If you're like me and you want something that Just Works -- ubiquiti's offering is fully local and has all the features you'd want including alerts, ml detection (on some first party cameras), app, timeline, etc. They recently started allowing third party cameras, too, so all you need is a Cloud Gateway (USG Ultra is $150) and you're good to go.
Show HN: Open-source private home security camera system (end-to-end encryption)
121–130 of 180 posts
Re: Show HN: Open-source private home security camera system (end-to-end encryption)
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
The open source/degoogled alternative to that is UnifiedPush, did you take a look at this? https://unifiedpush.org/ https://ntfy.sh/
I did not, but I will. I would just point out that Privastead assumes the the push notification infrastructure is untrusted anyway.
Re: Show HN: Open-source private home security camera system (end-to-end encryption)
#123I also remember reporting a bug that there was a constant “new” badge next to their referral button in-app, despite me clicking on it and reading it (which I though it would make the “new” badge go away) - support kindly explained to me that they have new referral program every week, which is bonkers because the only thing that changes is the date.
I did look into alternatives but didn’t see anything I could easily trust more after Eufy, so I’m looking forward to the future where simple open source software will cover this part of market, because private companies so far seem to just give you crap for as my $$$ as they can extract.
Re: Show HN: Open-source private home security camera system (end-to-end encryption)
#124This is key to the claim that Privastead offers superior privacy to other solutions, but it's not explained.
My NVR [1] only uses a trusted server that is intended to be in the same building as the cameras. I similarly recommend not allowing the cameras to access the Internet, as their closed-source software is typically a complete nightmare in terms of privacy and security.
Re: Show HN: Open-source private home security camera system (end-to-end encryption)
#125What is the purpose of introducing the untrusted "server" component? Is it intended to run in a different place than the trusted "camera hub" component, such as on a cloud server? This is key to the claim that Privastead offers superior privacy to other solutions, but it's not explained. My NVR [1] only uses a trusted server that is intended to be in the same building as the cameras. I similarly recommend not allowin…
Re: Show HN: Open-source private home security camera system (end-to-end encryption)
#126If you're like me and you want something that Just Works -- ubiquiti's offering is fully local and has all the features you'd want including alerts, ml detection (on some first party cameras), app, timeline, etc. They recently started allowing third party cameras, too, so all you need is a Cloud Gateway (USG Ultra is $150) and you're good to go.
Re: Show HN: Open-source private home security camera system (end-to-end encryption)
#127Did you look into Scrypted? It is OSS. With HomeKit (which is how I use it) it is also E2EE. I’m not sure if their app is E2EE though, I only use HomeKit. It’s pretty good and has an extensive ecosystem. The dev can be a bit… feisty though. It’s very performant and easy to setup. I don’t use the NVR features as I already have an NVR, I essentially just use it for HomeKit integration of my cameras + doorbell. https://…
Re: Show HN: Open-source private home security camera system (end-to-end encryption)
#128If you're like me and you want something that Just Works -- ubiquiti's offering is fully local and has all the features you'd want including alerts, ml detection (on some first party cameras), app, timeline, etc. They recently started allowing third party cameras, too, so all you need is a Cloud Gateway (USG Ultra is $150) and you're good to go.
Re: Show HN: Open-source private home security camera system (end-to-end encryption)
#129What is the purpose of introducing the untrusted "server" component? Is it intended to run in a different place than the trusted "camera hub" component, such as on a cloud server? This is key to the claim that Privastead offers superior privacy to other solutions, but it's not explained. My NVR [1] only uses a trusted server that is intended to be in the same building as the cameras. I similarly recommend not allowin…
I assume it’s to leverage a) cheap/scalable cloud storage and b) offsite storage for security/ease of access.
My NVR's based on the assumption that you want to record continuously (as called out in the schema design doc here [1]) rather than trust event detection to be perfectly reliable. I've set up other systems in parallel that are based on a different assumption (e.g. Frigate) but have found they miss things, so this is the design I'm comfortable with.
If you are also constrained on upstream bandwidth, continuous recording means you must buy a local hard drive. It costs $100–$200 to buy one that can hold many camera-months of video at good quality, which I find pretty reasonable.
Some folks might want to also upload stuff off-site in case the NVR itself is stolen or destroyed, but I haven't felt the need. There are a bunch of missing features from my system I'd like to add when I have time; that one doesn't make my top 10. YMMV.
[1] https://github.com/scottlamb/moonfire-nvr/blob/master/design...
Re: Show HN: Open-source private home security camera system (end-to-end encryption)
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is OSS. Barely. A lot of functionality is gated behind the NVR plugin, which is closed-source and fairly expensive. > easy to setup In my experience, it’s easy to set up. But it’s extremely configurable in all the wrong ways and quite difficult to configure in the ways that one might actually want to configure. And the front end is not fantastic IMO: event filtering is extremely weak and scrubbing is bizarre.
> But it’s extremely configurable in all the wrong ways Damn that feels exactly like my experience with Zoneminder. I’m sure it is decent software under the hood, but the UX is downright hostile to anyone who just wants to get IP cameras to do very basic motion detection to record some full resolution footage, which feels like the major, obvious use case that should be optimized for. I am thankful for OSS existing in…
But making a good UI for defining object detection zones is hard, so the very first thing that works at all sticks. Or, once you’ve carefully optimized by using the camera’s built in motion detection and having all the streams you could want, supporting software motion detection is an afterthought, and making it configurable in any useful manner is even more of an afterthought. After all, all the cameras you actually use personally have built in detection that works well and also have so many built-in RTSP streams that you never actually had to optimize for the experience of using a camera with a single stream, a somewhat defective implementation of ONVIF, and entirely unusable motion detection. So you make it work, but only using plugins and extensions, and it never becomes pleasant.