Vacuum bricked after user blocks data collection – user mods it to run anyway

You might be interested in this project https://valetudo.cloud/

They have a list of supported vacuums

Depending on where he lives this might be illegal. Yes, we live in a cyberpunk dystopia where the manufacturer can break what you bought and then send you to jail for repairing it. You can read more about it here: https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A...

This shit is absolutely dystopian. The law must not just be reversed, manufacturers need to be taken to court for shoddy software. Insecure data collection and transmission should be treated the same as having unsafe electrical wiring. It is a defect that needs to be either fixed or the product recalled. As long as manufacturers are not just allowed to but rewarded for selling defective products this won't change. I expect the moment unsolicited data collection becomes a liability manufacturers will drop it like a hot potato.

Thankful for people like this - with kids and family and work I’d probably have had this sit bricked for a year in my garage before finding time to tinker with it. Now I can just never buy any iLife product ever.

We should probably update this story to link directly to the hackers blog, they deserve the credit! https://codetiger.github.io/blog/the-day-my-smart-vacuum-tur...

There is a significantly easier option (although still more work than just buying a vacuum and using it as the manufacturer intended): get one of the Valetudo supported vacuums[0]. This firmware replacement blocks telemetry and allows for near complete feature parity with the original firmware, and flashing is (usually) relatively simple. Certainly much simpler than the process described here.

[0] https://valetudo.cloud/pages/general/supported-robots.html

That's always a good idea, but how many people have the resources to research these details? First of all you have to be aware that this issue even exists. Then you have to scrape the corners of the internet for whether an appliance has any anti-features, because no manufacturer will ever write "collects unsolicited data about you, we will break the appliance if you refuse us your personal information" on the box. And finally you need to be able to afford the time and patience for the whole process.

I don't own a smart vacuum cleaner because the trouble is not worth it to me. However, I can see smart vacuum cleaners being very good for elderly or disabled people, or someone who has very limited free time and could let the robot clean the house on its own while the owner is out. It is really disgusting that scumbag manufacturers are exploiting those people.

Not really. They probably flagged this as someone modifying the device and thought it could be someone reverse engineering it.

The owner did not hack the vacuum, he blocked the IP address on his network for the telemetry server. Same thing tons of people do with Pi-Hole DNS blocking, for example.

There's no sane world where it is defensible to remotely brick a device because it can't communicate with a telemetry server.

> As the business running the servers of smart vacuums, if I saw an atypical device reporting in, without context, I too would kill that device.

If you want to block a device from accessing your servers because it's behaving in an odd way, such as this one that was contacting the update server but not the telemetry server, that's not entirely unreasonable. Sending it a command to modify its software to stop it from operating entirely is outrageous.

> Why would they not be homogenous?

Why would a business have the power to decide what should and what shouldn't be homogeneous about the property of others? A transaction took place, property has legally changed hands and the former owner is exerting control over property that isn't theirs any more.

How about if the builder of your house comes into your home via an access route unknown to you, and starts rearranging where things are placed, or where you and your wife are placed, etc. in order to maintain homogeneous layout?

The business has no right to remotely kill a device purchased by an end user.