My security camera shipped a GitHub admin token in its login page

Posted by hhh 13 hours ago

Counter511Comment177OpenOriginal

Comments

Comment by badatnames 9 hours ago

Worthy thread to ask: is there such a thing as a white label IP camera (or similar) with a supported open firmware? Not asking for open source, but something close to plug and play that nonetheless has a way of stripping the rootfs as desired for bespoke use in a manufacturer-supported way.

I have looked around before but I only found genuinely dev-oriented kits that weren't even in a shell, and crazy priced.

edit: seems there are some options now (or I missed them before), e.g. https://www.goodcam.io/#for-independent-developers

Comment by radredgreen2 3 hours ago

I wrote Wyrecam (https://github.com/radredgreen/wyrecam) to solve this problem. It works as well as Apple HomeKit works, which isn't all that well. Firmware supports wyze v3 (ingenic t31).

Comment by zrobotics 4 hours ago

Not exactly open firmware, but something like ONVIF on an isolated network is pretty close. An ONVIF camera should talk to basically any NVR (network video recorder), there are several open-source ones available.

There are tons of ONVIF-compliant and cheap PoE cameras, and with this setup you really don't care about the security of the manufacturer firmware since you aren't exposing them to the network publicly. However, you do need to be extra diligent when configuring your VLAN/network segmentation.

Comment by makefu 7 hours ago

There is also https://thingino.com/ which has a clear set of supported cameras. The installation is straight forward if you choose a cam with SD-Card flashing support. I upgraded two of the Sonoff Slim Gen2 without any issues.

Comment by jonah 59 minutes ago

I bought the cheapest PTZ camera they have listed and, as you say the install was easy. The interface is useful and it does what it says on the tin.

Comment by sgc 5 hours ago

I also use thingino and it was very easy to use. It has wireguard support, but I just set up my firewall so cams are only accessible over tailscale.

Comment by tehlike 8 hours ago

You can get close.... I guess...

Some cameras do support thingino, so you can override their firmware. Then there's this: https://openipc.org/supported-hardware/featured

Comment by ece 19 minutes ago

Pinecube from pine64.

https://pine64.org/devices/pinecube/

Comment by numpad0 6 hours ago

Not exactly what you have asked for, but ESP32 based M5Stack and Seeed Xiao modules might fit the bill. They are not so expensive, are Linux-free, and there's no report so far of secret ping home features in the SDK.

Comment by nozzlegear 8 hours ago

Seems like the shop is broken?

> Stránka nenalezena

> There's been a glitch...

> We're not quite sure what went wrong. You can go back, or try looking on our homepage.

Comment by cenamus 8 hours ago

Czech for 'page not found'

Comment by badatnames 8 hours ago

Huh, it was working an hour ago. The outdoor 8MP variant was around the 85 euro mark.

Comment by em3rgent0rdr 8 hours ago

ESP32-CAM

Comment by LastTrain 8 hours ago

I so want these to be a viable solution but man my experience so far is that it can barely be made to work and only in the most favorable environments. Compare that to the blink cameras I used to run outside where it occasionally went below -20F and they still went over a year on a couple batteries.

Comment by xiconfjs 8 hours ago

Thank you. Ordered one to play around and see if this is a viable alternative.

Comment by TaLiTr 8 hours ago

I wish... The best I've found is https://openipc.org/ which is a very manufacturer unsupported way of reflashing certain chips with open-source firmware. It seems very fiddly as only certain SoCs are supported and good luck finding out if a specific Chinese camera has one.

Comment by grommz 12 hours ago

The US Department of War IP adresses baked into the firmware is the bigger story here. Note to self: never buy a Korean security product.

Comment by hhh 12 hours ago

I do know of at least one company who has black-holed the entire DoD ip space and are using it for internal space, which is why I gave a speculation warning... it's really strange regardless.

Comment by anonymars 10 hours ago

Interesting -- seems like the side effect would be to basically prevent use by the DoD but not really anyone else. Bonus points if they sell a "government" version for higher cost

Comment by accrual 11 hours ago

I also know of a company who does this. The reason in their case is they act as a network concentrator, bridging hundreds of client IP spaces, so this helps them avoid conflicts with their own space without having to NAT constantly. There is still a lot of NAT for the more common ranges.

Comment by inigyou 7 hours ago

If they converted to IPv6, they could easily have a globally unique address space. Real globally unique, not probabilistic.

Comment by oasisbob 2 hours ago

The fact that the network concentrator co uses DoD v4 address space to avoid conflicts implies that their clients are bringing v4 addresses, so IPv6 is utterly irrelevant in this situation.

Comment by 56 minutes ago

Comment by Arrowmaster 40 minutes ago

I don't remember which but one of the major US cellular networks was using the DoDs 7.0.0.0/8 internally. It was never an issue since the DoD kept that /8 offline but the IPs would show up in traceroutes. I had to tell many people to ignore it.

Comment by ec109685 9 hours ago

Yeah I wanted to do that at previous company. Got talked out of it, but it's nice have all those ips available.

Comment by makr17 10 hours ago

I used to work somewhere that did that. Several of us in Eng pointed out that it was likely impossible to sell anything to DoD personnel since the reply would route internally. But I don't know if it was _fixed_, was still an issue when I left.

