The first vulnerability involves using the camera’s Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) – always on by default – and pinging Wi-Fi SSID with a really long parameter. This causes a buffer overflow in the camera and prompts the device to crash and reboot. The second vulnerability also involves a buffer overflow crash, but this time caused by an overly long Wi-Fi password.
If a burglar can do that, he can definitely make better money elsewhere. His burgling career can officially be retired.
Because the smart camera has no offline footage storage capabilities, this attack would give a burglar a window of opportunity to sneak into the house. Considering the attack could be repeated indefinitely, the burglar would have a lot more than 90 seconds to move about the house, without fear of being recorded.
Technical aspects aside, the scenarios painted in the article are almost comically far-fetched. In 2017, a spy scenario might even be less so.
> If a burglar can do that, he can definitely make better money elsewhere. His burgling career can officially be retired.
True. Such as making $100 "nest cam defeaters" that are battery powered and backed by a raspberry pi zero or something similar.
This also goes to the question of "what is being protected?" Its one thing to burgle a house and get a few thousand worth of jewelry and electronics. Its another thing for a local small museum that doesn't have the budget for a good security camera system.
If a museum with anything of value is using Wifi cameras, then they are incompetent and the camera is likely not the worst of their flaws. Wifi disassociation attacks affect every Wifi camera.
People said that about cars too, but little boxes that exploit fancy car security are available.
The Nest cam is such a dumb product from a security POV that these attacks merely scratch the surface. Wire clipper to the unprotected coax from the cable company is the easiest exploit.
Eh, car theft decreased in the US by 41% between 2006 and 2015 in total volume, all while total number of cars has been increasing. Looks like modern security works okay!
I don't know what burglar fantasy-land you folks are familiar with, but in my part of the concrete woods, burglars are known for their prowess. Their dexterity. The ability to put fear aside.
Their technical experience, perhaps less so. How many could pass a red-black tree traversal whiteboard interview?
The day these attributes are combined with an understanding of buffer overflow exploits will be a scary day indeed.
It only takes one person to automate this process for every one to use. Nobody expects burglars to manually write the exploit. Running a single thing from your phone? Much easier.
BurglarPro 1.1, now available from the Play Store. Modules available for front cam common buff overflow exploits, more. See testimonials for yourself and any positive feedback appreciated.
It's not as if skilled programmers who caught drug felonies or whatever lost their skills - they simply lost their employability within their industry.
I'm certain a decent percentage of those folks make a living in the shadier areas of the economy, including theft.
As the exploit for this vulnerability is at (below?) beginner script-kiddie level, it is not far-fetched for a more sophisticated burglar. Every lock's life ends with someone uttering the words: "I never thought they would do that."
Well, imagine a smart man that is not a burglar-in-field start selling a device that did this. I think thats the scary part. Also think of evidence planting that could happen. Far fetched? Maybe. Maybe not.
If a burglar can do that, he can definitely make better money elsewhere. His burgling career can officially be retired.
Because the smart camera has no offline footage storage capabilities, this attack would give a burglar a window of opportunity to sneak into the house. Considering the attack could be repeated indefinitely, the burglar would have a lot more than 90 seconds to move about the house, without fear of being recorded.
Technical aspects aside, the scenarios painted in the article are almost comically far-fetched. In 2017, a spy scenario might even be less so.