this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2023
783 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

59402 readers
3300 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 content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] GlitzyArmrest@lemmy.world 187 points 1 year ago (14 children)

Cameras connected to the public internet are such a bad idea.

[–] coffeebiscuit@lemmy.world 60 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wait, isn't every camera public? - NSA

[–] Heastes@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Pretty much, yes. - Shodan user

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Album@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 year ago

Agreed! -CCP

Wyze cameras phone home to China unfortunately.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 45 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There used to be a website with a map and you could see all these open unsecured cameras they'd found around the world. Mostly by searching Google for the page name they all had.

Some of them seemed intentional, like traffic cams, cameras on the roof looking out over the city, etc, but there were so many fat men sat around watching TV in their underpants, random families in the kitchen, and so on.

[–] neumast@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Funny that the website shedding light on insecure cameras is, itself, insecurely serving the public over http.

Well. At least in Finland all cams are deliberately public.

Nobody watching TV drunk in their underpants. Thank god.

[–] realharo@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

It would be fine if the footage was end-to-end encrypted, meaning you need to transfer the encryption/decryption keys from device (e.g. a phone) to camera, and then manually between all devices that should have access to the decrypted footage.

Camera would only ever send out encrypted footage, and thus it would be insufficient to have access to the cloud account if you want to view the footage - you would need both access to the account (to obtain the encrypted data) and the decryption key (to actually decrypt it). The decryption key must never reach any 3rd party servers and can only be manually transferred between devices that should have access.

There are still possible attack vectors, like malicious firmware updates, or the viewer client app updates, but those are very difficult to exploit, and pretty much exist in most "secure" software today (including from companies like Google, Apple, Meta, etc.). They could be mitigated by hardware design (do the encryption in hardware, camera's software never has access to decrypted footage) and open source viewer clients that the user controls, but I would consider a camera sufficiently secure (for non-sensitive locations) without those.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It is a bad idea. On one hand, we have the mean to make them quite secure. There is no such thing as an unbreakable encryption, but with proper key management and using decent enough algorithms we can totally do something that puts your camera out of reach of most thing that are not nation-scale organisations. On the other hand, it's mildly more inconvenient than "installing an app and entering your email", as it might require stuff like doing a tiny little bit of setting up.

So, the unsecure/"trust the service" way it is.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Archer@lemmy.world 98 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you weren't getting rid of Wyze devices before the Wyzecam v1 fiasco where they lied, this is a great time to do so. Unplug your Wyze stuff and hit 'em right in the metrics

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 32 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oooh what was he v1 fiasco?

[–] mashbooq@infosec.pub 58 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Stop using cloud-connected cameras!!!!

[–] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (4 children)

But How can I see stuff remotely?

[–] mashbooq@infosec.pub 19 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Best way would be to set up a VPN that lets you connect to your home network remotely, and set up cameras that are only connected to your LAN

[–] Salix@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I believe these types of cameras are used often by the average person. I don't believe the average person would know how to set up a VPN

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ripcord@kbin.social 41 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Again????? This is the third time and of course the last two times they promised they'd rearchitect so it could never happen.

The fact that this can happen means that they or anyone can see your camera data at any time. There is zero real security or privacy.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jerrythejared@infosec.pub 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is why I’ll only use outside cameras. Almost no cameras are safe.

[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 23 points 1 year ago (6 children)

That's why I only use inside cameras, eg dumb cameras where I can ensure that they are only accessible inside my LAN.

[–] waffle@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Can you recommend some reputable brands?

[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Literally any dumb webcam and a Raspberry Pi or similar will do. I used a webcam and an old laptop. But I never put up full time surveillance. Just spontaneously when I needed something.

Heard Ubiquiti was good.

