The Vendor ID and Product ID is not proof of two way communication with China.

Not that I don't doubt it has a phone home mechanism but as a security expert I'm not happy that he did that. In fact I'm one of the first researchers to show that it's possible to hack smart devices like that and created one of the first proof of concept worms about fifteen years ago.

What I need to hear is an explanation of how they detected that two way traffic. I assume they would have sniffed the traffic and been able to pick up packets with SRC and DST successfully being routed back and forth to an IP address located in China (which you can usually verify quite well with traceroute, measuring latency, etc, you wouldn't just rely on GeoIP). By two way do they mean established TCP links (less important, as long as it was two way IPvX traffic or equivalent)?

The actual argument that supports is that the device came from China not that it's talking to China.

It would not surprise me at all that these devices are communicating with China but I want real evidence not just a MAC address. His argument is the equivalent of looking at the sticker on the back and saying ah ha, it says Made In China.

In this case technical details are crucial. It's expert witnesses like me that would be brought along to verify his testimony and I can't verify that particular bit he says to screenshot, that's insufficient to support the specific claim he's making.

If someone is chatting with him at any point please ask him to elaborate on this so we can support his testimony going to market.

I don't want to see him going to the senate or something only using that when anyone who has done basic networking (such as set up a LAN) can shoot it down in an instant.

The MAC address is for local communication only to the device and it's standard for it to embed a Vendor Id. Some might also give away the product. The hardware address on the network basically contains some of the same information as the sticker on the back or the brand logo on the front of the device.

It doesn't even confirm internet connectivity. You can also spoof MAC addresses but honestly I don't believe that's the case here. The only exception might be if the MAC was embedded in something like an IPv6 dest address though you can't always be sure what's really a MAC or just a 48 bit number and I don't see a device talking to a smart TV over in China like that as likely.

The Vendor ID and Product ID is not proof of two way communication with China.

Not that I don't doubt it has a phone home mechanism but as a security expert I'm not happy that he did that. In fact I'm one of the first researchers to show that it's possible to hack smart devices like that and created one of the first proof of concept worms about fifteen years ago.

What I need to hear is an explanation of how they detected that two way traffic. I assume they would have sniffed the traffic and been able to pick up packets with SRC and DST successfully being routed back and forth to an IP address located in China (which you can usually verify quite well with traceroute, measuring latency, etc, you wouldn't just rely on GeoIP). By two way do they mean established TCP links (less important, as long as it was two way IPvX traffic or equivalent)?

The actual argument that supports is that the device came from China not that it's talking to China.

It would not surprise me at all that these devices are communicating with China but I want real evidence not just a MAC address. His argument is the equivalent of looking at the sticker on the back and saying ah ha, it says Made In China.

In this case technical details are crucial. It's expert witnesses like me that would be brought along to verify his testimony and I can't verify that particular bit he says to screenshot, that's insufficient to support the specific claim he's making.

If someone is chatting with him at any point please ask him to elaborate on this so we can support his testimony going to market.

I don't want to see him going to the senate or something only using that when anyone who has done basic networking (such as set up a LAN) can shoot it down in an instant.

The MAC address is for local communication only to the device and it's standard for it to embed a Vendor Id. Some might also give away the product. The hardware address on the network basically contains some of the same information as the sticker on the back or the brand logo on the front of the device.

It doesn't even confirm internet connectivity. You can also spoof MAC addresses but honestly I don't believe that's the case here.

The Vendor ID and Product ID is not proof of two way communication with China.

Not that I don't doubt it has a phone home mechanism but as a security expert I'm not happy that he did that. In fact I'm one of the first researchers to show that it's possible to hack smart devices like that and created one of the first proof of concept worms about fifteen years ago.

What I need to hear is an explanation of how they detected that two way traffic. I assume they would have sniffed the traffic and been able to pick up packets with SRC and DST successfully being routed back and forth to an IP address located in China (which you can usually verify quite well with traceroute, measuring latency, etc, you wouldn't just rely on GeoIP).

The actual argument that supports is that the device came from China not that it's talking to China.

It would not surprise me at all that these devices are communicating with China but I want real evidence not just a MAC address. His argument is the equivalent of looking at the sticker on the back and saying ah ha, it says Made In China.

In this case technical details are crucial. It's expert witnesses like me that would be brought along to verify his testimony and I can't verify that particular bit he says to screenshot, that's insufficient to support the specific claim he's making.

If someone is chatting with him at any point please ask him to elaborate on this so we can support his testimony going to market.

I don't want to see him going to the senate or something only using that when anyone who has done basic networking (such as set up a LAN) can shoot it down in an instant.

The MAC address is for local communication only to the device and it's standard for it to embed a Vendor Id. Some might also give away the product. The hardware address on the network basically contains some of the same information as the sticker on the back or the brand logo on the front of the device.

It doesn't even confirm internet connectivity. You can also spoof MAC addresses but honestly I don't believe that's the case here.

