Hi
Let's say i'm having a party, and my Sonos is playing the music.
Many of my guests are friends that earlier has gotten access to my WiFi. During the party, these guests could download Sonos Controller/app, connect to Sonos, and start controlling the music.
There is no way in Sonos controllers to set a password, to avoid this behaviour.
Other workarounds would be setting up a guest WiFi network that doesn't have access to Sonos, but this would require a new router (in som cases), or change my original password in my entire existing network, which would be annoying ;)
Are there any plans to add this feature?
Maybe even a possibility to require a password for each Sonos device (tick box in controller preferences for each device?)
Am i missing something, other than keeping my guests sober and not annoying 😃
This topic has been closed for further comments. You can use the search bar to find a similar topic, or create a new one by clicking Create Topic at the top of the page.
Page 4 / 8
@Kumar in my house TV have passwords- Content other than g rated is pin protected. This is of course optional , something I explicitly set up.
I think Sonos is the only connected device I own with out some kind of optional access control. So yes imo I see this as a problem for Sonos to solve.
I m guessing the posters offering parental advice are not millennials.
I think Sonos is the only connected device I own with out some kind of optional access control. So yes imo I see this as a problem for Sonos to solve.
I m guessing the posters offering parental advice are not millennials.
I see. I for one am glad there isn't one more password to be used, life is complicated enough already. Do TVs of the the day have passwords to prevent channel changing? If no, I hope they never do in future as well!
I see the Wifi password as quite enough to keep Sonos restricted to people I know and trust and don't see any need for another password to remember. I use a hidden network name as well.
I can see the case for this to be optional; I suppose Sonos will do this based on its resource allocation decisions to what it believes are different customer needs and their rankings in terms of importance to them. Does a thread like this affect that process?
I see the Wifi password as quite enough to keep Sonos restricted to people I know and trust and don't see any need for another password to remember. I use a hidden network name as well.
I can see the case for this to be optional; I suppose Sonos will do this based on its resource allocation decisions to what it believes are different customer needs and their rankings in terms of importance to them. Does a thread like this affect that process?
Thats the crux of it... People are giving out their WIFI passwords and expecting Sonos to solve that problem by keeping people from starting players or changing music selections... because they were given the WIFI passwords.
Isn't this just a music system we are talking about?!
Are there any concerns that private/sensitive data can be hacked via a Sonos system back door entry to the Wifi network? And is a Sonos password still needed if the Home Wifi network is password protected from guest access, from guests that are the out of control types? If that protection is in place, does that meet the needs?
Or am I missing something obvious?
Are there any concerns that private/sensitive data can be hacked via a Sonos system back door entry to the Wifi network? And is a Sonos password still needed if the Home Wifi network is password protected from guest access, from guests that are the out of control types? If that protection is in place, does that meet the needs?
Or am I missing something obvious?
Sorry, man... but if you have to lock up your equipment to keep friends and family from abusing it, you have bigger problems than Sonos applying a password. Again, set up a guest network and be done with it.
I wouldn't call it haranguing, but as you wish. Perhaps I'll stop "haranguing" a corporation that has no problem seeing feedback on its forums and assessing it dispassionately when you stop haranguing individual users on a forum. You may be a "Rock Star" with almost 10,000 replies, but that is clearly no measure of your respectful treatment of those with different opinions from yours.
Have you set up your guest network yet, or are you going to continue to harangue Sonos for something the CEO himself has said is not coming?
If you create a community tablet or if you hand your unlocked phone to someone else, well haven't you then ceded permission to any user to operate the system? You are right that in the ideal world you could turn on a PIN for certain zones so that really only you could use that zone if holding that unlocked device. And that person would choose to turn that PIN on. And so it would only be a nuisance for the users who opt to do that.
It doesn't get complicated at all. What you are describing would be great and not all that hard. And yes it would generate cases that might require people who set up elaborate padlocks to undo those padlocks every time. But those folks would have to choose to set up all the padlocks in the first place! No one is claiming these should be mandatory. A single PIN on the app would cover a large percentage of use cases, and if Sonos were to add more PINs for more use cases, great. Windows has this stuff when you log in, and you can set different permissions for each file in your whole OS depending on login. Permissioning is very widespread, very accepted practice, and somewhat expected these days.
