3 ms·

My approach with Network cameras with purely local network access has been to get cameras that support ONVIF (which many do), then hook them up with Netcam Stud

My approach with Network cameras with purely local network access has been to get cameras that support ONVIF (which many do), then hook them up with Netcam Studio https://www.netcamstudio.com/ https://www.netcamstudio.com/ After that I block the camera's IP address outbound network access, which should stop them dialing home.

squarefoot 3y ago
Netcamstudio doesn't support Linux, but more importantly it is closed source, so it should be blocked as well from going outside.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  You would make a better case if you would argue with objective evidence of malicious behaviour rather than a cry for ideological purity. I don't know what Netcam Studio is nor what it does and I'm not interested in finding out since I'm not going to use it, but what kind of licensing it has would be the least of my immediate security concerns.
  - squarefoot 3y ago
    You missed my point: security is a process, not a product. If I don't trust a closed hardware/source camera, then why should I trust a closed source software, especially one that would have access to all video feeds, and if run on the main desktop machine also all data on the local network and the Internet? You're right when calling for evidence, and I have none, but what if the software one day turns malicious and it's being caught only when the damage is done? Sorry, but the risks are too high.
    - raesene9 3y ago
      As I'm OP in this, I can give you my risk decision. I block cameras from cloud access as they innately have this as a capability, the cloud systems they connect to are a target for attackers and hardware manufacturers in general are not well known for their software security. I don't explicitly block netcam studio as, it runs on a windows host that I want to connect to the Internet for patches, it's a commercial product I paid a license for, so there's some incentives for the developer to maintain it, it has no innate cloud functionality, so less risk of hijack. My risk profile is such that I'm not expecting directed attacks at me, I'm more likely to be caught up in a wider attack on a service.

squarefoot 3y ago

Netcamstudio doesn't support Linux, but more importantly it is closed source, so it should be blocked as well from going outside.

Dalewyn 3y ago
You would make a better case if you would argue with objective evidence of malicious behaviour rather than a cry for ideological purity. I don't know what Netcam Studio is nor what it does and I'm not interested in finding out since I'm not going to use it, but what kind of licensing it has would be the least of my immediate security concerns.
- squarefoot 3y ago
  You missed my point: security is a process, not a product. If I don't trust a closed hardware/source camera, then why should I trust a closed source software, especially one that would have access to all video feeds, and if run on the main desktop machine also all data on the local network and the Internet? You're right when calling for evidence, and I have none, but what if the software one day turns malicious and it's being caught only when the damage is done? Sorry, but the risks are too high.
  - raesene9 3y ago
    As I'm OP in this, I can give you my risk decision. I block cameras from cloud access as they innately have this as a capability, the cloud systems they connect to are a target for attackers and hardware manufacturers in general are not well known for their software security. I don't explicitly block netcam studio as, it runs on a windows host that I want to connect to the Internet for patches, it's a commercial product I paid a license for, so there's some incentives for the developer to maintain it, it has no innate cloud functionality, so less risk of hijack. My risk profile is such that I'm not expecting directed attacks at me, I'm more likely to be caught up in a wider attack on a service.