The Vendor ID and Product ID is not proof of two way communication with China.

Not that I don't doubt it has a phone home mechanism but as a security expert I'm not happy that he did that. In fact I'm one of the first researchers to show that it's possible to hack smart devices like that and created one of the first proof of concept worms over ten years ago.

What I need to hear is an explanation of how they detected that two way traffic. I assume they would have sniffed the traffic and been able to pick up packets with SRC and DST successfully being routed back and forth to an IP address located in China (which you can usually verify quite well with traceroute, measuring latency, etc, you wouldn't just rely on GeoIP).

The actual argument that supports is that the device came from China not that it's talking to China.

It would not surprise me at all that these devices are communicating with China but I want real evidence not just a MAC address. His argument is the equivalent of looking at the sticker on the back and saying ah ha, it says Made In China.

In this case technical details are crucial. It's expert witnesses like me that would be brought along to verify his testimony and I can't verify that particular bit he says to screenshot, that's insufficient to support the specific claim he's making.

If someone is chatting with him at any point please ask him to elaborate on this so we can support his testimony going to market.

I don't want to see him going to the senate or something only using that when anyone who has done basic networking (such as set up a LAN) can shoot it down in an instant.

The MAC address is for local communication only to the device and it's standard for it to embed a Vendor Id. Some might also give away the product. The hardware address on the network basically contains some of the same information as the sticker on the back or the brand logo on the front of the device.

It doesn't even confirm internet connectivity. You can also spoof MAC addresses but honestly I don't believe that's the case here.

The Vendor ID and Product ID is not proof of two way communication with China.

Not that I don't doubt it has a phone home mechanism but as a security expert I'm not happy that he did that.

What I need to hear is an explanation of how they detected that two way traffic. I assume they would have sniffed the traffic and been able to pick up packets with SRC and DST successfully being routed back and forth to an IP address located in China (which you can usually verify quite well with traceroute, measuring latency, etc, you wouldn't just rely on GeoIP).

The actual argument that supports is that the device came from China not that it's talking to China.

It would not surprise me at all that these devices are communicating with China but I want real evidence not just a MAC address. His argument is the equivalent of looking at the sticker on the back and saying ah ha, it says Made In China.

In this case technical details are crucial. It's expert witnesses like me that would be brought along to verify his testimony and I can't verify that particular bit he says to screenshot, that's insufficient to support the specific claim he's making.

If someone is chatting with him at any point please ask him to elaborate on this so we can support his testimony going to market.

I don't want to see him going to the senate or something only using that when anyone who has done basic networking (such as set up a LAN) can shoot it down in an instant.

The MAC address is for local communication only to the device and it's standard for it to embed a Vendor Id. Some might also give away the product. The hardware address on the network basically contains some of the same information as the sticker on the back or the brand logo on the front of the device.

It doesn't even confirm internet connectivity. You can also spoof MAC addresses but honestly I don't believe that's the case here.

The Vendor ID and Product ID is not proof of two way communication with China.

Not that I don't doubt it has a phone home mechanism but as a security expert I'm not happy that he did that.

What I need to hear is an explanation of how they detected that two way traffic. I assume they would have sniffed the traffic and been able to pick up packets with SRC and DST successfully being routed back and forth to an IP address located in China (which you can usually verify quite well with traceroute, measuring latency, etc, you wouldn't just rely on GeoIP).

The actual argument that supports is that the device came from China not that it's talking to China.

It would not surprise me at all that these devices are communicating with China but I want real evidence not just a MAC address. His argument is the equivalent of looking at the sticker on the back and saying ah ha, it says Made In China.

In this case technical details are crucial. It's expert witnesses like me that would be brought along to verify his testimony and I can't verify that particular bit he says to screenshot, that's insufficient to support the specific claim he's making.

If someone is chatting with him at any point please ask him to elaborate on this so we can support his testimony going to market.

I don't want to see him going to the senate or something only using that when anyone who has done basic networking (such as set up a LAN) can shoot it down in an instant.

The MAC address is for local communication only to the device and it's standard for it to embed a Vendor Id. Some might also give away the product. The hardware address on the network basically contains some of the same information as the sticker on the back or the brand logo on the front of the device.

It doesn't even confirm internet connectivity.

The Vendor ID and Product ID is not proof of two way communication with China.

Not that I don't doubt it has a phone home mechanism but as a security expert I'm not happy that he did that.

What I need to hear is an explanation of how they detected that two way traffic. I assume they would have sniffed the traffic and been able to pick up packets with SRC and DST successfully being routed back and forth to an IP address located in China (which you can usually verify quite well with traceroute, measuring latency, etc, you wouldn't just rely on GeoIP).

The actual argument that supports is that the device came from China not that it's talking to China.

It would not surprise me at all that these devices are communicating with China but I want real evidence not just a MAC address. His argument is the equivalent of looking at the sticker on the back and saying ah ha, it says Made In China.

