I am planning on getting this http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=24G-4PK-NV-VIDCAM and was wondering if anyone has this product or something similar. I am curious to know if its possible to encrypt the wireless. If not does anyone know of a set of 4 or more wireless cams that allows that which is no more than $200? Thanks in advance.

Those cameras can't be encrypted using the hardware as is, as the wireless signal is literally an analogue video signal.

Several 'wireless camera scanners' have been built, which just cycle a receiver through the channels, using a very crude counter chip hooked up to where DIN switches should be on the receiver to change channel.

If you want security, you're better off going for a wifi webcam, which usually can go over some form of secured wifi (hopefully all over at least WPA now) and usually just have a java frontend for displaying the image and controlling the camera.

Thanks for the reply. I have decided to increase my budget and likely get 3 of these http://www.dlink.com/products/?sec=0&pid=664 it allows WPA2 encryption. Any cons you guys see about this camera? Its too bad they don't have IR or audio, but my privacy is more important than trying to see in the dark.

if you still want night mode, you could get something like this (site is first google result, not a reccomendation)

http://www.camsecure.co.uk/Camsecure_IR_Lighting.html

which just blasts IR light which will be picked up by pretty much any CCD sensor, you don't need a special 'night mode' to complement it.

just fyi, i am currently on a assignement where i had to play with the 802.11g security cameras. after a ten minutes aircrack run and a few lines of scapy, i was able not only to see the video flux (bare MJPG sent trough a cgi to the monitors) but to inject my own videos. cams are AXIS.

more details, and the tools i coded for this to come, after end of assignement, and standard anonymization. oh, and for the "not wifi" cams out there, ettus sells USRP, an excellent SDR (software defined radio) which can operate in any frequency range you would want.

my advice ? if security is a concern, wireless cams are *not* an option. (but we could make real good decoys out of 'em)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
--Benjamin Franklin

So even if the cam I buy uses WPA2-PSK its still vulnerable??

i think WPA2-PSK has been already discussed earlier, versus WPA/WPA2 enterprise (ie radius+ldap)
the major problem if security of transmission is a requirement for the installation is that wireless (and *any* wireless) is not a controllable medium. bigger schemes like WPA/WPA2 AES will surely complicate the task of an attacker seeking to take control or simply intercept the cams transmission, but it will only slow him. remember that a threat maybe viewed (super duper simple scheme for threat level evaluation) as the total energy (motivation, skills, resources) multiplied by time available to the attacker to break a security measure. for exemple the WEP enabled wifi cam took me 15 min, with low ressources (a laptop with aircrack suite, and a python interpreter) to be totally compromised.

any security measure will thus only higher the cost of compromission. by controlling the medium of the transmission in this case, you would much short my time, or high the resource i need to do the same task (IE : i would need to have physical access to the cabling, which in the case of my client, would have been much more difficult)

keep in mind tough, that while the security increase is a linear curve, the cost of the increase is exponential. thus you may have to estimate the cost of the various measure you can implement.

for exemple : let's say i have a site to watch, 1Km away, with a good radio line of sight, but a lot of small buildings in the way. clearly the cost of cabling would be prohibitive, in regard with the security brought. thus a wireless cam, with a directionnal antenna and a proper encryption scheme would be a reasonable risk/cost ratio. but if the cam is to be planted *in* the monitoring facility, with the extreme cost decrease, clearly cabling gets more interesting.

to sum that up in a few words : yes WPA2/PSK is still vulnerable, but if the cost to harden your camera installation is too high, don't hesitate to leave a small venue to the attacker. you better spend $2K on a good wireless cam with a good scheme, and spend $5K on hardening on the network side, than spend $10K on a cabled cam, and nothing on network security

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
--Benjamin Franklin

So would it be ok to say that have wireless cameras in a rented apartment (which would not allow such cabling) which use WPA2-PSK with a 63 char mixed password suffice? This is all just for personal use and I agree with your cost/risk ratio, which cost is important to me being a poor college student, but security is too. A middle ground must be found. I see the chances of someone skilled enough and bored enough to try to break into such a network at an apartment being fairly low.

Unless you're doing something that someone knows/suspects you are doing, AND has the means to attack you (but won't just get a warrant...), then WPA2-PSK is fine.

You know better than anyone if what you want to monitor is worth something more than a casual hack attempt.

And of course Malkav is right, you're only as strong as your weakest link.

-id

i fully agree with id. in your case threat agents would probably be lowbies fuckers looking for something to steal (your weed stash, your booze, your collection of granny porn. oh sorry, that's id's asset.)

so you'd be pretty sure they would take care of actually even scouting around your flat. (in fact according to recent stats over here 70% of home breakins are the act of first timers/one timers, with absolutely no clue. i suppose it's pretty much the same in the US)

so you're probably fine with WPA2/PSK, unless you have very high value asset that may be of interest to "higher energy" attackers. in that please PM address, and hours of home presence, so i can send someone to take care of your stuff ;)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
--Benjamin Franklin

Just looking on protecting my meth lab and sweatshop full of illegal immigrants. You just never know who might break in to steal them these days...*keeps a close eye on Wal-mart*

"go find your own mexicans. there's plenty over the border"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
--Benjamin Franklin

The technology exists, I am sure, but will be very expensive. You're talking professional security gear. The lack of Internet at the other home increases the cost significantly - otherwise you could just use a waterproofed webcam. 30 miles is a long range also. Is there another house nearby with Internet that would be prepared to allow you to set up some gear and use their connection?
The more I think about it, I am convinced that it is going to be cheaper to pay for an Internet service at your other house! removed stupid spam



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2009 09:49AM by thrill.