Comment by ErroneousBosh 11 hours ago

I recently troubleshot an installation for someone where at some point in the past they'd picked 1.1.1.0/24 as their address range because "all that 192 stuff was silly and too complicated".

You know, I'm not sure I can explain how I feel about this properly without waving the shotgun around.

Comment by mr_mitm 9 hours ago

I had a gig for a contractor of some banks once. One of the banks was using 5.0.0.0/8 internally. I asked the guy if it doesn't lead to issues. All the time, he said. When they first came in, they just assigned each bank 1.0.0.0/8, 2.0.0.0/8, and so on. Number ten feels really lucky, he said.

Comment by inigyou 7 hours ago

As long as it's strictly separated from the internet it works. The Internetwork Packet Exchange, used for cellular roaming, is a parallel global internet with its own addresses and allocation policies.

Comment by prerok 7 hours ago

This story is so silly it must be true. Thank you, made me laugh out loud.

Comment by tracker1 10 hours ago

LOL, they should have just used a 10.x space instead if they wanted slightly simpler numbers.

On the shotgun, or adjacent, I do tend to prefer ammo classes for my nets... 10.22.x.y, where x may be 1, 38, 45, etc. Allows for site to site vpn with friends/family a bit easier to remember.

Comment by zrobotics 4 hours ago

I dunno, seems like it could be a bit vague. Does 45 refer to 45 Webley or 45 GAP? Could possibly also refer to 45 Colt I guess, if you're boring. But 45 Colt, 45 ACP, 45 Colt Government?

Also, just in case this comment isn't pedantic enough, 10.22 would be a firearm range, not an ammo range. And AFAIK they only ever chambered that for .22 rimfire cartridges. ;)

Comment by jabart 11 hours ago

Didn't AT&T do that and Cloudflare made them change it when they aquired that space?

Comment by tracker1 10 hours ago

I got a "home" Verizon box, and the first thing I did was change the DNS setting... 1.1.1.1 wasn't working, and I wanted to change it back to default. Verizon's tech support are idiots... they literally wouldn't give me the default DNS IP because they were concerned about security.

Google's DNS worked fine, but Cloudflare's didn't. No idea if they ever fixed it... I'm using it as a backup for my main connection, eventually I'll setup autofailover on my router (OpnSense). For now, I just swap the cables.

Comment by hackernudes 9 hours ago

Quantenna used 1.1.1.1 for RPC to their wifi chip in their SDK by default. Should not have been exposed to global routing but of course people screwed that up.

https://medium.com/@mrtcve/atts-misuse-of-cloudflare-dns-ip-...

Comment by ethin 6 hours ago

My ISP won't give me the router credentials because they claim that that would somehow risk their network interconnectivity or something. I have no idea how this makes any sense since a router (shouldn't) give me that level of access, but maybe I'm missing something?

Comment by bityard 4 hours ago

If the router is also the modem, it can have diagnostic stuff that could (I am careful to point out: theoretically) cause them a big support headache in one way or another.

Also, I had a DSL modem back in the day with its own terrible NAT built-in. I managed to log in (I may have been given the admin password from a friend who worked at the ISP, allegedly) and once I put it into bridge mode, I was able to acquire multiple public IPv4 addresses via DHCP.

Comment by ethin 1 hour ago

Really? I didn't know ISP-provided modems could even do that, I assumed they were like routers and isolated to the local network and what the ISP gives them access to. I just wish they would give me more than "well it's for security and it's corporate policy" or something, it just seems like some excuse, and their remedy is "buy your own router" (which isn't an option for me, too expensive).

Comment by Melatonic 7 hours ago

Or they didn't want you to know the IP(s) so you could easily block it

Sounds like they blocked Cloudflare but couldn't block Google

Comment by ErroneousBosh 9 hours ago

Funny enough their problems really began in earnest about seven or eight years ago...

Comment by cyanydeez 11 hours ago

Sounds like someones on the path to sovereign citizenship. I can't wait for our cyber-sovereign citizenships who deny various IP ranges coming from the government's domain naming system.

Comment by inigyou 11 hours ago

Yet another thing ipv6 solves. Yeah you can do the officially supported fdXX:XXXX:XXXX:... but you can also just pick something like 1::1 and it's unlikely to conflict with the current global range.

If you're gonna do that, though, it's better if you use fd00:... or one of the other assigned ranges so it's still in the standard range. OSes use this as a heuristic for source address selection.

Comment by kowbell 11 hours ago

"all that 192 stuff was silly and too complicated... but this fd00: stuff is easy peasy!"

Comment by Multicomp 7 hours ago

Agreed 100%! I know there's tough challenges to making this reality, but if https://serverspace.io/about/blog/ipv8-explained-what-we-kno... could be an IRL thing, I would buy company network equipment and use computer OSes that supported this draft standard.

It's a much better compromise and ergonomics to migrate from IPv4 to an IPv4 respecting successor, where IPv6 is just the academic snobbery and utterly alien mental model for not-enough benefits.

For the same reason Unix stuck around and beat up its own successor Plan 9/inferno. That inertia even decades later is the same reason IPv4 still beats IPv6.

IPv8 is more of a linux to unix than a plan 9.

Comment by iso1631 11 hours ago

192.168.0.0/24 -> fd00:0::/64

192.168.1.0/24 -> fd00:1::/64

192.168.2.0/24 -> fd00:2::/64

192.168.240.0/24 -> fd00:240::/64

It's not a great idea, but its no harder.