It doesn't get complicated at all. What you are describing would be great and not all that hard. And yes it would generate cases that might require people who set up elaborate padlocks to undo those padlocks every time. But those folks would have to choose to set up all the padlocks in the first place! No one is claiming these should be mandatory. A single PIN on the app would cover a large percentage of use cases, and if Sonos were to add more PINs for more use cases, great. Windows has this stuff when you log in, and you can set different permissions for each file in your whole OS depending on login. Permissioning is very widespread, very accepted practice, and somewhat expected these days.
And what about the complaints that if one gives their phone to a child, or to a guest, or you have a community tablet like in many homes? What if you wish to give some functions to some people, like older children and guests, but don't want them to be super users? And in the case of room passwords, what keeps a non-super user from having to enter a passcode every time they need to play something in a room where they are actually authorized? Do you have multiple passcodes for these people that varies with the amount of power given? Maybe a passcode for each room? Gets complicated, doesn't it?
We could go on for pages and pages over minutia that isn't even in your personal wish, and that have use cases that vary to infinity.
Brass tacks? Just setup a Guest network. Problem (at least your problem) is then solved.
We could go on for pages and pages over minutia that isn't even in your personal wish, and that have use cases that vary to infinity.
Brass tacks? Just setup a Guest network. Problem (at least your problem) is then solved.
People know the button-pressing trick, too, so unless the equipment is all stashed, that doesn't work.
jgatie -- for all of those applications, PIN would only be required once. If you install the app and type in the PIN once, then your phone always can access and change any of the permissions for any of the zones. It would authorize the app on your phone as a superuser, and that could be only once! (Or if you *want* to authorize every time, you could set it to prompt you every time the app started).
jgatie -- for all of those applications, PIN would only be required once. If you install the app and type in the PIN once, then your phone always can access and change any of the permissions for any of the zones. It would authorize the app on your phone as a superuser, and that could be only once! (Or if you *want* to authorize every time, you could set it to prompt you every time the app started).
For the paranoid a simple workaround is to have a single component from a different Household -- a BRIDGE will do -- on the same subnet. You'll then be asked to press buttons as before.
Hmm thanks for the tip, not perfect but might be good enough for my purposes.
Convenience. There must have been countless "why must we press buttons to identify our ONE Sonos system?" comments.
For the paranoid a simple workaround is to have a single component from a different Household -- a BRIDGE will do -- on the same subnet. You'll then be asked to press buttons as before.
If the router doesn't have a 'guest SSID' feature, the same protection from intruders can be achieved simply by putting the Sonos and all the normal occupants' devices behind a second router, cascaded off the first one. Sonos doesn't care about being behind a double-NAT. Guests can use the outer LAN. In fact I do this so guests can also avail themselves of a small separate Sonos household, the players located in guest rooms.
@juanb,
For your particular concern, you would only need to enter it once. Others in this and other threads have asked for passcodes for parental controls, or to password protect certain rooms, Settings menus, queue management, and any number of other features that could easily require one to enter a passcode on a frequent and annoying basis.
I for one do not know why Sonos took away the requirement to press hardware buttons on an actual player to add a controller to the system. I saw this as a better detriment to unauthorized use than any passcodes. But that is just me, and none of these concerns are an actual concern if one makes use of a guest network, which has the equally important function of keeping people off your private LAN.
For your particular concern, you would only need to enter it once. Others in this and other threads have asked for passcodes for parental controls, or to password protect certain rooms, Settings menus, queue management, and any number of other features that could easily require one to enter a passcode on a frequent and annoying basis.
