Submitted by Alvin_Chen t3_z4cfzz in worldnews
Comments
merien_nl t1_ixq5caj wrote
The camera is not the problem, the network part is. And it is not just China. The actual and legal stance of the US is also not very good.
So you can buy Chinese (or any other supplier) dumb camera's. But if you want to make them remote accessible make sure the network equipment is secure.
tedead t1_ixq6upo wrote
The UKs hands aren't clean either. You've heard of Five Eyes?
merien_nl t1_ixq7cs1 wrote
Of course the UK is not clean either. But if they are afraid of spying on themselves they have an other issue.
tedead t1_ixq7oiq wrote
They kind of do spy on themselves. They just do it in a different way. Part of the reason of that alliance.
HisAnger t1_ixq87gw wrote
actually camera can be problem, you have no idea how small chips can be and how many functions they can have inside.
You can open ability to connect directly to camera using hidden wifi.
autotldr t1_ixq8nl0 wrote
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 57%. (I'm a bot)
> The U.K. is restricting Chinese-made surveillance equipment from sensitive sites including government buildings, based on a government review of security risks.
> The British government has advised departments to disconnect Chinese surveillance equipment from departmental core networks, and remove and replace it without waiting for upgrades.
> The U.K. government is advising departments to consider whether Chinese surveillance equipment should be banned from areas "Outside the definition of sensitive sites" to further mitigate risk.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: surveillance^#1 U.K.^#2 government^#3 equipment^#4 Chinese^#5
mgzukowski t1_ixqaog1 wrote
Oh no the cameras are. Hikvision and Dahua have both been found with back doors and massive security holes.
That's why they have been banned in government buildings and certain buisnesses in the US. That's what NDAA compliant means. Not one of those companies.
Problem is those two companies make many of the SOC's used by other companies. Or many of the cheap cameras are just rebadged OEMs of those companies.
PunkinBrewster t1_ixqgi2b wrote
Plus firmware updates can unlock no end of additional capabilities. Even if it isn't dangerous now, it could be with an update.
kaesylvri t1_ixqh89u wrote
whatabout! whatabout! whatabout!
chazeg t1_ixqiecn wrote
Burgers and Fries
TakeTheThirdStep t1_ixqivi2 wrote
So... they've banned cameras?
gaukonigshofen t1_ixqknwu wrote
pretty sure eufy, wyze and othe brands are also eye in the sky
4myoldGaffer t1_ixqm35r wrote
band on the run
conduitabc t1_ixqyuk1 wrote
no more cheap Chinese sony a7 4 knockoffs allowed!
MaxwellCE t1_ixr2y4h wrote
Can't wait for the firmware update on my phone to add an extra camera module.
PunkinBrewster t1_ixr4gct wrote
No, but the firmware update to enable the camera without notifying the operating system and secret the data out via DNS queries to Chinese name servers is in beta.
WordWord-1234 t1_ixrcdai wrote
Source for hikvision and dahua please?
ThunderKant_1 t1_ixrd5bz wrote
It’s really funny how easy it is to use „external threats“ to distract people from the internal problems that are a million times greater and more acute. Most of this „being tough on China“ mentality that we see right now is just populism.
Squish_the_android t1_ixrdcfn wrote
From the angle that they're made in China or that it's an American company with a camera and mic on every person.
igo4vols2 t1_ixretgk wrote
either or both
Killboypowerhed t1_ixrf2b1 wrote
There's a difference between a country spying on itself and a country spying on another
darklordjimmy t1_ixrgu63 wrote
so this is what the glorious british empire has come to? yikes
Syncopationforever t1_ixrn8yc wrote
Why did it take so long to recognise the potential threat lol
[deleted] t1_ixro3vw wrote
[removed]
DancesWithBadgers t1_ixrp1qj wrote
And yet they still all use MS Office.
Burntzombies t1_ixrpi8o wrote
Tankie detected
[deleted] t1_ixrr1l6 wrote
[deleted]
helzinki t1_ixrs343 wrote
Pretty much every smartphone except for Samsung, Sony and Asus should be banned.
