The recent Ring home security ransomware incident and Eufy's insecure network has left numerous researchers and users wondering about the cyber safety these home security and surveillance firms possess.
Product reviewers and tech journalists are even left with a sense of perplexity on what security camera, or security product must they recommend to potential users, knowing for a fact that the backend could or could not be secure.
According to Michael Hicks, senior editor at Android Central “When I review a product, I try to be as nitpicky as possible. Not because I want to give a bad review, but because it's my job to go past the idealized press releases and spec sheets to see the cracks beneath the surface.”
While it is possible to cite certain problems pertaining to a security camera, like the video quality or an unreliable AI detection. However, there is always the possibility of some undiscovered breach, even with the some of the best cameras around, that are tested and appreciated.
Hicks says, this is not something most tech journalists are qualified to detect. With a smartphone, one can examine most software and security for themselves, and users too have almost complete control to block or enable apps from tracking them. The entire data security for a security camera is managed remotely, therefore we can only trust the company to protect ones data safely.
The issue is that, if ever, we really can trust a security business to provide an honest assessment of its cybersecurity.
Companies like LastPass or Eufy, whether they specialize in hardware or software, frequently conceal any ongoing breaches for months until they become public, at which point they play down their seriousness with technical jargons and mitigating factors.
Some Recent Unsettling Incidents
According to a report Vice published this past week regarding a third-party associated with Ring being infected by BlackCat ransomware, Ring employees have been instructed to “anything about this,” and that they are unsure yet what user data is at risk if Amazon does not pay.
Prior to this incident, security researcher Paul Moore found that Eufy cameras were sending users' images and facial recognition data to the cloud without them knowing or consent, that one could stream anyone's private camera feeds from a web browser, and that Eufy's AES 128 encryption was easily cracked due to the use of simple keys.
In response, Eufy patched some issues and edited its privacy guidelines to provide fewer protections for its users.
Accepting the Unknown
The bottom line is: even the renowned security firms with encryption that seems impenetrable can make choices that expose your personal information or home feeds, or they can recruit someone who unethically abuses their position of authority. And even if someone blows the whistle or a security expert notices the error, there is absolutely no guarantee that you will learn about it after that corporation learns about it.
In an environment like this, casually reviewing any company's security camera on the basis of its merits and recommending online readers seems like an irresponsible take. Michael Hicks in his article wrote “It's my job to do so, and I will write about the Blink Indoor and Blink Mini once it's clear how its parent company handles the Ring ransomware attack.”
However, in doing so, Michael Hicks adds he will have to include certain big disclaimers that he “just don't know what Blink's (or any company's) weakest link is.” There is a possibility that it could be a dishonest employee, an unreliable third-party team, shoddy encryption, or something else.
In the meantime, he advises individuals to use security cams with local storage in order to avoid storing their private footages and information on company servers. However, there is no guarantee of security, considering the fact that firms like Eufy was well received and trusted as a local storage option before its numerous problems were revealed.