I for one do not know why Sonos took away the requirement to press hardware buttons on an actual player to add a controller to the system. I saw this as a better detriment to unauthorized use than any passcodes. But that is just me, and none of these concerns are an actual concern if one makes use of a guest network, which has the equally important function of keeping people off your private LAN.
jgatie -- We can agree to disagree on the interpretation. I wasn't trying to single you out, and what you quoted is fine to me, but other posters did not couch their barbs in the form of a personal opinion, but more of a "parent your kids" approach. You of course would not have to constantly put in the passcode because a) you could opt to have it off and b) sonos would of course only force you to put it in once per device. that is a straw man argument.
ratty -- I am impressed with your knowledge of the sonos technical details. I'll take your word for it, but again this is about casual entry. Of course a dedicated intruder could bypass almost any defense. I merely want to prevent guests from showing off that "Hey, I happen to know that if you have the Sonos app you can hijack the host's system as long as you get the wifi password, which you can innocently ask for." Based on this thread, I will definitely be setting up a guest network....
ratty -- I am impressed with your knowledge of the sonos technical details. I'll take your word for it, but again this is about casual entry. Of course a dedicated intruder could bypass almost any defense. I merely want to prevent guests from showing off that "Hey, I happen to know that if you have the Sonos app you can hijack the host's system as long as you get the wifi password, which you can innocently ask for." Based on this thread, I will definitely be setting up a guest network....
Even if the process of associating a Sonos controller was PIN-managed, and even if Sonos provided per-room PIN entry, the diagnostic/control interface on IP port 1400 is open on each and every player. A fool who wanted to really mess with a Sonos system could simply use a third party control app. The only way to prevent that is to keep such undesirables off your LAN subnet.
Whether your definition of the transgression is different from mine or not (as I previously said, YMMV), this thread is about preventing someone from doing something the owner of the home feels is not warranted. So my statement that "There's no way in hell I'd personally put up with constantly entering a passcode just so I could police rude guests or unruly kids" still applies, and questioning why anyone else would suffer inconvenience in order to police those actions, when there are better alternatives, is not condescension, it is reality.
But it all comes down to YOU giving out your WIFI password. Just change it if someone you gave it to previously is abusing it. Problem solved.
I have never given out my WIFI password to anyone outside of my immediate family. No need to. If guests need that much internet access at my place that they need to switch over to WIFI, then why are they visiting in the first place? And even then, I have guest access enabled on my router. Problem also solved.
I have never given out my WIFI password to anyone outside of my immediate family. No need to. If guests need that much internet access at my place that they need to switch over to WIFI, then why are they visiting in the first place? And even then, I have guest access enabled on my router. Problem also solved.
jgatie, all due respect the posts along those lines are quite condescending (def: having or showing a feeling of patronizing superiority.). When posters basically say "I can keep my friends or kids in line, why can't you?", that is patronizing. Besides, must I really dissect the argument, which is not even all that good apart from the condescension? For example: 1) You would have no idea at a party who was doing it. How would you address that person???? 2) There are social transgressions (maybe like a guest putting his feet up on a coffee table) that bother you but may not bother everyone and therefore you don't want to seem like a jerky host by pointing it out and would rather instead look for a solution (e.g., a tablecloth on your coffee table for next time you have guests over). 3) This is an internet forum about a technical product, geared at people asking for technical solutions, not a counseling session on how poorly users have chosen their friends.
Having the option for the tablecloth is what people are asking for. I am sure there are people who live in museum quality houses with really nice uncovered coffee tables whose friends would know never to put their feet up on it, and I am sure there are people who downright encourage folks to put their feet up on their coffee table. Bully for them -- go right ahead! I'm not going to condescend and say "What kind of person lets guests put their feet up on a table? or What kind of snooty person keeps their house like a museum?" Those of us who like optionality would prefer a "tablecloth" feature like a PIN.
Having the option for the tablecloth is what people are asking for. I am sure there are people who live in museum quality houses with really nice uncovered coffee tables whose friends would know never to put their feet up on it, and I am sure there are people who downright encourage folks to put their feet up on their coffee table. Bully for them -- go right ahead! I'm not going to condescend and say "What kind of person lets guests put their feet up on a table? or What kind of snooty person keeps their house like a museum?" Those of us who like optionality would prefer a "tablecloth" feature like a PIN.
Interview from 2011. Hmm wonder if he still has same view.
