Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Bug Google Software Technology

Nest Halts Sales of Smart Fire Alarm After Discovering Dangerous Flaw 128

Posted by Soulskill
from the out-of-the-frying-pan dept.
fructose writes: "The Nest Protect has a flaw in its software that, under the right circumstances, could disable the alarm and not notify the owners of a fire. To remedy this flaw, they are disabling the Nest Wave feature through automatic updates. Owners who don't have their Nest Protects connected to their WiFi net or don't have a Nest account are suggested to either update the device manually or return it to Nest for a full refund. While they work out the problem, all sales are being halted to prevent unsafe units from being sold. There have been no reported incidents resulting from this flaw, but they aren't taking any chances."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nest Halts Sales of Smart Fire Alarm After Discovering Dangerous Flaw

Comments Filter:
  • by NotDrWho (3543773) on Friday April 04, 2014 @05:24PM (#46665061)

    Some things are important enough to

    a) keep simple, and
    b) keep offline

  • by pr0nbot (313417) on Friday April 04, 2014 @05:26PM (#46665077)

    I think a fire alarm is an instance where I'd like something to have as simple and foolproof a mechanism as possible. I suppose a smart alarm could perhaps call the emergency services or something... but I'd still probably combine it with a bog standard fire alarm.

  • Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Nidi62 (1525137) on Friday April 04, 2014 @05:30PM (#46665101)

    I did not RTFA in depth but I am surprised that they did not have a mechanism to fix it remotely via updates of something.

    Straight from the summary:

    they are disabling the Nest Wave feature through automatic updates. Owners who don't have their Nest Protects connected to their WiFi net or don't have a Nest account are suggested to either update the device manually or return it to Nest for a full refund

  • by Animats (122034) on Friday April 04, 2014 @05:33PM (#46665131) Homepage

    I think a fire alarm is an instance where I'd like something to have as simple and foolproof a mechanism as possible.

    Yes. That's why fire sprinklers are so successful. There's nothing between the water and the fire except a low-melting-point component in the sprinkler head.

    This is an example of webcrap-level programmers doing things they're not qualified to do. I'm beginning to think that "Internet of Things" programmers should be required to have Registered Professional Engineer credentials, like structural engineers.

  • by noh8rz10 (2716597) on Friday April 04, 2014 @05:34PM (#46665143)

    doubleplus one. today we spend a bunch of money on new stuff that duplicates the functionality of old stuff. recently I spent $15 on an LED bulb and $15 on a dimmer lamp socket so I could have a dimmable lamp, something we had with the first electric lamps 100 years ago, and something we've had with oil lamps for 300 years.

  • by gander666 (723553) * on Friday April 04, 2014 @05:34PM (#46665147) Homepage
    YMMV, but my house is wired for a burglar alarm. It is monitored. All the smoke detectors are wired to the main alarm. If one of them goes off, the alarm system notifies the monitoring company, and they call me to see if there is a fire (actually looking for false alarm). If I don't respond, they send the fire department. It is the ONLY reason there is a land line at my house these days.

    My understanding is that Nest does this via Wifi. In the event of an emergency, I trust the POTS far more than the cable internet and wifi to call the cavalry. Perhaps one day Nest will make this all fool proof. But until that day, I will stick with the land line/alarm monitor.

    Oh, the monthly cost to monitor is like $6.00.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (9) Dammit, little-endian systems *are* more consistent!

Working...