>>45643
I'm still weary about that. It depends on how your appliances are networked and what you use to access them, but I can't really see a way of centralizing control over your house's electronics and appliances without also making these systems vulnerable.
Are they all controlled through, say, an app on your phone? At that point all an attacker has to do is control your cell (which most governments are capable of doing already) and they control every major electronic in your house.
The same would be true if it was all controlled from your personal computer. Imagine opening an e-mail attachment and getting a virus that doesn't do shit to your personal data, but causes your home-control software to turn off your refrigerator, permanently engage the locks on your washing machine, and run all of your lights at 100% brightness 24/7. Even though the individual appliances aren't directly compromised, your control system is.
To really secure the system, it would need to be controlled through a single, unique remote control unit, but even then it couldn't be wireless if you wanted complete security (somebody could drive up across the street and duplicate the signal).
Your only option would be a hardwired, standalone, air-gapped network. At that point the only remaining attack vector would be something like what Stuxnet did: try to sneak in a compromised firmware update to feed an attacker's commands to the system. No criminal is going to go through that kind of effort.
This is why I don't like the concept of systems such as those in vid related - they sell themselves on convenience, but they're nothing more than giant potential computerized security flaws that you are introducing to your house.