PunkinBrewster t1_ixruugt wrote
Data exfiltration is an art as much as a science. A company can minimize their risk, but never eliminate it. Unless your devices are completely airgapped, there is always a risk.
mpu599 t1_ixrwauz wrote
How much you getting paid to write this?
[deleted] t1_ixrwp8w wrote
BumPumpyFace t1_ixrx0k7 wrote
There could be an IOT mobile sim in there for all you know.
[deleted] t1_ixrxbm9 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixrxes0 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixrxjgt wrote
[deleted] t1_ixry9wu wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_ixryilx wrote
[deleted]
ThunderKant_1 t1_ixrynpf wrote
lol couldn’t be further from the truth but it must be nice living in a black and white world where everything fits neatly in boxes. I’m not saying critique of China isn’t valid, but think about why politicians are starting with this right now, what the political and real world implications actually are, and if the measures are consistent. Here’s a hint: majority of the phones in the UK are made in China, and if you weren’t aware, phones have chips and cameras. Don’t see many people demanding the ban of all iPhones though. This measure is only there to sound nice and fuel the current opinions of the general population without any real-world applications.
I would urge you guys to read a history book. Over blowing external threads to distract from internal problems is a propaganda tactic as old as civilization itself.
SRM_Thornfoot t1_ixryszk wrote
A simple way would be for the camera to have secret built in bluetooth. Even if the camera were set up hard wired to a private intra-net the image could be retrieved if an external bluetooth receiver was positioned in range of the camera.
For example a car could be parked with a receiver/recorder outside an embassy, or a tourist could have a receiver/recorder in their purse while touring inside the Capital building.
(and that is just one way to do it)
SRM_Thornfoot t1_ixryz5h wrote
Even airgapped there is a risk. See my post above.
archip t1_ixrzo1i wrote
With some of the comments and replies I’d be surprised if most reddit users could read past a primary school level.
doctorsynth1 t1_ixs0p33 wrote
Name one camera manufactured in the UK. It’s ok - I’ll wait.
PunkinBrewster t1_ixs10tt wrote
Oh, agreed. My favorite story of these types of exfiltrations is The Thing. This was done almost 80 years ago. It is insane what can be done now.
tedead t1_ixs12p5 wrote
But they do spy on themselves via the other countries in the alliance. Since they can't technically legally spy on their own people, they allow the other members to do the spying for them, and then they share the data secretly with each other.
Down vote this all you want. It doesn't change what's happening.
DaddyBurton t1_ixs21mo wrote
u/barcased would think this is just a conspiracy.
Haitchyy t1_ixs2cj5 wrote
because our government is unfit for purpose
comdevan t1_ixs3alq wrote
It's tankie VS CIA on here lol
DrDroid t1_ixs3oxx wrote
But then the question becomes: what would criticism of things like this that wasn’t “distraction” look like? It sounds like under your definition we could never focus on things like this until internal problems are 100% solved.
itsbicycle_repairman t1_ixs46es wrote
mgzukowski t1_ixs49p5 wrote
Which part the security breaches, the NDAA law or the complete ban of new products in US. Or the FCC declaring it a national security risk?
ThunderKant_1 t1_ixs5rxe wrote
You make a fair point. I guess you can’t really infer this in every situation as an outside observer. Of course not all kinds of critique is just distraction. I feel like in the case of the UK right now it is obvious enough to make such a statement, if you look at for example which topics were important during the election, but in other cases where it isn’t as clear I suppose there is no way to definitely know what’s sincere and what’s not as an outside observer.
BumPumpyFace t1_ixs61th wrote
That's not quite how IOT sims work. They're used frequently in industrial telemetry at very large scale and they work anywhere.
Plus, nation states do all sorts of wacky expensive shit.
The point is, it's possible.
