I'm not blaming the victim here. Ring clearly fucked up by not forcing two-factor authentication, rate-limiting login attempts, using captchas, etc. When your company is literally streaming live...
“The fact that they’re just continuing to give customers the same blanket statement, it’s like they don’t seem concerned at all,” she said. “To be honest, it felt like they were trying to place the blame on me. As a mother, I already feel guilty enough that I let this happen to my family. … There’s just no need for that.”
I'm not blaming the victim here. Ring clearly fucked up by not forcing two-factor authentication, rate-limiting login attempts, using captchas, etc. When your company is literally streaming live video feeds of minors you need to hold yourself to a higher standard for security.
That being said, I feel like somebody needs to sit this woman down and explain to her what happened. She needs to reset all of her accounts right now and stop reusing passwords. Her immediate problem is now much larger than Ring. It concerns me that the word "password" is not mentioned even once in the article.
I feel for the families that have had to put up with this, but there are so many websites dedicated to just watching these cameras for ages now. I figured that was more wildly known.
I feel for the families that have had to put up with this, but there are so many websites dedicated to just watching these cameras for ages now. I figured that was more wildly known.
My understanding of them is that they're pages that search for devices that still use widely-known default credentials. As long as you change those credentials from default and you don't use...
My understanding of them is that they're pages that search for devices that still use widely-known default credentials. As long as you change those credentials from default and you don't use firmware/hardware with known exploits you should be decently protected, I thought.
I was considering getting a camera because I have a dog walker who comes into my house weekly who knows my door code. I suppose I trust her more than I trust the internet at large, but it'd still be nice to be able to check in on my dog & cats as I give the dog progressively more freedom.
Isn't this the go to argument for more surveillance in general? We need to watch you so you can have more freedom? It just seemed funny that you used your dogs future freedom as an argument to spy...
I was considering getting a camera because I have a dog walker who comes into my house weekly who knows my door code. I suppose I trust her more than I trust the internet at large, but it'd still be nice to be able to check in on my dog & cats as I give the dog progressively more freedom.
Isn't this the go to argument for more surveillance in general? We need to watch you so you can have more freedom? It just seemed funny that you used your dogs future freedom as an argument to spy on your dogwalker.
Well, there's a difference between spying on people in the privacy of their own homes and accounts, and keeping an eye on them when they are inside of your home and interacting with your family...
Well, there's a difference between spying on people in the privacy of their own homes and accounts, and keeping an eye on them when they are inside of your home and interacting with your family and pets. I don't think this is really an example of malicious surveillance any more than, say, making sure you're home when the painters are for example.
I see the difference it's just interesting when you use "spying" and "keeping an eye on them" as two altogether different things. I completely get where you're coming from and I'm not accusing you...
I see the difference it's just interesting when you use "spying" and "keeping an eye on them" as two altogether different things. I completely get where you're coming from and I'm not accusing you of doing anything out of the ordinary. The semantics here are just striking because this is what people/corporations/governments who really spy like to say to underplay its significance.
If there is one good thing that will come out of this, its that people will hopefully be more aware about the privacy and security risks associated with these kinds of products. Hopefully. There...
If there is one good thing that will come out of this, its that people will hopefully be more aware about the privacy and security risks associated with these kinds of products. Hopefully. There are, of course, much less harmful methods.
I'm not blaming the victim here. Ring clearly fucked up by not forcing two-factor authentication, rate-limiting login attempts, using captchas, etc. When your company is literally streaming live video feeds of minors you need to hold yourself to a higher standard for security.
That being said, I feel like somebody needs to sit this woman down and explain to her what happened. She needs to reset all of her accounts right now and stop reusing passwords. Her immediate problem is now much larger than Ring. It concerns me that the word "password" is not mentioned even once in the article.
Saw this article on HN earlier today too: Inside the podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live on air
I feel for the families that have had to put up with this, but there are so many websites dedicated to just watching these cameras for ages now. I figured that was more wildly known.
It's a reason I will never own anything like this. I've seen those pages, and they scared the hell out of me.
My understanding of them is that they're pages that search for devices that still use widely-known default credentials. As long as you change those credentials from default and you don't use firmware/hardware with known exploits you should be decently protected, I thought.
I was considering getting a camera because I have a dog walker who comes into my house weekly who knows my door code. I suppose I trust her more than I trust the internet at large, but it'd still be nice to be able to check in on my dog & cats as I give the dog progressively more freedom.
Isn't this the go to argument for more surveillance in general? We need to watch you so you can have more freedom? It just seemed funny that you used your dogs future freedom as an argument to spy on your dogwalker.
Well, there's a difference between spying on people in the privacy of their own homes and accounts, and keeping an eye on them when they are inside of your home and interacting with your family and pets. I don't think this is really an example of malicious surveillance any more than, say, making sure you're home when the painters are for example.
I see the difference it's just interesting when you use "spying" and "keeping an eye on them" as two altogether different things. I completely get where you're coming from and I'm not accusing you of doing anything out of the ordinary. The semantics here are just striking because this is what people/corporations/governments who really spy like to say to underplay its significance.
If there is one good thing that will come out of this, its that people will hopefully be more aware about the privacy and security risks associated with these kinds of products. Hopefully. There are, of course, much less harmful methods.