Today’s award goes to anyone who bought this sex toy and/or allowed their lover to install it on them. They asked for it!
… the consequences of having a major security flaw in one popular sex toy could have been catastrophic for tens of thousands of users.
U.K.-based security firm Pen Test Partners said the flaw in the Qiui Cellmate internet-connected chastity lock, billed as the “world’s first app controlled chastity device,” could have allowed anyone to remotely and permanently lock in the user’s penis.
The Cellmate chastity lock works by allowing a trusted partner to remotely lock and unlock the chamber over Bluetooth using a mobile app. That app communicates with the lock using an API. But that API was left open and without a password, allowing anyone to take complete control of any user’s device.
Because the chamber was designed to lock with a metal ring underneath the user’s penis, the researchers said it may require the intervention of a heavy-duty bolt cutter or an angle grinder to free the user.
Alex Lomas, a researcher at Pen Test Partners, said in a blog post that an attacker could lock “everyone in or out” very quickly. “There is no emergency override function either, so if you’re locked in there’s no way out,” he wrote.
. . .
Qiui joins a long list of sex toys with security problems that inherently don’t exist in non-internet-connected devices. In 2016, researchers say a bug in a Bluetooth-powered “panty buster” let anyone remotely control the sex toy over the internet. In 2017, a smart sex toy maker settled a lawsuit after it was accused of collecting and recording “highly intimate and sensitive data” of its users.
There’s more at the link.
Why anyone would be daft enough to wear something like that, I can’t imagine. Suffice it to say that . . . no, let’s not go there. This is supposed to be a family-friendly blog, after all!
I’ll let Leon Gluckman’s 1960’s musical “Wait a Minim!” say it for me, in the ballad of the unfortunate Sir Oswald Sodde and a different kind of problem with a chastity belt. (If the embedded video doesn’t play, you can watch it here.)
Peter
This 'device' was probably funded by and produced for the Clinton Foundation. According to numerous sources the 'junior' partner in that institution has had lifelong issues with…shall we say "fidelity" and sometimes it has seriously affected the "brand". This problem has also caused much expense and personal embarrassment to the 'senior' partner. Actually, I doubt if this issue would even concern the senior partner. It would be concidered a feature, not a bug.