this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2026
398 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

88271 readers
2696 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gopher@programming.dev 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It's just DNS based, and iirc dont require any major effort other than patching the hosts file. Of course it is possible it is not enough, but I have high confidence in the authors after also having watched various talks at I.e DEFCON, that i would be surprised if they missed the firmware doing other nasty things.

Patching DNS is specifically possible to enable/disable on the firmware build tool: I.e https://builder.dontvacuum.me/_dreame_r2416.html and the source for that is here https://github.com/dgiese/dustbuilder-script-public/blob/7afed16999711833a8ac0b3b482e935c3ef77219/modifys8image.sh#L169

[–] Hypfer@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

It’s just DNS based, and iirc dont require any major effort other than patching the hosts file.

Incorrect. That was technically sorta the case back on the S5 (and even there it needed firmware modifications), yes, but if DNS redirection was all it needs, then why even root the bots in the first place. Just do that on a network level and be done with it.

[–] gopher@programming.dev 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Oh okay, I just assumed the main method to redirect the vendor cloud connections to the local valetudo was based on the patch DNS parts in dustbuilder that seems present on most models, but if you say more is required elsewhere to block vendor cloud connections I'm sure that's true.

In any case your work is highly appreciated! And i didn't mean to suggest that it hasn't taken a massive amount of work overall to make valetudo work as well as it does.

[–] Hypfer@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Aaah! Oh. Yes that makes a lot of sense indeed.

The UX (and architecture, for that matter) of the dustbuilder has been.. uh.. lacking.. due to the lack of refactoring. It evolved over all these years, and things that had a meaning once suddenly gained a different one, but are still named in the old ways.

Good point, thanks for pointing it out! I've been doing some refactoring there, actually, and there, it's named "disable cloud", but I just did that for correctness. It did not occur to me that from a user-perspective, this is not just weird but actively misleading. I mean it kinda did, but I did not make the mental connection to this specific misconception. Oh well.

[–] VibeSurgeon@piefed.social 1 points 1 week ago

Interesting.

This seems to be a model-specific quirk and moreso a side effect of getting Valetudo to work rather than an explicit goal - the same option does not appear in DustBuilder for my model (Roborock S5, still going strong after 941 hours of cleaning time).

I feel like I should check out this DEFCON talk though.

I learned something new today, thank you for that