No need to mess around with setting up DHCP, remembering if your router is top or bottom of the subnet, and if you want 500 devices on a single subnet that's no problem.

Now if you still need ipv4 then yes, ipv6 is stupid as you have double the pain for none of the gain, but if you are ip6 only then its far easier.

Comment by tracker1 10 hours ago

One thing I don't appreciate... Is the nature of NAT protected my internal/home network before... now, I have to actually configure firewall settings etc. to protect IPv6 issued addresses internally.

I know you can just block inbound non-established connections, but it feels like an extra step and complexity. Not to mention, that I really don't understand how IPs are supposed to be provisioned to devices on IPv6. Is there like a 50-100 page book you can recommend "for dummies" on IPv6, that hopefully contains at least a tiny amount of how to configure a common router and/or linux host.

Comment by tredre3 9 hours ago

> Not to mention, that I really don't understand how IPs are supposed to be provisioned to devices on IPv6.

SLAAC is the only way that works across all IPV6 devices. In that mode, the router advertises the prefix and the device assigns its own address (prefix + its mac address).

DHCPv6 exists but is poorly supported. It sucks for people who like assigning IPs individually from an authoritative place (through static dhcp entries on the router). But people like us are "doing it wrong", you see? We must accept that in this brave new worlds an IP means nothing.

Comment by tracker1 8 hours ago

Which doubly sucks in terms of assigning a DNS name to an IP/PC... and/or opening the assignment to less restricted access... feels just problematic to me.

Again, I don't know any of IPv6 enough to use it really right or wrong.

Comment by inigyou 8 hours ago

And there's always static configuration, useful for servers.

Comment by SV_BubbleTime 10 hours ago

I doubt any endpoints are entirely ipv6.

So it seems like it helps ISPs and large networks router… but they never had problems with address space running out at the high levels and almost all likely need to support v4 anyhow.

I think it’s been long enough to be honest that ipv6 was a spectacular failure by complicating an already complicated system into something no one actually asked for.

No human said “hey, networking sucks. Please make it much harder at my level!!”.

Comment by toast0 8 hours ago

> I doubt any endpoints are entirely ipv6.

Lte and 5G can be v6 only, usually they also have NAT64 and DNS64 so you can get everywhere, but the less stuff that needs v4, the smaller their nat boxes are.

Comment by tracker1 9 hours ago

I'm largely with you... I would think they'd take the IPv4 block and have a direct/virtual block that just extends it to more addresses... so it could be an IPv4 NAT or IPv6 direct.

like 1.1.1.1/192.168.45.4 ... for a router that understands IPv6, that's the direct route to the sub-network, otherwise it will have to use IPv4, and the subnet route is treated as NAT and otherwise isolated.

To me, that would make more sense... then internal IPv6 might be practically limited to 10. and 102.168. in the nearer term, but adoption would be MUCH simpler in practice, and distribution would mostly already be established, however unfairly, but can then be broken into single addresses and vNext adoption could be that much quicker as a result of piggybacking.

Comment by pbhjpbhj 2 hours ago

>limited to 10. and 102.168

I assume you meant 10.x.x.x and 192.168.x.x -- (and 172.16.x.x?), ie the standard subnets for home router-modems (which are non-routing and so can't be used on the internet).

Comment by inigyou 10 hours ago

you can use 1234 if you want, that's also unused space

Comment by Matuzy 11 hours ago

> Yet another thing ipv6 solves. ... it's unlikely to conflict with the current global range

I'm not familiar with IPv6's details, could you elaborate on this? To me, this reads like you're saying that IPv6 solves the problem by having low adoption rates rather than an actual function of the protocol.

Comment by inigyou 10 hours ago

All global IPv6 addresses start with 2. This is by design. Pedantically, 3 is also reserved for global. Some other prefixes are also reserved, like fd for the ULA (local) range.

The point of IPv6 was to make the addresses so long they are easy to manage.

Comment by SV_BubbleTime 10 hours ago

>The point of IPv6 was to make the addresses so long they are easy to manage.

lol, there is no doubt that had a massive opposite effect. To the point of nearly killing it in terms of willingness to adopt.

Comment by tracker1 10 hours ago

I know that on my hosted server, I never bothered to set it up, because I didn't know how to properly configure or sub-net it. I know it's skill issue, but really feels significantly more complicated and even harder to understand than NAT even.

Not to mention, at home, most of the ads I do see (PiHole) are IPv6 addresses.

Comment by DrewADesign 9 hours ago

It seems to have absolutely terrible ergonomics as a technology, in nearly every conceivable way.

Comment by inigyou 8 hours ago

It's literally impossible to avoid long addresses being long or short addresses running out. One of those is a worse problem.

Comment by DrewADesign 6 hours ago

The length isn’t the only thing that makes the ergonomics suck. The lack of backwards compatibility sucks. The “you don’t have to use NAT anymore” is great theoretically, but it renders a lot of casual network maintainers mental model of network security obsolete without a clear and simple alternative. The shorthand is not intuitive (though it’s not CIDR-level counterintuitive). Really, there’s way too much about working in IPv6 that’s not intuitive with even very solid IPv4 network knowledge.

