91–100 of 109 posts
> given an IP of the camera So this is an internal tool, not something you can gain access to remote cameras behind NAT firewalls? I think a lot of people are assuming this is a WAN attack. Sounds genuinely useful, especially if it can be worked into PVR software to integrate with more hardware.
OP didn’t specify if it worked on IPv6. There each device is theoretically reachable from the www.
Google "ethical disclosure." The standard in the security research community is you inform the manufacturer and give them an opportunity to patch the flaw. Then you wait some number of days (some people say 30, other say "depends on the details of the vulnerability"). Then you publish the code along with enough text to explain the vulnerability to a reasonably technical audience.
But it sounds like OP wants the flaw. If the company fixes it then OP will no longer have "full local access to [their] wireless security cameras without the cloud", so disclosing is directly against OP's interests. In that case it's probably best to just keep the flaw private to yourself.
personally if i were in OP's shoes: i'd hope that said company has a bug-bounty program and use that for a little side cash and a "look what i found" - along with denying auto-updates to my own devices to keep utilizing said functionality (ive always been a fan of choice vs enforcement of arbitrary updates).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Morality is either objective or completely arbitrary" is a false dichotomy. Obviously ethics isn't objective (I mean what would that even mean, absent some deity?), but with some reasonable foundational beliefs such as "I generally want people to have it good and not suffer", you're already pretty constrained and guided in your reasoning. But the belief that it's generally good when people don't suffer is obviously…
> "Morality is either objective or completely arbitrary" is a false dichotomy > some reasonable foundational beliefs such as "I generally want people to have it good and not suffer" > But the belief that it's generally good when people don't suffer is obviously subjective, even if widespread. Why is generally not wanting to hurt people a "reasonable foundational belief?" It's definitely not universal in humanity righ…
Unfortunately this point doesn't prove/refute any point about morality.
Because most of the russians pro-war idiots (including most propaganda producers) sincerely believe propaganda and from their moral perspective they really are doing good by fighting Ukranian war criminals.
Imagine 2 worlds: one, where you'd prefer someone in your position to act A, another, where he acts B.
Choose the option which aligns with the world you'd rather live in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Morality is either objective or completely arbitrary" is a false dichotomy. Obviously ethics isn't objective (I mean what would that even mean, absent some deity?), but with some reasonable foundational beliefs such as "I generally want people to have it good and not suffer", you're already pretty constrained and guided in your reasoning. But the belief that it's generally good when people don't suffer is obviously…
> "Morality is either objective or completely arbitrary" is a false dichotomy > some reasonable foundational beliefs such as "I generally want people to have it good and not suffer" > But the belief that it's generally good when people don't suffer is obviously subjective, even if widespread. Why is generally not wanting to hurt people a "reasonable foundational belief?" It's definitely not universal in humanity righ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Morality is either objective or completely arbitrary" is a false dichotomy. Obviously ethics isn't objective (I mean what would that even mean, absent some deity?), but with some reasonable foundational beliefs such as "I generally want people to have it good and not suffer", you're already pretty constrained and guided in your reasoning. But the belief that it's generally good when people don't suffer is obviously…
> "Morality is either objective or completely arbitrary" is a false dichotomy > some reasonable foundational beliefs such as "I generally want people to have it good and not suffer" > But the belief that it's generally good when people don't suffer is obviously subjective, even if widespread. Why is generally not wanting to hurt people a "reasonable foundational belief?" It's definitely not universal in humanity righ…
> given an IP of the camera So this is an internal tool, not something you can gain access to remote cameras behind NAT firewalls? I think a lot of people are assuming this is a WAN attack. Sounds genuinely useful, especially if it can be worked into PVR software to integrate with more hardware.
OP didn’t specify if it worked on IPv6. There each device is theoretically reachable from the www.
I can just about get on board with using legal addressing for internal nodes, but I wouldn't dream of exposing everything just because the addressing scheme allowed it.
This is a genuine question. IPv6 is yet to reach me at home.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OP didn’t specify if it worked on IPv6. There each device is theoretically reachable from the www.
Do domestic IPv6 networks typically expose things by default? I can just about get on board with using legal addressing for internal nodes, but I wouldn't dream of exposing everything just because the addressing scheme allowed it. This is a genuine question. IPv6 is yet to reach me at home.
At the end of the day you have a router that acts as a firewall. Whether the devices are globally routable/reachable (IPv6) or not (IPv4) shouldn't make a difference.
IPv6 hasn't reached me either, but I would expect a sane default configuration in consumer-grade routers to block external connections by default.