Start with context instead of a generic security score
The Homebot One overview reviewed on October 2, 2026 did not provide a complete KOKO cybersecurity specification. Before an evaluation, request information about interfaces, account access, updates, support duration, and assessments for the configuration you would receive. The questions below help define the evidence needed for your setting. A missing public document cannot establish whether a protection is present or absent.
Describe where the evaluated configuration would operate, who would use it, which networks and accounts it may reach, what information the planned routines may create, and which physical actions matter. Include guests, children, caregivers, researchers, administrators, and support personnel where relevant. Security requirements should reflect that context. A lab prototype isolated on a test network and a continuing household deployment do not present the same exposure or support needs.
- People, rooms, devices, accounts, and networks in scope
- Information and physical effects that need protection
- Expected integrations and external services
- Consequences of misuse, outage, incorrect access, or delayed updates
Ask about the core device capabilities
NISTIR 8259A provides a broadly applicable starting point for IoT device cybersecurity capabilities. Its categories include device identification, device configuration, data protection, logical access to interfaces, software update, and cybersecurity state awareness. The related NIST catalog also includes device security. These are categories to tailor, not a certification checklist or proof about KOKO.
For the offered configuration, ask how authorized people identify and inventory the device, change security-relevant settings, protect stored and transmitted information, control interfaces, receive and verify updates, and understand security state. Ask which capabilities are automatic, configurable, dependent on a cloud or mobile service, available only to support staff, or unavailable. Request a demonstration or document for requirements that could change the decision.
- Device and component identification
- Secure configuration and restoration of approved settings
- Protection of data at rest and in transit where applicable
- Authentication and authorization for logical interfaces
- Update authenticity, timing, rollback, and status
- Signals that help users understand cybersecurity state
Evaluate the manufacturer support evidence
Security continues after setup. NISTIR 8259B describes non-technical supporting capabilities: documentation, reception of information and queries, dissemination of information, and education and awareness. Ask for the current documentation set, a channel for security questions and vulnerability reports, the method for communicating advisories and updates, and material that helps administrators and household users operate the product safely.
Record the supported versions and expected support period, including what happens at end of support. Ask who coordinates a vulnerability report, how customers learn whether their configuration is affected, what mitigations are available before a fix, and how corrected software is delivered. A promise to provide updates is incomplete without scope, communication, installation responsibility, failure recovery, and a way to confirm update state.
- Version-specific security and configuration documentation
- Vulnerability intake and accountable contact
- Advisory, mitigation, and update communication process
- User and administrator education
- Support period and end-of-support transition plan
Request evidence proportional to the risk
CISA and the FBI's Secure by Demand guidance asks software customers to examine manufacturers' product-security practices throughout procurement. That is useful for the software and services in a robot proposal. Depending on the requirement, request a questionnaire response, architecture summary, update policy, vulnerability-reporting process, test summary, component inventory, incident contact, or written commitment. Choose evidence that a qualified reviewer can assess and handle under the agreed confidentiality terms.
Separate evidence states: provided and reviewed, provided with a gap, promised by a date, unavailable, or not applicable with a reason. A logo, general marketing statement, or framework name is not a substitute for configuration-specific evidence. Likewise, absence of a public document is not proof of an insecure product. Ask Homebot One directly, record the response date and scope, and keep confidential material under the agreed handling rules.
- Requirement and reason tied to the intended environment
- Artifact, demonstration, or attestation used as evidence
- Reviewer, review date, version, and limitations
- Gap owner, mitigation, due date, and decision effect
Put security cost and responsibility into the decision
Translate the review into operational work. Estimate network preparation, account administration, configuration, monitoring, update testing, user training, incident handling, support coordination, and retirement. State which work belongs to Homebot One, a service provider, the buyer, or another party. A cheaper offer can cost more to operate when essential controls require repeated manual work or when the support boundary is unclear.
Security work belongs in the value calculation. The price is right when the arrangement leaves you with controls you can operate, responsibilities you can meet, and a support boundary you understand. Record who accepts any remaining risk. Review that decision again when an interface, connected service, software version, location, or owner changes, since the earlier evidence may no longer describe the system in use.
- Required controls and evidence accepted for this configuration
- Security work, cost, and accountable owner through retirement
- Open risk accepted by an authorized person
- Events that trigger reassessment or suspension
Frequently asked questions
Has Homebot One published a complete KOKO cybersecurity specification?
The official public pages reviewed on October 2, 2026 did not present a complete control inventory, update policy, support period, or assessment package. Ask Homebot One for configuration-specific information needed for your evaluation.
Does using the NISTIR 8259 categories certify KOKO?
No. The NIST categories are a risk-based starting point for defining and discussing capabilities. This checklist does not certify KOKO or confirm implementation of any capability.
What is the first cybersecurity question for a KOKO pilot?
Describe the intended environment, people, data, networks, integrations, and potential effects, then ask which controls and support processes apply to the exact configuration being evaluated.
Can a Coco robot security review be reused for KOKO?
No review should be reused on name similarity alone. KOKO is the official Homebot One spelling; verify the manufacturer, hardware, software, services, version, and environment covered by the evidence.
Sources & further reading
From Homebot One, the team building KOKO in Fremont, California.
