A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live • Hacker News Board

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#231

Post by grimmfang » Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 7:23 AM UTC

goles wrote: post #103

michaeloder wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is Ring allowing brute forcing? Individual cameras should be set to only allow logins at least a few seconds apart increasing up to several minutes and perhaps blocking IP addresses with excessive volume. If they're brute forcing Ring's servers an application firewall would catch and block this.

The term for this type of attack is credential stuffing. https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Credential_stuffing

This comment shouldn't be downvoted. This is the correct term.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#232

Post by beshrkayali » Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 8:04 AM UTC

As it has been said before, the S in IoT stands for security.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#233

Post by concordDance » Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 9:15 AM UTC

laumars wrote: post #130

mikepurvis wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a four season bike commuter, and have been wearing a helmet cam for the past year or so— it's just breathtaking the amount of small violations I catch on camera: I don't even go looking for them or dwell at hotspots, and I pick up probably 5-10 instances per week of things like cars turning right on red without fully stopping, going through stop signs without fully stopping, not fully yielding to pedestrians in c…

Reporting someone for minor traffic offences if they caused an accident is the right thing to do but reporting people for the sake of reporting people is a little unsympathetic. I've lost count of the number of times I've misjudged a situation because kids were screaming in the back of the car, I'm stressed about something at work and had the briefest laps in concentration; or even times when I just have a complete b…

> I've lost count of the number of times I've misjudged a situation because kids were screaming in the back of the car,

If you can't concentrate due to screaming kids at the back of a car then you need to pull over until they stop. You have no right to endanger other people's lives just to get somewhere a bit faster.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#234

Post by fabatka » Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 9:23 AM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #222

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, so you make an error, you get a fine for it. It's not as though I'm arguing anyone who runs a red light should go to jail. Heck, maybe our fines are too high, or should take income into account—I think all of those things would be healthy conversations. But cars are deadly vehicles, and mistakes—regardless of the circumstance—should have consequences before someone gets killed. As frequently as possible.

As long as you are okay with fining cyclists for riding on sidewalks, failing to come to a complete stop at stop signs, failing to signal turn direction, failing to yield, etc as well. Same with pedestrians for jaywalking. You can’t be intolerant of vehicle mistakes and allow for others if you actually care about safety.

Actually when you drive a car, you have a lot more responsibility. It is easier to cause serious harm to someone while driving a multi-ton vehicle, than when riding a bike.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#235

Post by tsukurimashou » Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 9:44 AM UTC

fpgaminer wrote: post #51

kick wrote: post #2

It's obviously bad to hack into a citizen's systems without consent, but there's some kind of value that might be created here. Ring cameras are basically being used as a gigantic police-partnered dragnet: Amazon’s Ring Planned Neighborhood “Watch Lists” Built on Facial Recognition https://theintercept.com/2019/11/26/amazon-ring-home-securit... If this provides a disincentivize to an average user buying Ring cameras,…

As someone who tends to fall on the side of privacy more often than not, I'm actually not sure how I feel about facial recog+home security cameras. I'm completely against any fully automated system where the police can have access to the camera's data. But on the other hand, what if the system was implemented completely locally, and all with the owner's control and permission? So your Ring app pops up and says "Hey,…

on what planet are you living in and what did you smoke, I can't agree with anything you said

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#236

Post by georgeplusplus » Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 9:44 AM UTC

Thorrez wrote: post #228

georgeplusplus wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It absolutely is obstruction of justice if there’s reasonable suspicion and they have a subpoena or warrant and you refuse to hand over said evidence. If they come to your house and Willy nilly ask you for your cameras data because they believe that it spotted a crime then you can say no for sure, but then they’ll just come back with a court order to force compliance since there’s good reason to at least inspect the…

You have to give police information just because you suspect they might have a warrant? I would have thought you could wait until you're actually presented with the warrant.

I addressed that in my comment. It’s literally what the second paragraph is about.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#237

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 9:53 AM UTC

georgeplusplus wrote: post #236

Thorrez wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to give police information just because you suspect they might have a warrant? I would have thought you could wait until you're actually presented with the warrant.

I addressed that in my comment. It’s literally what the second paragraph is about.

[deleted]

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#238

Post by Thorrez » Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 9:58 AM UTC

georgeplusplus wrote: post #236

Thorrez wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to give police information just because you suspect they might have a warrant? I would have thought you could wait until you're actually presented with the warrant.

I addressed that in my comment. It’s literally what the second paragraph is about.

Sorry, I badly misread your comment as "suspicion that they have a subpoena" instead of "suspicion and they have a subpoena".

But to address what you actually said, I believe the vast majority of these requests that police are making from Ring users don't have a warrant/subpoena.

> The partnerships let police request the video recorded by homeowners’ cameras within a specific time and area, helping officers see footage from the company’s millions of Internet-connected cameras installed nationwide, the company said. Officers don’t receive ongoing or live-video access, and homeowners can decline the requests

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/28/doorbel...

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#239

Post by georgeplusplus » Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 10:19 AM UTC

Thorrez wrote: post #238

georgeplusplus wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I addressed that in my comment. It’s literally what the second paragraph is about.

Sorry, I badly misread your comment as "suspicion that they have a subpoena" instead of "suspicion and they have a subpoena". But to address what you actually said, I believe the vast majority of these requests that police are making from Ring users don't have a warrant/subpoena. > The partnerships let police request the video recorded by homeowners’ cameras within a specific time and area, helping officers see foota…

To me this is more Rings fault than law enforcement.

I’m sure there is some TOS that states Ring will hand over any video and since the program is public knowledge, therefor If the individual still decides to willingly install it, IMO that’s on them. when are we going to start holding the user accountable?

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#240

Post by laumars » Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 10:29 AM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #214

laumars wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously I agree that bad drivers deserve little sympathy. But not all human errors are down to bad drivers nor a lack of care. > The less careful we are even when the mistake doesn't cause harm, the more frequently we'll make the mistake. Some feedback that made people be more careful, and pay more attention, would be good. That only works if mistake are concious. My point is mistakes can be unintended like rowdy k…

> That only works if mistake are concious. I don't think that's true at all. Indeed, feedback and fear of consequences are two things that drive people to become conscious. Both of mistakes and of the potential for mistakes.

You've carefully cropped out the following sentence that explains why your point doesn't always ring too.

With the best will in the world, you cannot prevent 100% of distractions 100% of the time. Young kids, for example, will always find a way to circumvent your best efforts at least some of the time.