[MarcoPerazaFCC]

Thank you for these thoughtful points. Some relevant responses from other threads:

From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37394188 :

I think you're right that it would be difficult for the FCC to precisely define exactly when security updates are required. This is a problem in law generally, one that is usually resolved by imposing a reasonableness standard. Maybe here, a vulnerability needs to be patched if it might reasonably be expected to allow an attacker to take control of a device, or to do so when combined with other known or unknown vulnerabilities. Or maybe a different standard. Then when enforcement/lawsuits come around, the judge/jury/regulator has to evaluate the reasonableness of the manufacturer's actions in light of that standard. We'd love to see commentary on the record as to what the right legal standard might be.

From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37394793 :

Agreed. Building an automatic firmware update system from scratch would be burdensome for many IoT makers, but as it becomes necessary or encouraged, we would expect the market to provide a packaged solution/framework that manufacturers could fold into their products. It would be really helpful have to discussion of this on the record. How generalizable do you think such a solution could be? We are aware of the Uptane project, an OTA firmware update framework being jointly worked on by several car manufacturers, but would love to hear more about the feasibility of a solution for IoT devices generally, or particular classes of IoT devices.

From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37393926 :

[...] companies wanting to put a label on their product would probably want to extract similar guarantees up their supply chain. Especially with a voluntary program like the one the FCC is proposing, good practices won't become the norm across the market overnight. But maybe, at the very least, the segment of product and component makers that take security seriously will begin to grow. I encourage you to share your thoughts in an official comment.

[baby_souffle]

> How generalizable do you think such a solution could be? We are aware of the Uptane project, an OTA firmware update framework being jointly worked on by several car manufacturers, but would love to hear more about the feasibility of a solution for IoT devices generally, or particular classes of IoT devices.

One thing to be aware of: a decent number of connected devices are white label devices or "lightly" tweaked forks of a reference design. The consumer-facing company may have no power to actually update anything. If the originating company only provides proprietary versions of some critical component and can't/won't ship updates, the consumer-facing company can only patch issues with _their_ portion of the final software running on the device.

A _requirement_ that the consumer-facing company be able to update any/all portions of the software stack for $someTimeFrameAfterSale might start to change this but expect a fight from every link in the software-supply-chain on this front.

[someguydave]

>we would expect the market to provide a packaged solution/framework that manufacturers could fold into their products.

These kinds of solutions exist, see for instance: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/freertos/latest/userguide/freert...

My concern is that these firmware update platforms will become oligopolies/monopolies because they will control a legal barrier and naturally accumulate the obligations of many manufacturers.

[perihelions]

You're the lawyer guy? What statutory authority are you drawing on that you believe allows you, the FCC, to regulate this stuff?

Thanks!

[MarcoPerazaFCC]

Good question. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has a Legal Authority section that discusses this issue https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-cybersecurity-labe.... I also touch on it here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37393316

[perihelions]

Thanks, but, that FCC document clearly says it's about a "voluntary labeling program", and, the title of this HN post has the word "regulation" and the text has language like "require" [0]. And the phrase "oppose[...] even voluntary ones", which clearly sounds like someone's proposing non-voluntary stuff.

I read your linked HN comment too, but: "legitimate interest in" [1] a thing and actual "authority" to do a thing are not the same thing.

I feel like I'm being bamboozled here. The fcc.gov "Notice", and this HN post, seem like they're talking about substantially different proposals.

[0] "I’ve advocated for the FCC to require device manufacturers to support their devices with security updates for a reasonable amount of time"

[1] "...we think that the FCC has a legitimate interest in just about any vulnerability on a wireless device"

[whats_a_quasar]

Nathan's post and the proposed rulemaking are both quite explicit that the proposal under comment is a voluntary labeling scheme. Perhaps the intro could be better written to be clearer, but I don't really understand your complaint. There's no bamboozle.

From above:

"I’ve advocated for the FCC to require device manufacturers to support their devices with security updates for a reasonable amount of time [1]. I can't bring such a proposal to a vote since I’m not the chairman of the agency. But I was able to convince my colleagues to tentatively support something a little more moderate addressing this problem.

The FCC recently issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [2] for a cybersecurity labeling program for connected devices. If they meet certain criteria for the security of their product, manufacturers can put an FCC cybersecurity label on it. I fought hard for one of these criteria to be the disclosure of how long the product will receive security updates. I hope that, besides arming consumers with better information, the commitments on this label (including the support period) will be legally enforceable in contract and tort lawsuits and under other laws. You can see my full statement here [3]."

[SimingtonFCC]

Thanks! Sorry for any lack of clarity. My initial draft was way over the character limit and I had to cut a lot prior to posting. Thanks for highlighting the relevant language and clearing things up.

[pierat]

Maybe, reach out to the FTC over the fraud that's being perpetuated with this cloud-locked (other peoples' servers) *rental* being sold as a *sale* ?

If these companies are selling defective goods and preventing individuals to fix it themselves (in other words, the selling company holds material control of the device), that's a *rental* .

Properly reclassifying consumer garbage with company-locked electronics as a rental would be the big kick-in-the-pants that nearly every company is playing now. And that includes the cellphone-on-wheels (Tesla), the stunts being played by most other car manufacturers ($$$ for heated seats, etc), Apple holding control over what approved software a general purpose computer can process, and loads more.

I don't think the FCC can require firmware updates other than in radio based units, to require regulatory requirements for specific frequencies (2.4GHz no channel 12/13 in USA, 10 minute wait on a part of 5.8GHz for ground radar). But the FTC could force it by clarifying cloud-crap is a rental, and not a sale.

[whats_a_quasar]

To expand on this, since it's not explicit in Marco's comment: The statutory authority is section 302(a) of the Communications Act, which authorizes the FCC to regulate devices that can interfere with radio communication. Their reasoning is that IOT devices fit this category, so regulations on security updates are within scope.

Full quote from the notice of proposed rulemaking: "In particular, section 302(a) of the Communications Act authorizes the FCC “consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, [to] make reasonable regulations (1) governing the interference potential of devices which in their operation are capable of emitting radio frequency energy by radiation, conduction, or other means in sufficient degree to cause harmful interference to radio communications; . . .” While this program would be voluntary, entities that elect to participate would need to do so in accordance with the regulations the Commission adopts in this proceeding, including but not limited to the IoT security standards, compliance requirements, and the labeling program’s operating framework. We tentatively conclude that the standards the Commission proposes to apply when administering the proposed labeling program fall within the scope of “reasonable regulations… governing the interference potential of devices….” We seek comment on this reasoning."