USGovOfficial t1_ixs63dz wrote
No it’s not
justinlongbranch t1_ixs66z0 wrote
Sim cards are cheap, just activate the ones you want later. It probably wouldn't even be all that tough to disguise em
art-love-social t1_ixs8sqx wrote
This is not political decision it is government aka civil service decisin. there are LOADS of companies doing this. I have just finished a project ... The replacement cameras/systems are also made in china - however they have had their code checked and verified. It is simpler, easier, quicker and cheaper just to tear out the old and bung in the new "checked" cameras.
a-flayer t1_ixs9iog wrote
Focus on China as the enemy. Replace the cameras, certainly don't question why they are there to begin with.
therapeuticstir t1_ixsa678 wrote
How’s that new guy doing? Better than the last before him I hope.
Snugglosaurus t1_ixsa68f wrote
Not so worried about apple tech being manufactured in China (at least from a 'China stealing our data' security standpoint). Apple have everything in their products determined down to the nanometer. If there is anything in there that ain't meant to be in there, it'll be noticed.
Other manufactured products I could see how something could slip in unnoticed.
[deleted] t1_ixsb79p wrote
[removed]
Syenite t1_ixsbf60 wrote
China is a threat, they don't even really try to hide that fact. Could this be used as a distraction from domestic issues? Of course, but that doesn't mean Chinese surveillance equipment inside of sensitive areas is a good idea. Because it is a terrible idea. Would western countries do this to China if they could? Yup, but I would bet anything western tech isnt being allowed inside sensitive Chinese government areas.
Syenite t1_ixsbvxq wrote
More like there just needs to effective legislation passed that curbs data collection and surveillance. They all do it because it is legal and very profitable. The only difference between Huawei and Samsung is who is doing the collecting. Governments and companies get too much value out of the collection though, so it will likely never be regulated.
Lurkingandsearching t1_ixsbxu8 wrote
Name checks out.
DirtyBeastie t1_ixsc0s4 wrote
MI5's entire purpose is to spy on "their own people". It would be a bit pointless for them to exist if they weren't allowed to do it.
But, hey, you've heard of five eyes, don't really know what it does, but thought you'd shoehorn it in anyway.
Kaeny t1_ixsc4xk wrote
I have a feeling youre kidding, but if not you gotta think a little deeper
Syenite t1_ixsc78p wrote
Ok, now what?
plankright37 t1_ixsdg5t wrote
It’s about time. Just as in the case of Russia the UK are late to the party.
Roddy117 t1_ixsga93 wrote
[deleted] t1_ixsjol7 wrote
Fitzsimoo t1_ixskj7k wrote
Why would the US care about UK internal politics? They're doing the same.
kishiki18_91 t1_ixspazq wrote
So no news reports until you are satisfied?
warheat1990 t1_ixsrhod wrote
Always on separate VLAN with no internet access brother, and stay away from Cloud based CCTV regardless of Brand.
noplace_ioi t1_ixsx76k wrote
serious question: what is the risk of getting said cameras, blocking them from accessing internet in the firewall and using something like BlueIris to operate them?
Select_Truck3257 t1_ixszbd1 wrote
when "big brother is watching you" but this time it's China:)
SRM_Thornfoot t1_ixt0v4u wrote
Very cool, thanks. I had not heard of the Thing before.
amfmm t1_ixt3bbo wrote
There were several incidents, this is one of them: https://ipvm.com/reports/hik-exploit
DevoutGreenOlive t1_ixt3kfh wrote
Because neoliberalism driven by relativism was never going to work
[deleted] t1_ixt8xeu wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_ixtexl3 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixtf99e wrote
[removed]
Equivalent_Solid512 t1_ixtjuf4 wrote
Source: the C..I…A. (You can trust us)
androshalforc1 t1_ixtk32k wrote
> however they have had their code checked and verified.
and what about the hardware? a small wireless transmitter on a board capable of accessing/downloading a harddrive if someone with the right receiver is in range
[deleted] t1_ixtky9w wrote
[removed]
art-love-social t1_ixtrw6c wrote
..anything in IT requires "code" . The checking is a literal line by line. V Sensitive stuff can [and often is] encased in a Faraday cage
Kaekru t1_ixtrz6d wrote
Go on genius, tell us why there are cameras on government buildings, must be something so enlightening that only the chosen few by god like you could possibly know.
jiccc t1_ixtt9fq wrote
You mean tencent?
feral_brick t1_ixtvf7e wrote
You don't understand this is deep state propaganda of course it runs deep /s
ghayyal t1_ixtvjit wrote
feral_brick t1_ixtvlaq wrote
I can see your security engineers are working overtime covering for you.