So yeah, having to relearn a bunch of basic network knowledge that worked just fine for decades is a PITA, and I’m 100% positive a design process that focused more on the people that need to configure networks could have yielded a much friendlier, and therefore a much easier to adopt standard.

Comment by ndriscoll 3 hours ago

Instead of forwarding a port to a specific machine on the NAT page, you allow incoming traffic on that port to that machine on the firewall page. You'll want to add a stable IP to the host (in addition to the SLAAC rotating privacy IP if it already has one. One interface can have multiple addresses). That's pretty much it, except now you can allow the same port to multiple machines, where previously you could only forward to one (helpful for gaming, voip, etc. Wherever p2p works well). Firewall should already default deny incoming traffic just like ipv4.

Comment by ssl-3 1 hour ago

That sounds easy, but I think you just inadvertently demonstrated the quagmire that many seem to perceive.

Suppose I've got a machine on the LAN and I want to open it up to the world on port 1025 with IPv6.

This can't happen with SLAAC? It has to be a new address? Does the ISP pick the prefix for that address? And one can't centrally-manage that address (because people keep saying that DHCPv6 isn't worth stuffing around with)? What happens when the router fails over to a backup ISP? How does dynamic DNS fit in with all of this?

Those questions don't really exist with IPv4, wherein: One can just set up a static DHCP assignment, forward port 1025, and [optionally] set up dynamic DNS -- and this all happens within the confines of a single home router.

Comment by ndriscoll 14 minutes ago

If it's MAC based SLAAC, it'll be stable, so you could use it. Otherwise you add a stable address. You could use DHCP if you want. If you're using a backup ISP with dynamic DNS, your failover should be the same as ipv4. You can already have ips from both prefixes on the interface. You're also way past clueless home user stage if you have that setup at all, so I can't imagine ipv6 is the stumbling block.

Things would be nicer if NAT66 were used by default for home users though so the question of prefixes would disappear, and it'd perhaps match the "more advanced" home user ipv4 mental model. You'd just use e.g. fd00::2 as your server address.

Comment by redeeman 5 hours ago

you fling around words like "network maintainers" quite casually, dont you? :)

its really extremely simple, just dont NAT, is that really so hard? just because you dont NAT, doesnt mean you have to let the traffic pass through, that is also an extremely simple concept, no?

Comment by DrewADesign 3 hours ago

Fling it around?

There are a shitload of people who maintain networks, like home or small business networks, that aren’t network administrators. Most of those people are not prepared to have their Chinese WiFi cameras, myriad smart appliances, and heck, even home computers easily individually accessible from the internet. It’s an extremely simple concept, no?

Comment by ssl-3 1 hour ago

Lack of NAT doesn't imply lack of firewall, though.

And home routers have firewalls that block inbound connections by default -- including with no-NAT IPv6.

Comment by LocalH 2 hours ago

NAT is good. It's CGNAT that's bad, because that's NAT imposed on subscribers, and not NAT that they control.

Comment by unethical_ban 8 hours ago

No network is "smaller" than /64. All end-networks are /64.

Split subnets at four bit chunks.

Allocated networks, like to a home or small office, should be /56 or /60.

Then you have to think about link-local addresses and privacy addresses, and how to hand out IPv6 and configure DNS: SLAAC vs. DHCPv6 or some combination.

I have a rough draft of a beginner document but it's not ready. :)

Comment by zrail 8 hours ago

(Pedantically) Maximum prefix length of /64 is only required if you want/need SLAAC. If you're assigning static addresses or using DHCPv6 for assignment you can go as small as you want. It's not weird to see /127 for tunnel subnets, for example.

Comment by unethical_ban 8 hours ago

I didn't want to encourage non-standard behavior, but you are correct. Tunnels are a common use the same way /31s can be used in IPv4.

Going smaller than /64 is against best practice and unnecessary. People coming from IPv4 need to understand that trying to be careful with subnet sizing for purposes of preserving space is not a thing in IPv6 below /64. Maybe if a residential user has a /64 from their crappy ISP settings they'd need to do it, but not in a properly configured scenario and certainly not in enterprise.

Comment by inigyou 8 hours ago

How many /24s does your organisation have? With IPv6, one block is almost always sufficient.

Comment by ErroneousBosh 7 hours ago

It's mental that my fairly techy-orientated but otherwise pretty standard UK ISP provides me with a /48 as default.

So I have 1.2 million million million million IPv6 addresses available.

That ought to be enough, eh?

Comment by ConceptJunkie 9 hours ago

The point of IPv6 was to make the addresses so long that we don't run out of them in 20 years or so.

There fixed that for you.

Comment by ralph84 8 hours ago

The problem is NAT solved the same problem more easily and cheaply. It was at the cost of making it difficult for every host to talk directly to every other host, but it turned out most of the people building networks didn't want that feature anyway.

Comment by inigyou 8 hours ago

We already ran out of ipv4 about 15 years AGO.

64 bits would be enough to avoid run out, but hierarchical allocation would still be a problem. 128 bits is long enough for many levels of hierarchy. (And yes, you can subnet all the bits, not just the first 64)

Comment by vitally3643 11 hours ago

The argument is that IPv6 addresses are UUIDs and any random block is unlikely to collide with any other random address.

It's not about low adoption, it's that there are unimaginably many IPv6 addresses.