[–] StandingCat@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Im happy with my ubiquiti cameras. They are pricy but solid.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] littlecolt@lemm.ee 33 points 1 year ago (3 children)

These fucking cameras and all like them are the bane of my existence. I'm an ISP repair rep. People lose their fucking shit if they can't surveil their fucking house for 5 minutes. "The Internet is down! Reboot it!" "Are you at home too troubleshoot?" "No! But I can't see my fucking cat vomiting on my couch from work!!!" Jesus fucking Christ, your house will be there when you get home. Fuck

[–] librechad@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

This is my father. We have about 10 ring cameras surrounding the house and I fucking hate it. Meanwhile, I'm also a distributor for security cameras and could easily replace all of them for free. He still insists no. He likes that he can easily prey on me when I go outside for 1-2 seconds to grab a drink or go outside for a smoke.

I already hate feeling watched but the need for audio is just ridiculous. Law enforcement can basically just intercept the feeds and listen/watch you anytime they want to. The FBI abused a spy tool 280,000 times this year, so I doubt they'll respect your rights, if you even have any at this point.

I wish I grew up during the days without cameras being on every single building.

[–] JonEFive@midwest.social 7 points 1 year ago

Not to mention providers giving-in to subpoenas without even the slightest fight, and you would never know about it. Heck, some don't even require subpoenas, a simple law enforcement request might be enough.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Knusper@feddit.de 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you're incapable of building a secure service, maybe you shouldn't be routing people's camera feeds through that service.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] seathru@lemm.ee 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Your Wyze webcam might have let other owners peek into your house

IF you happened to be logged into Wyze's horrible web viewer during the 30 min things got screwy. Didn't this happen to amazon a couple years ago? I remember briefly getting someone else's cart/purchase history.

[–] Archer@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

That was Steam

[–] ABCDE@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

There are still thousands of unsecured cameras from that leak a while back.

you never know this could be helpful for 4chan

[–] bogdugg@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

As a child, I remember it was trivial to use Google to see through surveillance webcams that people from around the world had purchased and left unsecured and public on the internet. I hadn't thought much of it then, including how obviously invasive of their privacy it was, but I think it has left me with an awareness of just how little these systems should be trusted to protect that privacy. I have no trust in the system to protect my data from anyone.

[–] lazyvar@programming.dev 9 points 1 year ago

You can still do this if you use https://www.shodan.io/

It’ll let you find IoT devices and cameras connected to the internet if you know what to search for and an alarming amount of them are locked behind an admin/admin login.

I advise against nosying around because there’s a near 100% chance that it’s illegal to do so in your jurisdiction.

[–] Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Those are still around. They are the local services that people suggest instead of Nest or something, where “you control your own data”. Turns out nothing is foolproof.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] irotsoma@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

This is why I'd never use a hosted service for interior cameras, only exterior ones.

[–] tabular@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

They don't own the ones they paid for either, someone else is in control..

[–] Max_P@lemmy.max-p.me 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Jokes on them, ours died a few months after their ~expiration date~ one year warranty.

Next ones are going to be plain dumb RTMP cameras over PoE cat6 feeding a local server.

[–] user224@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I see you tried to make strike through text. You're missing one more pair of the... damn, can't remember what it's called. The home symbol.

~~strikethrough~~ ~~strikethrough~~

Edit: Tilde

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 8 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Some Wyze security camera owners reported Friday that they were unexpectedly able to see webcam feeds that weren’t theirs, meaning that they were unintentionally able to see inside of other people’s houses.

A Wyze customer support agent confirmed to The Verge that this was indeed happening.

“Went to check on my cameras and they are all gone be replaced with a new one... and this isn’t mine!” wrote one user.

Each thread has comments from other Reddit users reporting similar issues.

“While we work to get this resolved, Wyze Web View functionality may be limited or unavailable,” they told me.

Wyze’s PR team didn’t immediately reply to an emailed request for comment.


The original article contains 398 words, the summary contains 112 words. Saved 72%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] leaf@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why are people still using these?

[–] seathru@lemm.ee 24 points 1 year ago (3 children)

They are cheap and work decent most of the time. I have a few and don't have many complaints. But I also treat them as if they were publicly accessible. I hope someone got to watch my cats out in their catio and it made their day better.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›