- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Wyze says camera breach let 13,000 customers briefly see into other people’s homes::Wyze said that 13,000 customers were affected by a security breach that let people briefly see into strangers’ homes.
You must log in or register to comment.
Like the old joke:
The “S” in IoT is for “Security”.
Couldn’t wait a day to repost this?
Doctor told him it’s unhealthy to hold it in.
I never understood having security cameras inside of the house. I feel like that doesn’t do anything to deter a break in because the would be buglers don’t know about it until they’re inside. And security footage doesn’t do a lot to catch criminals, it can help ID someone once caught but if they wear a mask/ don’t look at the camera/are moving fast it’s kind of useless. And if it’s connected to the Internet there is always a chance it gets hacked.
I have one to watch my kitties.
Yeah.
I actually like Wyze (although, their monetization model means I am like 70% of the way to switching to a frigate setup) and feel there is a lot of value in having an easy no effort way to upload external footage to an offsite location (had an attempted break-in where the asshole actually saw the camera, ripped it off its mount, and chucked it a few years over).
For internal? I do have a few wyze cameras set up just so I can check in on my cat when I am gone for more than a few hours. I also have those connected to smart plugs so they only get power when I want them to (because I don’t trust anything that lets me remotely enable or disable a device). If I am home, they are off. If I am gone, they may be on. means that someone might get footage of my cute little booger scratching up my office chair but they won’t have footage of me walking around with my schlong hanging out.
This. No way would I recommend for most rooms in my home but we use them when gone for a day or two to keep an eye on our cats food bowls and litter box.
If someone wants to hack in and watch my cat take a poo be my guest. She has no shame.
Wyze cameras have spotlights and sirens on them. Those should be enough to deter most burglers.
I guess in that case, put the camera outside (visual deterrent), and use a motion detector/light/alarm system inside. The camera aspect inside doesn’t seem to help.
The exception being those who aren’t able to or allowed to place cameras outside I guess, but even then you should probably point it at the door
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Last week, co-founder David Crosby said that “so far” the company had identified 14 people who were able to briefly see into a stranger’s property because they were shown an image from someone else’s Wyze camera.
The revelation came from an email sent to customers entitled “An Important Security Message from Wyze,” in which the company copped to the breach and apologized, while also attempting to lay some of the blame on its web hosting provider AWS.
It also claims that all impacted users have been notified of the security breach, and that over 99 percent of all of its customers weren’t affected.
One Reddit user, who described herself as a “23 year old girl” was getting ready for work during the breach, described herself as “disgusted and upset” and said she would be deleting her account.
Wyze is scrambling to fix things by adding an additional layer of verification before users can view images or footage from the Events tab.
“We have also modified our system to bypass caching for checks on user-device relationships until we identify new client libraries that are thoroughly stress tested for extreme events like we experienced on Friday,” the company’s email reads.
The original article contains 413 words, the summary contains 198 words. Saved 52%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
