The three million toothbrush botnet story isn't true

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

A widely reported claim that three million internet-connected toothbrushes were hijacked into a DDoS botnet now appears to be false or, at best, entirely unsubstantiated. Commenters trace the story back to a small Swiss newspaper article citing Fortinet, note that such a massive botnet would have been a major, well-documented security event, and highlight subsequent statements indicating mistranslation or miscommunication. The episode is used to illustrate how sensational IoT security scare-stories can spread through the media with minimal verification, even as genuine concerns about insecure connected devices remain.

Veracity of the toothbrush botnet story

  • Many commenters doubt the story: a 3M-device Java toothbrush botnet DDoS causing “millions in damage” from 4 hours of downtime seems implausible and underreported for an event that size.
  • Some note that the only “source” is a brief example in a Swiss regional newspaper, not a technical report, which further undermines credibility.
  • Others cite follow-up reporting and Fortinet statements that the incident did not actually happen, despite the newspaper treating it as real.
  • There is also mention that Fortinet initially let the “real case” framing stand, and only later blamed a “translation problem,” which some find suspicious.

Technical plausibility (Java & IoT constraints)

  • Several discuss whether Java on a toothbrush is realistic.
  • Examples are given of very small devices running constrained Java variants (Java ME, JavaCard, SIM cards, smartcards), and even hardware support for Java bytecode on some ARM chips.
  • Consensus: Java on a toothbrush-class device is technically possible, but a 3M-device IP-capable toothbrush botnet is still doubtful.

Toothbrush connectivity and DDoS feasibility

  • Many note that most consumer “smart” toothbrushes use Bluetooth (often via a phone app) rather than Wi‑Fi, making direct DDoS participation unlikely.
  • Some point out a few Wi‑Fi toothbrush products exist, but it is unclear if millions are deployed.
  • A Fortinet research presentation is cited describing a BLE toothbrush that only reaches the cloud through a mobile app, not directly.

Media sourcing, translation, and Fortinet’s role

  • The chain: Swiss German article → picked up by tech press (e.g., Tom’s Hardware) → social media virality.
  • Debate over translation of a key German sentence: the article explicitly states the scenario “actually happened,” not just a hypothetical.
  • Later Swiss reporting claims local Fortinet reps described it as a real attack and pre-publication text mentioning a real case was not objected to.
  • Others argue internal miscommunication and poor fact-checking are more likely than deliberate fabrication.

Wider IoT, privacy, and regulation themes

  • Commenters highlight real IoT risks: insecure devices, lack of updates, and potential for DDoS from other device types (plugs, bulbs, TVs, fridges).
  • Some connect the viral story to growing regulatory pressure in the EU and US on IoT cybersecurity.
  • Location prompts from toothbrush apps are discussed as a side-effect of Bluetooth permissions and potential tracking, not necessarily intentional exfiltration.