In this case technical details are crucial. It's expert witnesses like me that would be brought along to verify his testimony and I can't verify that particular bit he says to screenshot, that's insufficient to support the specific claim he's making.

If someone is chatting with him at any point please ask him to elaborate on this so we can support his testimony going to market.

I don't want to see him going to the senate or something only using that when anyone who has done basic networking (such as set up a LAN) can shoot it down in an instant.

Two way communication so they picked up an active TCP connection or something?

The Vendor ID and Product ID is not proof of two way communication with China.

Not that I don't doubt it has a phone home mechanism but as a security expert I'm not happy that he did that.

What I need to hear is an explanation of how they detected that two way traffic. I assume they would have sniffed the traffic and been able to pick up packets with SRC and DST successfully being routed back and forth to an IP address located in China (which you can usually verify quite well with traceroute, measuring latency, etc, you wouldn't just rely on GeoIP).

The actual argument that supports is that the device came from China not that it's talking to China.

It would not surprise me at all that these devices are communicating with China but I want real evidence not just a MAC address. His argument is the equivalent of looking at the sticker on the back and saying ah ha, it says Made In China.

In this case technical details are crucial. It's expert witnesses like me that would be brought along to verify his testimony and I can't verify that particular bit he says to screenshot, that's insufficient to support the specific claim he's making.

If someone is chatting with him at any point please ask him to elaborate on this so we can support his testimony going to market.

I don't want to see him going to the senate or something only using that when anyone who has done basic networking (such as set up a LAN) can shoot it down in an instant.

The Vendor ID and Product ID is not proof of two way communication with China.

Not that I don't doubt it has a phone home mechanism but as a security expert I'm not happy that he did that.

What I need to hear is an explanation of how they detected that two way traffic. I assume they would have sniffed the traffic and been able to pick up packets with SRC and DST successfully being routed back and forth to an IP address located in China (which you can usually verify quite well with traceroute, measuring latency, etc, you wouldn't just rely on GeoIP).

The actual argument that supports is that the device came from China not that it's talking to China.

It would not surprise me at all that these devices are communicating with China but I want real evidence not just a MAC address. His argument is the equivalent of looking at the sticker on the back and saying ah ha, it says Made In China.

In this case technical details are crucial. It's expert witnesses like me that would be brought along to verify his testimony and I can't verify that particular bit he says to screenshot, that's insufficient to support the specific claim he's making.

If someone is chatting with him at any point please ask him to elaborate on this so we can support his testimony going to market.

The Vendor ID and Product ID is not proof of two way communication with China.

Not that I don't doubt it has a phone home mechanism but as a security expert I'm not happy that he did that.

What I need to hear is an explanation of how they detected that two way traffic. I assume they would have sniffed the traffic and been able to pick up packets with SRC and DST successfully being routed back and forth to an IP address located in China (which you can usually verify quite well with traceroute, measuring latency, etc, you wouldn't just rely on GeoIP).

The actual argument that supports is that the device came from China not that it's talking to China.

It would not surprise me at all that these devices are communicating with China but I want real evidence not just a MAC address.

In this case technical details are crucial. It's expert witnesses like me that would be brought along to verify his testimony and I can't verify that particular bit he says to screenshot, that's insufficient to support the specific claim he's making.

If someone is chatting with him at any point please ask him to elaborate on this so we can support his testimony going to market.

The Vendor ID and Product ID is not proof of two way communication with China.

Not that I don't doubt it has a phone home mechanism but as a security expert I'm not happy that he did that.

What I need to hear is an explanation of how they detected that two way traffic. I assume they would have sniffed the traffic and been able to pick up packets with SRC and DST successfully being routed back and forth to an IP address located in China (which you can usually verify quite well with traceroute, measuring latency, etc, you wouldn't just rely on GeoIP).

The actual argument that supports is that the device came from China not that it's talking to China.

It would not surprise me at all that these devices are communicating with China but I want real evidence not just a MAC address.

In this case technical details are crucial.

The Vendor ID and Product ID is not proof of two way communication with China.

Not that I don't doubt it has a phone home mechanism but as a security expert I'm not happy that he did that.

What I need to hear is an explanation of how they detected that two way traffic. I assume they would have sniffed the traffic and been able to pick up packets with SRC and DST successfully being routed back and forth to an IP address located in China (which you can usually verify quite well with traceroute, measuring latency, etc, you wouldn't just rely on GeoIP).

The actual argument that supports is that the device came from China not that it's talking to China.

It would not surprise me at all that these devices are communicating with China but I want real evidence not just a MAC address.

The Vendor ID and Product ID is not proof of two way communication with China.

Not that I don't doubt it has a phone home mechanism but as a security expert I'm not happy that he did that.

What I need to hear is an explanation of how they detected that two way traffic. I assume they would have sniffed the traffic and been able to pick up packets with SC and DST successfully being routed back and forth to an IP address located in China.

The actual argument that supports is that the device came from China not that it's talking to China.

It would not surprise me at all that these devices are communicating with China but I want real evidence not just a MAC address.