...which is a major reason for why it has low adoption

Comment by Matuzy 10 hours ago

Thanks for the reply. I'm reminded every now and then of the magnitude of the address space in v6. Then I do nothing with that information and slowly lose appreciation for the size again :)

Comment by lukan 9 hours ago

https://xkcd.com/865/

Comment by unethical_ban 10 hours ago

Respectfully I don't think they explained it well.

fc00::/7 is for "Unique Local Addresses". Basically, private, non-globally-routable addresses from which you can freely pick space. Kind of like RFC1918. It's deliberately huge and you should only use as much from it as you need. The idea being that if you merge with another organization or connect to them via VPN, it's unlikely your addresses will collide like with RFC 1918.

There's even a website (sites?) to register your ULA space on a volunteer basis to reduce collision chances.

Comment by inigyou 8 hours ago

If you can't remember 192.168 you definitely can't remember a randomly picked ULA. So just use fd00. It's not any worse than 192.168.

Comment by unethical_ban 8 hours ago

True, I was thinking more about the allocation discussion than the "easy to remember".

Anyone in IT who allocates 1.1.1.0/24 because 192.168.0.0/24 is hard, should be allocated to trash pickup.

Comment by bflesch 12 hours ago

This will trip up most SOC workflows in funny ways, and I like it.

IPs having a global distinction between public/private is a convention, but local routing can widely differ.

Same with the "China Cyberattacks" - the guys sitting on top of my outgoing fiber can simulate any IP address they want to me.

Comment by freeone3000 11 hours ago

It’s only a convention in the sense that the IANA is a convention: https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/...

192.0.0.0/24, 10/8, 172.16/12, and various other subslices of 192/8 are reserved for local use and are not publicly routable.

Comment by kotaKat 12 hours ago

there's a couple subnets I (ab)use in the DOD IP space for my home network knowing they'd never put them on the open internet. it's also fun to throw logging for a loop if someone digs.

22.0.0.0/8 - it's basically free real estate!

Comment by walrus01 11 hours ago

the entirety of 10/8 and 172.16/12 and 192.168/16 wasn't large enough for your house?

Comment by xoa 11 hours ago

>the entirety of 10/8 and 172.16/12 and 192.168/16 wasn't large enough for your house?

Just to chime in agreeing with sibling comments, the issue is when it's not about just your house and you're deep into self-hosted stuff with a lot of different properties and businesses other people's houses all sharing resources. Without a lot of coordination and consideration, which in practice doesn't really happen easily given the adhoc nature such things tend to organically develop out of, and all the random stuff that wants specific addresses at least for setup, it actually gets pretty easy to run into collisions. Allocations typically are definitely inefficient in many respects but also made sense in the context they were first done and of course can be a certain amount of effort to change.

In an ideal world I sorta feel like "IPv6" should have been more along the lines of <12 octet prefix>:<IPv4>, everyone gets a prefix or set of prefixes that they actually own and are consistent worldwide, or at least only change when geographic location changes, and then can just have the entire 32-bit IPv4 space for LAN however they want. Then you only have to care about prefix between LANs and it could all be extremely automated, internally you only need to use something that looks like IPv4 with the network hardware transparently able to handle prefixes for WAN. Backwards compatibility story would be a lot more straight forward too. Oh well.

@kotaKat: that's a great idea and I don't know why I forgot I played with that like 15 years ago. Really handy as a backup space that almost certainly won't collide with any commercial hardware at least.

Comment by ErroneousBosh 11 hours ago

I work for a large organisation that has various blocks scattered around 10./8, some with highish values for the second octet and some with lowish values, so say 10.129.0.x/24 and 10.3.0.x/24 to pick just two out of a couple of thousand.

But one of our vendor networks uses 10.32.x.x/32 for various radio gateways, and the radios themselves all locally expose (this is where I give away too big a clue as to what I do) 10.0.0.101 as a management address that emits important link status data.

So you can imagine what a godawful bùrach everyone's routing tables are.

Comment by kotaKat 11 hours ago

i deal with a lot of nerds that are all interconnected with one another and nobody can agree on a common subnet for their houses when we all decide to exchange routes internally. ;)

Comment by myself248 8 hours ago

I deal with a lot of nerds, but starting in about 2008 we all segmented up the 10.x space and each of us has a /16, with each site we manage having typically a /24 or /22, so nobody overlaps. We can light up tunnels between each other and never have a collision. We have a little internal registry on a private wiki, and it's been serving us well for... oh dear, almost two decades now.

Crucially, we set aside the common 10.1 and 10.10 ranges as nonroutable, so any devices that default into those have to be dealt with before they can live on the wider network.

Newcomers get handed a block and have to renumber, or NAT into it, or whatever, but they cannot emit bogons. At a small scale (first-name basis), this works.

Comment by cryptonym 12 hours ago

I have seen ISP doing CGNAT on DOD IP space.

Comment by bityard 4 hours ago

The CGNAT space (100.64.0.0/10) is also free real estate for container virtual/overlay networks when you don't want to (or can't, thanks to IT) use the RFC-1918 subnets.

Comment by webstrand 10 hours ago

I also do this, except 7.0.0.0/8 instead. Its great for not conflicting with hotel wifi dhcp.

Comment by walrus01 11 hours ago

> Note to self: never buy a Korean security product.

The Canadian Navy very recently made a major choice and agreed with you

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=hanwha+oc...

