| ▲ | My security camera shipped a GitHub admin token in its login page(hhh.hn) |
| 180 points by hhh 3 hours ago | 58 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | dev_l1x_be an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| 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) |
| |
| ▲ | snoman 35 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | As they say: in IoT the S stands for security. | |
| ▲ | folkrav 20 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | There’s some irony to security not being a priority for security cameras. Different kind of security I know, but still. | | |
| ▲ | daneel_w 2 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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 many Chinese security cameras, a state-backed corporation's cloud. Because, wow, it really is convenient. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | grommz 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | hhh 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | accrual 29 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | ErroneousBosh an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | jabart 35 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Didn't AT&T do that and Cloudflare made them change it when they aquired that space? | |
| ▲ | inigyou an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | Matuzy an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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. | | |
| ▲ | inigyou 15 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | vitally3643 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 | | |
| ▲ | Matuzy 15 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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 :) |
|
| |
| ▲ | kowbell an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | "all that 192 stuff was silly and too complicated... but this fd00: stuff is easy peasy!" | | |
| ▲ | inigyou 13 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | you can use 1234 if you want, that's also unused space | |
| ▲ | iso1631 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. |
|
| |
| ▲ | cyanydeez an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. |
| |
| ▲ | bflesch an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | | | |
| ▲ | kotaKat 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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! | | |
| ▲ | walrus01 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | the entirety of 10/8 and 172.16/12 and 192.168/16 wasn't large enough for your house? | | |
| ▲ | xoa an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | >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. | |
| ▲ | ErroneousBosh an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | kotaKat an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. ;) |
| |
| ▲ | cryptonym 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I have seen ISP doing CGNAT on DOD IP space. |
|
| |
| ▲ | lardosaurusrex 39 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | prox 10 minutes ago | parent [-] | | That sounds horrible. I got an old PI4, would it make for a decent router, if at all possible? |
| |
| ▲ | walrus01 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > 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... | |
| ▲ | dev_l1x_be an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Or Korean IoT products. The ones I was working on had insane approach to security. | |
| ▲ | kingleopold an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Note to self: never buy any Korean hardware or software product. /S |
|
|
| ▲ | RyJones 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | netsharc 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | RyJones 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | andreareina an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Amazing! I have the same MAC address on my luggage! | | | |
| ▲ | londons_explore an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | inigyou an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why do the apps need auth? |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | sodapopcan 18 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This blog's misuse of the external link icon irks me. |
|
| ▲ | IshKebab an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| LLMs have truly killed obfuscation. It only worked previously by making things extremely tedious but AI doesn't care about that. |
| |
| ▲ | llm_nerd an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | phh 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | 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) | |
| ▲ | inigyou an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Pirates checked Denuvo, once considered the king of DRM. | |
| ▲ | walrus01 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > 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. |
| |
| ▲ | p-e-w 44 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | On the bright side, even a small local LLM can easily improve garbage code like that. | | |
| ▲ | orbital-decay 11 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | aizk 37 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Department of War IP address? I feel this should be making headlines! |
|
| ▲ | whalesalad an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | Ecsta an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | JTbane an hour ago | parent [-] | | >Anyone who cares about security I have something hilarious to tell you about IoT apps | | |
| |
| ▲ | dev_l1x_be 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | | | |
| ▲ | inigyou an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Everything can be controlled without a proprietary app. Hope you reverse engineer the protocol and publish how to do it. | |
| ▲ | fragmede 20 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. |
|
|
| ▲ | that_guy_iain an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I bet someone returned that security camera. |
| |
| ▲ | mikey_p 9 minutes ago | parent [-] | | No, if you read the article the author was downloading firmware from their website and still found the token. |
|
