I have this old TP-Link smart lightbulb, it’s the only thing that’s IoT and on WiFi in my house.
Looking through pfBlocker logs for fun, and noticed it’s been trying to connect to the Tor network.
Oh! Also, it’s been uploading and downloading 100+ MB of data a day.
You must log in or register to comment.
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn’t great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don’t promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
- 0 users online
- 57 users / day
- 383 users / week
- 1.5K users / month
- 5.7K users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 2.44K Posts
- 57.6K Comments
- Modlog
How do you know it is? Dpi is often wrong about both protocol. And size
123 isn’t the normal protocol though, so let’s assume it is malicious (I will admit I could be wrong here). Packet dumps is the way to prove it. If op posts packet dumps, that would be useful (as I could be wrong, the normal protocol is a different port generally though).
Also, important to note that if they’re uk hs100 plugs, they have different firmware too… The UK ones have one of the protocols shut off
I didn’t mean to say that. My point wanted to be that it is a bit too much traffic for it to be honest NTP traffic (as it was assumed above), unless the program sending it has a honest bug
Dpi on these cheap routers sometimes often doesn’t even calculate the data downloaded correctly. Ie, we can’t even rely on the 100mb figure
I’m a little confused. Why do you think this is a cheap router?
As I know pfBlocker is a component of the pfSense firewall OS, and if OP runs that on their router, it must almost certainly be an x86 machine and have much more RAM than the amount that cheap routers have, according to the minimum reqs.