Comment by edwinjm 7 hours ago

The DoWD owns such a large chunk of the IP space, it can very easily be a coincidence

Comment by antonvs 1 minute ago

That they used a public IP as an internal IP? That’s simply a mistake.

Comment by dev_l1x_be 11 hours ago

Or Korean IoT products. The ones I was working on had insane approach to security.

Comment by RajT88 10 hours ago

As if domestic products aren't a hot mess of security issues and sloppy engineering. Lol

Comment by KPGv2 9 hours ago

> Department of War

n.b., it's the Department of Defense, just like the Kennedy Center doesn't have Trump's name attached, and the large body of water by Texas is the Gulf of Mexico.

Comment by lardosaurusrex 11 hours ago

just buy stuff you can put your own firmware/os on because it's either just the worst security in the world (aka anything not from china) or, well... china.

and while i currently don't hate china as much as i do US rn (because canadian; sorry) i can also say -- due to being an aforementioned leaflandian -- that due to very personal experience i have zero faith in anything from china that has the ability to connect to any type of network :')

And so yeah at this point if I can't at the very least get a whatever-wrt firmware (preferably a proper linux distro nowadays; not to say the *-wrt firmwares aren't a real OS but, y'know) on the device i just avoid them entirely since, well... it's all i can do at this point because even if there were baked in hardware-based backdoors i as an individual can't do much more than that.

Comment by prox 10 hours ago

That sounds horrible. I got an old PI4, would it make for a decent router, if at all possible?

Comment by myself248 8 hours ago

It's not quite ideal hardware due to only having a single NIC, but you can slap a USB NIC on it and make it work, if that's what's handy.

Old thin clients are typically in the same hardware class, and probably cheaper by the time you add the exploding MSRP of a Pi, and a PSU, and a case and heatsink, and maybe some storage that doesn't suck ass. But if you already own the Pi, yeah, go for it.

Comment by kingleopold 11 hours ago

Note to self: never buy any Korean hardware or software product.

/S

Comment by walrus01 10 hours ago

Note to self, never buy any hardware product, move to a yurt in the woods, start an alpaca ranch, write a manifesto

Comment by zrobotics 4 hours ago

Oldie, bur relevant.

Tech enthusiasts: My entire house is smart.

Tech workers: The only piece of technology in my house is a printer and I keep a gun next to it so I can shoot it if it makes a noise I don’t recognize

Comment by dev_l1x_be 11 hours ago

Not surprised, many of these vendors are doing crazy things, insane defaults, broken security, hardcoded values. Security is not a priority, I get that, but at the very least some baseline check would be nice (no hardcoded credentials for starting)

Comment by snoman 11 hours ago

As they say: in IoT the S stands for security.

Comment by 9 hours ago

Comment by js4ever 9 hours ago

ID-IoT-S

Comment by folkrav 10 hours ago

There’s some irony to security not being a priority for security cameras. Different kind of security I know, but still.

Comment by daneel_w 10 hours ago

There's also some irony in people happily ignoring that so many of these products live-stream the inside view of their homes and offices to some foreign corporate cloud - and in the case of suspiciously many Chinese security cameras, a state-backed corporation's cloud. Because, wow, it really is convenient.

Comment by glitchcrab 4 hours ago

Which is exactly why alll my cameras live in their own VLAN with no internet access, regardless of how trustworthy the company may be. Better safe than sorry and all that.

Comment by awakeasleep 10 hours ago

How can there be a baseline check when you operate by getting the most inexperienced cheapest person possible to do the work?

Comment by gxs 7 hours ago

Especially these days there’s really no excuse

Add a skill to your repo that does some basic checks at least, not that hard

Comment by tehlike 10 hours ago

A rule of thumb, put your cameras on a separate VLAN and never give that vlan internet access.

Least you can do.

Comment by RyJones 13 hours ago

When I cared, I found out that a lot of OBD-II dongles shipped with the same MAC, which gave you access to everything on a bunch of websites.

You can curse the storm, but the wind will come.

Comment by netsharc 12 hours ago

how did "same MAC" lead to "access to everything"?

Was the website's security based on MAC, which presumably is supplied by the client? If so, I guess.. typical IoT.

Comment by RyJones 12 hours ago

buy any dongle that sells for under $100 on amazon. they all have the same mac, and come with 'bespoke' apps to let you do things to your car. those apps are all thin wrappers on code widely shared; they use the MAC of the dongle as the keystone for ID.

Short story: buy one cheap dongle on Amazon, dump the MAC (00:11:22:AA:BB:CC IIRC; it's been 15 years since I cared) and you have auth to all of the apps everywhere.

Reminder: the Bluetooth logo comes, mostly, from self-certification.

Comment by andreareina 11 hours ago

Amazing! I have the same MAC address on my luggage!

Comment by walrus01 11 hours ago

I made things easier by setting the permission action link on all my nuclear weapons to zero

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=permissio...

Comment by tclancy 11 hours ago

Remind me to rotate my GitHub tokens.

Comment by pak9rabid 8 hours ago

00:11:22:33:44:55

Comment by londons_explore 11 hours ago

I bought 3 from 3 different vendors and they all have totally different Mac addresses.

Internally they're all Bluetooth to serial chips, and another pic16xxxx chip which does serial to canbus.

I guess the Bluetooth serial chips probably have programmable Mac addresses, but equally they normally ship with a globally default one unless you flash a different one onto it.

