and expanded app compatibility with modern phone operating systems. They are also exploring the possibility of manufacturing new hardware in the future.
Hacker News users reacted to the "Pebble back" announcement with a mix of excitement and skepticism. Many expressed nostalgia for their old Pebbles and hoped for a true revival of the platform, including app support and existing watch functionality. Several commenters questioned the open-source nature of the project, given the reliance on a closed-source phone app and potential server dependencies. Concerns were raised about battery life compared to modern smartwatches, and some users expressed interest in alternative open-source smartwatch projects like AsteroidOS and Bangle.js. Others debated the feasibility of reviving the app ecosystem and questioned the long-term viability of the project given the limited resources of the Rebble team. Finally, some users simply expressed joy at the prospect of using their Pebbles again.
Rebble, the community-driven effort to keep Pebble smartwatches alive after Fitbit discontinued services, has announced its transition to a fully open-source platform. This means the Rebble web services, mobile apps, and firmware will all be open-sourced, allowing the community to fully control and sustain the platform indefinitely. While current services will remain operational, this shift empowers developers to contribute, adapt, and ensure the long-term viability of Rebble, freeing it from reliance on specific individuals or resources. This represents a move towards greater community ownership and collaborative development for the continued support of Pebble smartwatches.
The Hacker News comments express cautious optimism about Rebble's future, acknowledging the challenges of maintaining a community-driven alternative for a niche product like Pebble. Several users praise the Rebble team's dedication and ingenuity in keeping the platform alive this long. Some express concern over the long-term viability without official support and question the eventual hardware limitations. Others discuss potential solutions like using existing smartwatches with a Pebble-like OS, or even designing new Pebble-inspired hardware. The overall sentiment leans towards hoping for Rebble's continued success while recognizing the significant hurdles ahead. A few users reflect nostalgically on their positive experiences with Pebble watches and the community surrounding them.
Summary of Comments ( 29 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42992368
Several Hacker News commenters criticize the smartwatch authentication scheme described in the article, calling it "security theater" and "fundamentally broken." They point out that relying on a QR code displayed on a trusted device (the watch) to authenticate on another device (the phone) is flawed, as it doesn't verify the connection between the watch and the phone. This leaves it open to attacks where a malicious actor could intercept the QR code and use it themselves. Some suggest alternative approaches, such as using Bluetooth proximity verification or public-key cryptography, to establish a secure connection between the devices. Others question the overall utility of this type of authentication, highlighting the inconvenience and limited security benefits it offers. A few commenters mention similar vulnerabilities in existing passwordless login systems.
The Hacker News post titled "Bad Smart Watch Authentication" (linking to an article about insecure initial device onboarding processes for smartwatches) has generated several comments discussing the security implications and broader context of the issue.
Several commenters express general agreement with the article's premise. One commenter points out the irony of having robust security measures for the data in transit, while the initial setup process, which establishes the foundation of trust, is often neglected. They highlight how this weakness undermines the subsequent security layers. Another commenter expands on this, suggesting that the ease of setup is often prioritized over security, creating a vulnerability that sophisticated attackers could exploit.
The discussion also touches upon the prevalence of this issue beyond smartwatches. One commenter notes that similar vulnerabilities exist in other "Internet of Things" devices, lamenting the widespread lack of secure onboarding practices across the industry. Another user concurs, sarcastically commenting on the seemingly common practice of using easily guessable default passwords or even skipping authentication altogether during setup. They argue this demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding about security among manufacturers.
Some commenters delve into the technical specifics. One individual questions the efficacy of using a six-digit code for authentication, noting that it provides a relatively small search space for a brute-force attack, especially considering the lack of rate limiting mentioned in the article. Another commenter raises concerns about the potential for physical proximity attacks, suggesting that an attacker within Bluetooth range could potentially intercept or manipulate the pairing process.
A recurring theme in the comments is the trade-off between security and user experience. Some users acknowledge the difficulty of implementing robust security measures without making the setup process overly complex for the average consumer. However, others argue that security should be a primary concern, particularly given the sensitive nature of the data often collected by these devices. They suggest that manufacturers need to find more creative solutions to balance these competing priorities.
Finally, a few commenters offer potential solutions, such as using physically unique identifiers or more sophisticated cryptographic protocols during the onboarding process. One commenter suggests employing a technique similar to what some password managers use, where a secondary device is required to authorize the initial setup. Another commenter proposes leveraging the security capabilities of the paired smartphone for a more secure onboarding experience.