There's tons of purpose built IC's without any code to review
a-flayer t1_ixtvtmu wrote
For surveillance...
Kaekru t1_ixtwm1r wrote
Man that just flew right over your head didn’t it
a-flayer t1_ixtws4m wrote
It did not, I am mocking you.
Kaekru t1_ixtwtq8 wrote
Sure little buddy, you’re mocking people, we can all see
a-flayer t1_ixtx3z9 wrote
Bella ciao
art-love-social t1_ixtxhef wrote
Indeed there are, however wifi/transmitters and data acquisition would not fall into that category. Security is is excellence in box ticking, if the manufacture can't explain the purpose of a chip = device not approved .. and NEXT!
While Huawei were fighting their losing battle to show their kit was safe and OK, there is/was a facility in Leeds [UK] that went through their kit to validate claims. *Huawei kit is now being removed from the UK 5G network roll out. Large UK company I was doing work for got taken over by a US company in a worldwide shopping spree, and from this perspective - any huawei kit to be removed from network in a quick time scale, no huawei phones for business purposes ... and so on
Pretend-Patience9581 t1_ixtyg6c wrote
We spends billions on security services, the someone says maybe we should not be using Chinese cameras and their services. ROFL. Well fuck me.
Pretend-Patience9581 t1_ixtyi6d wrote
Most governments are unfit for purpose. Fit for purchase but.
blaze53 t1_ixu4t40 wrote
No it isn't.
[deleted] t1_ixu55xq wrote
[removed]
art-love-social t1_ixu7d58 wrote
..would love to hear of an example of hardware that carries out a useful function without any form of coding/instruction set ?
Further in the context of this a piece of hardware that carries out data acquisition and onward transmission without any code
blaze53 t1_ixu850j wrote
I'm talking about the Faraday cage nonsense.
DeMoBeats1234 t1_ixujolx wrote
I work for an electrical distributor in the US. It was maybe 2-3 months ago that the US just did this. We have a few government customers. We had to replace cameras at a few government installations, as well as ALL of our own facilities. We have training labs set up with cameras for remote viewing, showing the connectivity/setup ease, etc… no Chinese chips allowed in any of them. It was a huge ordeal.
art-love-social t1_ixuu35q wrote
F cages are used in secure environments - but granted for a CCTV camera it is a bit of a stretch
igo4vols2 t1_ixuu3go wrote
You probably think too highly of Apple products.
igo4vols2 t1_ixuuozh wrote
I think the whole thing is pretty ridiculous. I can hear the criminal master minds now, "I'm going to hide secret transmission tech inside these cameras that say Made in China on them. No one will ever think to look there".
blaze53 t1_ixuxijf wrote
In secure environments, the sensitive shit is on a wired network, separate from wireless access points. Which movie did you watch?
feral_brick t1_ixv4mtc wrote
You can absolutely create a malicious microcontroller that does some malicious days transfer on the side, you have no idea what you're talking about
HisAnger t1_ixv5d8o wrote
It is not only that, you can hide wifi capability and device can wait for a signal to activate it. You can park a car next to a building and get access to all cameras ... or get a back door to someone's network
art-love-social t1_ixvkr8v wrote
Yup, exactly. which is why entities* exist that check the kit from the ground up. Any malicious code, unexplainable hardware, reluctance of manufactures to explain = device fails ...
eg the Huawei set up in Leeds UK
[deleted] t1_ixvmmow wrote
[deleted]
Laurynas3000 t1_ixq4f6i wrote
Bloody hell that is a rather magnificent decision indeed!