Comment by inigyou 11 hours ago

Why do the apps need auth?

Comment by 1718627440 9 hours ago

How does this even work? A website doesn't know your MAC, that is only known in your local network.

Comment by 4 hours ago

Comment by 2 hours ago

Comment by pak9rabid 8 hours ago

Perhaps they should just drop the 'security' from the name and simply call it a camera.

Comment by sodapopcan 10 hours ago

This blog's misuse of the external link icon irks me.

Comment by kyle-rb 9 hours ago

The CSS selector they used (`a[href*="://"]::after`) is meant to only target only external links, but assumes any internal links will be using relative paths like `href="/about"`. The problem is that this site uses absolute URLs (`href="https://hhh.hn/about"`) for its nav links, so every link ends up with an icon.

You could fix this by adding an exception to the CSS rule so it skips links starting with your site's name:

  a[href*="://"]:not([href^="https://hhh.hn"])::after

Comment by AlienRobot 9 hours ago

rel="external" solves this.

Comment by hhh 9 hours ago

will fix it tomorrow

Comment by IshKebab 11 hours ago

LLMs have truly killed obfuscation. It only worked previously by making things extremely tedious but AI doesn't care about that.

Comment by llm_nerd 11 hours ago

And it's worth considering that obfuscation only ever worked against casuals for whom tedious was a bridge too far. Nation state actors and criminal hacker groups, on the other hand, consider the tedious entirely worth it.

Comment by phh 11 hours ago

Yes, obfuscation was always a matter of cost: how much money do you need to break the protection? LLM just decreased that amount by a lot.

(Yes ok, RSA4096 is technically a matter of cost, you just need an infinite amount of money)

Comment by TeMPOraL 8 hours ago

All security is always a matter of cost. Clown theater starts once you lose track of it, and start doing security for security's sake.

RE obfuscation and nation states - nation states have finite budgets too, both in terms of resources and attention. They can crack any system at any time, but they can't afford to crack all of the systems all of the time.

Comment by jaggederest 9 hours ago

The cool thing about cryptographic security is that it's an asymmetric amount of cost for both parties - to encode is cheap, to break is many orders of magnitude harder, unlike obfuscation where the difficulty is approximately symmetrical.

Comment by inigyou 11 hours ago

Pirates checked Denuvo, once considered the king of DRM.

Comment by walrus01 11 hours ago

> consider the tedious entirely worth it.

Entirely without LLMs, I'm imagining an office of North Korean compsci graduates doing astonishingly tedious tasks, for whom an office job on a basic Linux computer and slightly better diet and nice apartment put them in the top 1-2% of living standard in the country.

Comment by p-e-w 11 hours ago

On the bright side, even a small local LLM can easily improve garbage code like that.

Comment by orbital-decay 10 hours ago

I'm 100% confident in hardware companies' ability to make infinitely incompetent software given infinitely smart agents. They do it because they don't care about software, not because they lack tools. No agent can turn them into software companies if they don't want it themselves.

Comment by whalesalad 12 hours ago

I bought some ambient room lighting recently. You cannot control them without a proprietary app. This bugged me ... so I grabbed an APK from the Google store, unpacked it, and found essentially keys to the kingdom: api keys for the backend, api keys for shopify, etc. Haven't done anything with this knowledge yet.

Comment by vhiremath4 11 minutes ago

What lights did you get? I have Oasis. Love them but same thing would rather control them through a central bot or something.

Comment by Ecsta 11 hours ago

There's a lot of public keys that don't give you any special access, unless the dev is really bad.

Anyone who cares about security will be using App Attest or the Google store equivalent.

Comment by JTbane 11 hours ago

>Anyone who cares about security

I have something hilarious to tell you about IoT apps

Comment by tclancy 11 hours ago

A Venn diagram like a 6th grade boy's graffiti of boobs.

Comment by dhosek 9 hours ago

Just as a pedantic aside, people often use Venn diagram when they mean Euler diagram. A Venn diagram always has the overlapping circles and use shading or labeling describe the set relation. Euler diagrams let the circles describe the relation so two non intersecting sets in a Venn diagram might share the left circle green, the right blue and leave the intersection blank or grey. An Euler diagram will have two disjoint circles.

Comment by tclancy 3 hours ago

A. I love a pedantic aside

B. I love that Euler is pronounced “oiler” which is North American slang for a drunk. I’ve been trying to find that constant my whole adult life.

Comment by sophacles 10 hours ago

The "S" in IoT stands for security!

Comment by yako21000 9 hours ago

That one made me giggle!

Comment by cute_boi 9 hours ago

Most of these companies try to penny pinch and give task to hardware engineer. As a result there are lot of security issues with IOT devices.

Comment by CodesInChaos 9 hours ago

> Anyone who cares about security will be using App Attest or the Google store equivalent.

Why? I rarely have security objectives where remote attention would help, and it has a huge impact on user freedom. For B2C attestation is just an evil captcha.

Comment by zrobotics 4 hours ago

Ugh, that's a new low. I can't think of a single good reason a lighting app would need shopify api access.

That said, I've done some consulting work on shopify stores, and I wouldn't be shocked at all to see something like that at all. The bar for code quality that a lot of low end consultants/designers deliver is just abysmal.

