Hacker News Reader

And here I am believing rate limiting remote commands is a pretty default thing to do, especially if the commands switches power under load.

Sure, this is targeted abuse, but your device should not accept unauthenticated radio input that allows destruction.

View on HN

One could argue the ability control power under load is a safety feature. What if they hardened the wireless attack surface and added a manual safety switch which could also be used to intentionally brake the device, would that be better? I don’t think it would. I really don’t think the device needs to be stupid proof at the expense of the ability to be directly controlled by not-stupid persons and above.

You misunderstand me here. A rate limit just means you can only switch it off and on e.g. once a second instead of a thousand times per second.

Authentification makes things more complicated, but it would still allow authorized personel to do the switching.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com