Wi-Fi jamming to knock out cameras suspected in nine Minnesota burglaries – smart security systems vulnerable as tech becomes cheaper and easier to acquire::A serial burglar in Edina, Minnesota is suspected of using a Wi-Fi jammer to knock out connected security cameras before stealing and making off with lots of loot. Such techniques are increasingly popular with criminals.

  • Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Add it to the pile of reasons to not use cloud based camera systems.

    Local storage, with wired connections, or expect it to be knocked out intentionally and at random due to errors/problems outside your control.

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      “cloud” has nothing to do with this. Plenty of people use wireless cameras for local/selfhost setups because it is easier for them to run power than data/ethernet.

      And there are actually very good arguments for wired “cloud” cameras. Because if you still have an internet connection (cable drop to the street), then your footage and alert are now offsite rather than on a hard drive in the house that is being “attacked”.

    • aname@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      The cloud is not the problem. Inadequate local buffer is the problem.

        • aname@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          You cannot block a camera from seeing by jamming the wifi. It could simply save the video feed locally and send it to the server when the wifi is restored.

            • aname@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              You can still just restore the network and wait for the camera to sync. Feed not lost unless too long time has gone by and buffer has wrapped around

        • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          The jammers don’t disable the cameras, they just prevent them from streaming the captured video to the recording machine.

          If the cameras had a local buffer, they’d be able to keep recording even if the signal was jammed.

          • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Until the cameras are destroyed, which is easier to do when they’re not streaming in real time

      • Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        If it’s got local storage, it’s not ‘cloud based’.

        I’m not saying offsite backups of your local storage are a bad idea.

        • aname@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          I didn’t say storage. I called it a buffer. No permanent local storage needed

  • FlashZordon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    At my old job we ended up finding out that one dude was essentially using the router login page to disable the cheap Wi-Fi cameras so he could mask when he came in to work and left so he could embellish his time cards. Boss noticed a pattern so he installed a manual timeclock and the embellishments slowed and eventually stopped.