Comment by tehlike 10 hours ago

Another rule of thumb - i know it's not always the best since some products are really nice aesthetically - is to buy only local smart stuff, for example, zigbee/zwave.

Comment by petepete 10 hours ago

I live by this rule*. Being able to pick up stuff from IKEA that's well supported, well designed and really affordable is a huge advantage.

*almost, I have two things that need an app. My Vaillant boiler and my Yale alarm system. Both apps are terrible, but I have a 10 year warranty on the boiler and my alarm is up to scratch from a home insurance point of view.**

Comment by tehlike 10 hours ago

Yale alarm? Can you link?

Vailant boiler - I wonder if there's a debug interface you can use. Not knowing specifics of your model, i foudn this: https://github.com/jayme-github/esphome_vaillant

Codex can help probably further heh.

Comment by petepete 9 hours ago

It's a Yale Sync

https://yalehome.co.uk/yale-sync-hub

It's not really something I want 'home rolled', I just want it to work.

Same goes for the boiler really. If it stops working I can phone Valliant and they'll send someone round to fix it.

Comment by dev_l1x_be 11 hours ago

In many cases it is bad to publish this info because they might come after you. There used to be a company who shielded the “researcher” from the legal consequences, can’t remember the name though.

Comment by fragmede 11 hours ago

@stake or L0pht?

Comment by inigyou 11 hours ago

Everything can be controlled without a proprietary app. Hope you reverse engineer the protocol and publish how to do it.

Comment by tehlike 10 hours ago

Or claude/codex can.

Comment by fragmede 10 hours ago

Have you actually tried to do anything with them though? The keys are in there, but may not grant you any real extra access beyond what your user is actually allowed to do via the app.

Comment by avgDev 10 hours ago

It is still pretty nice, you don't have to install yet another app to do something. People did this with Mazda app as it allowed them to start the car without subscription. They 'fixed' it.

Comment by inisirex 10 hours ago

[flagged]

Comment by jwithington 9 hours ago

I've seen these systems at US defense industry tradeshows so I'm guessing they are in use somewhere.

Comment by dare944 7 hours ago

> Why would Hanwha Vision need anything remotely related to the DoD? Is it possible that their CI is provided by some centralized team at their parent company Hanwha, where the needs of their sister company Hanwha Aerospace cause the shared platform to have these entries in the CI environment variables? Or maybe because of their other sister company, Hanwha Defense USA, where they make other large scary steel machines

Or... the Department of Warmongers (nee DoD) addresses on the device are evidence of a supply-side attack targeting the DoW and carried out using the aforementioned github admin token.

... I mean, while we're in here speculating about truffles and all.

Comment by asveikau 9 hours ago

My cameras are analog rather than PoE or IP based, but that's just because I set up the initial iteration of the system a long time ago. The standard now is to give your camera an IP address.

With many IoT type things I block access to the public internet. I think with cameras specifically a lot of people even set it up physically on a different network that can only talk to the NVR.

But tldr, basing the cameras on IP invites some of the things in this article. Anyone deploying these devices needs to think about securing them.

Comment by bryanrasmussen 5 hours ago

it's not a bug, it's a freebie!

Comment by kiddico 9 hours ago

I have yet to find a pattern for when the author chooses to capitalize things.

Comment by limsungkee 9 hours ago

This kind of open source expands the world.

Comment by hexxt-git 9 hours ago

true open source!

Comment by qweqwe14 8 hours ago

Why would you write like that? Not capitalizing the first word of a sentence makes the whole thing less readable. So that you can feel special? Really?

Comment by explorigin 8 hours ago

Who hurt you? It's his own blog. Let him write the way he wants.

Comment by 9 hours ago

Comment by 11 hours ago

Comment by David_runai 5 hours ago

[flagged]

Comment by joka88xj 10 hours ago

[flagged]

Comment by hnscum 8 hours ago

[dead]

Comment by that_guy_iain 11 hours ago

I bet someone returned that security camera.

Comment by mikey_p 10 hours ago

No, if you read the article the author was downloading firmware from their website and still found the token.

Comment by aizk 11 hours ago

Department of War IP address? I feel this should be making headlines!

Comment by CodesInChaos 10 hours ago

Abusing IP ranges which were assigned to an organization but aren't actually used on the public Internet as private addresses is pretty common. Sure, it's bad practice, but not a big deal.

Comment by TeMPOraL 7 hours ago

Of course this looks entirely different when your corporate superstructure has a long and active history of developing military equipment.

Comment by caruasdo 10 hours ago

I know you're a mastermind when it comes to security, but you should provide more context about the tools and methods you're using in your article so we can better understand what it's all about and not have to Google every single step you're taking.

Comment by dust-jacket 9 hours ago

Oh I thought exactly the opposite!

I feel like every security blog (or even just tech blog) I've read recently has had paragraphs and paragraphs of largely LLM generated explainer waffle. This felt refreshingly focused and to the point.

Comment by hhh 9 hours ago

i’m not a mastermind, and I agree it could be more accessible. I treat this blog as somewhere to just dump my thoughts as unfiltered as I can while still being useful or entertaining, maybe for some other posts I will go more into depth

Comment by sophacles 10 hours ago

Seemed perfectly reasonable to me. Not everything has to be written for a target audience that includes you, besides you were able to look up what you needed it seems. Another tactic is to feed the article to your favorite LLM and interrogate it about what you don't understand.