Security firm now says toothbrush DDOS attack didn't happen, but source publication says company presented it as real

Toothbrushes
(Image credit: Shutterstock (2275365833))

Update 2 — 2/9/2024 6:30am PT: The security company at the nexus of the original report that three million toothbrushes were used in a DDOS attack has now retracted the story and claimed it was a result of a mistranslation — but according to the news outlet that published the initial report, that statement isn't true. The reports of this story are not based on a mistranslation by the media. The publication claims Fortinet presented the story as having actually happened and approved the text of the article, which had been submitted to Fortinet prior to publication.

Here's the Aargauer Zeitung's (the source of the story) statement on the matter (via Google Translate):

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Mark Tyson
News Editor

Mark Tyson is a news editor at Tom's Hardware. He enjoys covering the full breadth of PC tech; from business and semiconductor design to products approaching the edge of reason.

  • PEnns
    Somebody remind please, again: Why does something like a toothbrush need to be connected??

    People are really asking for trouble with this kind of "let's connect everything...because it's so cool"!
    Reply
  • peachpuff
    PEnns said:
    Somebody remind please, again: Why does something like toothbrush need to be connected??

    People are really asking for trouble with this kind of "let's connect everything...because it's so cool"!
    To get on the toothbrush leader board... duh.
    Reply
  • Phaaze88
    'Smart' toothbrushes... holy crap, humanity.
    Insert that saying about, 'because we can, doesn't mean we should'.

    Replace the word smart with dumb.
    Reply
  • chaz_music
    In general if the product name has "smart" as part of its description, you should be very wary.

    The amount of engineering effort needed to make IoT devices truly secure on the Internet is substantial, and many times the engineering team is rather green and not knowing what they don't know. Add to this that many companies will outsource their product development to design groups only based upon cost of the project, you end up with catastrophes like this story. Even larger companies like HP have had problems with IoT printers and they had to go through growing pains to get the security right, with lots and lots of reuse of code, checks, etc. And most design teams are only cost focused, and don't want to add the cost of using more mature RF/networking products with the included code stacks such as by TI, Laird, Qualcomm, NXP, etc.

    So far, I have read about or myself found compromised devices in nearly all market areas: garage door openers, refrigerator, printers (why have Internet printing??!), smart doorbell cameras with off site recording, inexpensive network switches, smart LED lights (often color changing types), cars, RVs, phones (my goodness, that just makes you want to say damnit!), and now toothbrushes. And the hacked system vector is not always WiFi, as there are many other RF systems with another popular one to goof up being Bluetooth. The first automotive Bluetooth systems could be easily compromised, with one car type being used in a proof of concept in which the car was controlled by a passing car and the brakes were locked up while the car was traveling at highway speeds, triggering the anti lock brakes. And think about the Hyundai and Kia vehicles that can easily be stolen with a USB device. Same stuff.

    One of my biggest scare was not even with an RF based device but instead an Ethernet connected SCADA device from many years ago. It had a huge installed base, and it was sending data back on forth through the network using ... ASCII. Yep. And it was SCADA. Used in power plants, substations, transformers, generators, ...

    So the culprits are:
    1. Businesses only counting R&D and BOM costs, with virtually no consequence for poor security quality.
    2. Complacent and less knowledgeable engineers who are completely in charge of making serious decisions about cost vs. security.
    3. Designing IoT tech into devices and leaving the update complexity up to the user. In my opinion, the user should never be required to be in the technology loop to make their devices safe. This is not the same as when it is used based upon common knowledge (driving a car, drinking hot coffee).

    The expected long term fix for industrialized nations is going to be more safety agency regulations, So think of UL in the US and CE/IEC in Europe. These protect the consumer from poorly designed products, but these always add cost (no free lunch). I hate going in that direction because it will cause many clever products to go away, and others to never come to market.
    Reply
  • Murissokah
    Not trying to pick on Java, but why do you need Java on a toothbrush?
    Reply
  • Giroro
    Murissokah said:
    Not trying to pick on Java, but why do you need Java on a toothbrush?
    That ones easy: Because it's cheaper to have first-year computer scientists ridiculously overbuild the system with off the shelf demo code than to hire electronics engineers who know how to write efficient firmware.
    The toothbrush probably has (and maybe needs) a multi-core ARM CPU as well, because you can just pass that extra $1 in hardware costs off to the customer in the $300+ asking price I know Philips/Oral-B charges for the smart version of a toothbrush with near identical brushing performance to the $30 non-smart version.
    Reply
  • newtechldtech
    PEnns said:
    Somebody remind please, again: Why does something like toothbrush need to be connected??

    People are really asking for trouble with this kind of "let's connect everything...because it's so cool"!

    to sell them expensive 10 times the cost. it is all abut the $ and fooling the masses
    Reply
  • Giroro
    I sort-of understand how a marketing executive could want the company to sell a Bluetooth toothbrush.
    App tracking enabling access to a customer's sellable information, a branded billboard app icon on the users phone, etc etc. All the usual reasons to have an app. You can sell it to customers as having a fancy timer or whatever. I kinda get it.

    But why in the world would they pay engineers to enable wifi in the thing? It's probably built into their SoC, but like this has to be enabled by accident, right?
    This is some kind of backdoor thing?
    What's the selling point, revenue stream, or perceived value to the customer? You already have all you can get from Bluetooth, so why spend money on dev time to add in menus and get the wifi working?
    Reply
  • voodoochicken
    Watch out for those IoT Swiss Army Knives
    Reply
  • evdjj3j
    Smart toothbrushes for dumb people.
    Reply