Manufacturer Bricks Smart Vacuum After Engineer Blocks It From Collecting Data

A curious engineer discovered that his iLife A11 smart vacuum was remotely 'killed' after he blocked it from sending data to the manufacturer's servers. By reverse-engineering it with custom hardware and Python scripts, he managed to revive the device to run fully offline. Tom's Hardware reports: An engineer got curious about how his iLife A11 smart vacuum worked and monitored the network traffic coming from the device. That's when he noticed it was constantly sending logs and telemetry data to the manufacturer -- something he hadn't consented to. The user, Harishankar, decided to block the telemetry servers' IP addresses on his network, while keeping the firmware and OTA servers open. While his smart gadget worked for a while, it just refused to turn on soon after. After a lengthy investigation, he discovered that a remote kill command had been issued to his device.

He sent it to the service center multiple times, wherein the technicians would turn it on and see nothing wrong with the vacuum. When they returned it to him, it would work for a few days and then fail to boot again. After several rounds of back-and-forth, the service center probably got tired and just stopped accepting it, saying it was out of warranty. Because of this, he decided to disassemble the thing to determine what killed it and to see if he could get it working again. So, why did the A11 work at the service center but refuse to run in his home? The technicians would reset the firmware on the smart vacuum, thus removing the kill code, and then connect it to an open network, making it run normally. But once it connected again to the network that had its telemetry servers blocked, it was bricked remotely because it couldn't communicate with the manufacturer's servers. Since he blocked the appliance's data collection capabilities, its maker decided to just kill it altogether.

'Someone -- or something -- had remotely issued a kill command,' says Harishankar. 'Whether it was intentional punishment or automated enforcement of 'compliance,' the result was the same: a consumer device had turned on its owner.' In the end, the owner was able to run his vacuum fully locally without manufacturer control after all the tweaks he made. This helped him retake control of his data and make use of his $300 software-bricked smart device on his own terms. As for the rest of us who don't have the technical knowledge and time to follow his accomplishments, his advice is to 'Never use your primary WiFi network for IoT devices' and to 'Treat them as strangers in your home.'

Read more of this story at Slashdot.