Precedence has been set re allowing missing new features from legacy CR controllers which sounds like wouldn't be able to support control feature.
Precedence has been set re allowing missing new features from legacy CR controllers which sounds like wouldn't be able to support control feature.
Thanks for the link, jgatie. I don't really buy that argument completely -- you would put the PIN in your Sonos app on your phone once and it wouldn't ask again. I can see that the PIN-step (even if no human intervention is required after the first time) could add to the "time-to-music", so that may be a valid concern. A whitelist could also work -- I could type in the MAC addresses of all my phones/ipads into the Sonos and whitelist only those to work with the Sonos system. Again, I don't know enough technically if that would increase the time-to-music.
I also had not heard about the CEO's statement either. But surely having this issue die down in the forums is EXACTLY the way to ensure it will never happen, right???? Only if there are consistent, persistent voices will they think about implementing this. As you suggest, Sonos's aversion to this is clearly because of some philosophical reason rather than a technical one.
"Control your friends and/or kids" is not condescending nor crazy, it is a natural reaction to descriptions of what most normal people would consider rude, disrespectful and unacceptable behavior. If my kid ever blasted rap music in my bedroom at 2 AM, his/her phone would be under lockup for a month. If my guests abused the music selection on a regular basis, they'd be put on the guest network as fast as I could change passwords. There's no way in hell I'd personally put up with constantly entering a passcode just so I could police rude guests or unruly kids. YMMV, but it is certainly a subject to be broached.
As to the CEO's statement, you can view it above, and it does seem to be philosophical. In my experience, the continued bleating of few, but vocal, advocates does nothing to change his philosophy. See the Windows mobile and Hires audio threads for examples, and the number of posts by "consistent, persistent voices" in those threads absolutely dwarf those calling for passcodes or parental locks.
Will Sonos offer some parental controls to dumb down the interface and limit speaker volume?
We had lots of debates about this early on: how do you personalize a controller. With the CR100 and CR200 you don’t really know who’s using it. You can’t really put an identification step up front, it’s just getting in the way of time-to-music. But if we’re on your phone, that’s your phone. So we can start doing things like, maybe you have a mode on the Android controller or the iPhone controller to dumb it down. But that’s the challenge with doing things like parental controls, which one are you using and which one are they using. You can’t put, "hey, type in the three numbers to start using a controller" because that’s going to drive you crazy usability wise, you’ll turn it off and never turn that feature on again. We view the tablets as the social controllers, the one you’re going to pass around, and the smartphone as your personal controller. There’s a real nice opportunity to have zones that are ordered based on how often you use them and stuff like that.
http://www.theverge.com/2011/10/21/2504462/john-macfarlane-prepares-sonos-for-airplay-assault-and-possible-home
jgatie, again - no one has issue with the constructive feedback. it's the condescending "control your friends" nonsense that is crazy. PINs and passcodes exist to a large degree because sometimes you cannot trust completely the folks you've given your wifi password to.
I also had not heard about the CEO's statement either. But surely having this issue die down in the forums is EXACTLY the way to ensure it will never happen, right???? Only if there are consistent, persistent voices will they think about implementing this. As you suggest, Sonos's aversion to this is clearly because of some philosophical reason rather than a technical one.
I also had not heard about the CEO's statement either. But surely having this issue die down in the forums is EXACTLY the way to ensure it will never happen, right???? Only if there are consistent, persistent voices will they think about implementing this. As you suggest, Sonos's aversion to this is clearly because of some philosophical reason rather than a technical one.
I appreciate your feedback jgatie and understand what you're saying.
That's why after a few posts on this topic, I let it go. Didn't seem like it was going to happen.
Then read @juanb's comments and got me started again.
This was the first I've heard that the CEO will not support PINs/Passwords....if I had known that, I never would have posted my request.
That's why after a few posts on this topic, I let it go. Didn't seem like it was going to happen.
Then read @juanb's comments and got me started again.
This was the first I've heard that the CEO will not support PINs/Passwords....if I had known that, I never would have posted my request.
Page 4 / 8
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.