Submitted by Rkeriem t3_z82ov4 in technology
Comments
MadManD3vi0us t1_iy9l5c3 wrote
Eufy is owned by Anker. All the cameras are marketed as "Eufy Security by Anker"
[deleted] t1_iy9lc2l wrote
[deleted]
MadManD3vi0us t1_iy9lhvw wrote
>Oh okay. So, the title was simply editorialized by you?
I'm not OP, just a guy pointing out how easy it is to figure this info out. Google is amazing
[deleted] t1_iy9lrpj wrote
[deleted]
PineCreekCathedral t1_iy9mujc wrote
I appreciated it because I didn't know.
Stop being an asshole.
[deleted] t1_iy9obuk wrote
gramkrakerj t1_iy9prg7 wrote
Wew. Dudes over here throwing tantrums because he was wrong on the internet 💀
[deleted] t1_iy9pxsk wrote
[deleted]
gramkrakerj t1_iy9q4lm wrote
So being a subsidiary is an “opinion”?
Rkeriem OP t1_iy9q5pb wrote
I didn't include Nebula or Soundcore as they are not the parent company of Eufy, I added Anker to the title to provide more context. Idk what part about "eufy is part of Anker Innovations, one of the leading and most trusted consumer electronics brands in America." you fail to understand. It’s like saying Nest Wifi isn’t related to Google since it's branded as Nest…
[deleted] t1_iy9q9h4 wrote
[deleted]
gramkrakerj t1_iy9qmy6 wrote
I can’t tell if you’re actually this dense or trolling
thecrispyleaf t1_iy9qvft wrote
Gave me a good chuckle, you'd think after being on this site for over 10 years they could take an L every once in awhile, guess not lol
schluckebier t1_iy9qzt7 wrote
Anker is the parent company you bafoon
MasterpieceBrave420 t1_iy9rq78 wrote
"big security problem" is a fucking understatement.
They're sending copies of user photos and videos tagged with facial recognition and storing them so insecurely they can be accessed by the public using VLC even after the customers has deleted their account. When called out on it they said they would start encrypting the data, so that it would be even harder for their customers to tell that they are stealing it.
LTT did a piece on it during the wan show.
Edit: added some fucking astounding details I forgot.
9-11GaveMe5G t1_iy9twxy wrote
Wyze was worse unfortunately. Last time I checked they just EOL'd their cam that had security holes
xxuncoothxx t1_iy9u670 wrote
Has anyone validated these claims? LTT simply reiterated what was tweeted. I'm wondering if anyone else has validated the claims
Youvebeeneloned t1_iy9u6q7 wrote
Wyze is quite a bit different, as you dont even have to use the cloud for them. Even their security system has the ability to use SD cards for storage of video and events though you lose the whole offsite backup aspect and now with the new intruder protection aspect, you lose the ability for them to flag intruders even before they access your house.
They have had 3 CVEs that I know of recently, and all have been patched as they patch their firmware SUPER quick (almost too quick, i have had firmware patches hit days after I applied one). So they seem to take the whole security aspect somewhat seriously and are willing to patch constantly and continue to update firmware even on older products.
That said I purposely am not using their inside cameras and only their outdoor ones. I dont honestly care what people see of me outside the house because its nothing my neighbors dont already see anyway, I DO care if people see what is going on with my kids and my family inside the house though.
realitycheckers4u t1_iy9vj33 wrote
Having dealt with Eufy support, I image the response will be an overly polite, extra wordy, poorly translated statement that apologies multiple times yet offers no resolution to the problem and sort of puts the blame on the customer...
MasterpieceBrave420 t1_iy9vxuu wrote
It's not really Just a tweet.
19Chris96 t1_iy9wftq wrote
It doesn't mean their chargers and battery banks are not top tier. They just fucked up on the other end.
Charles_Mendel t1_iya1qld wrote
So my Anker power bricks are cables are ok.
[deleted] t1_iya2fee wrote
They noted that they loved the Anker products, but considered Anker responsible for the actions of their subsidiary.
It wasn't about the flaw, it was about the company's behavior regarding it.
xxuncoothxx t1_iya380n wrote
Thank you for that link. This does look legit. I hope to see more people test and validate this
tickettoride98 t1_iyabjmj wrote
> The fact I have two 20w, A 25W, and a dual port 24W(12Wx2) for my iPhone, anker chargers is no joke. They have good products.
WTF is this ad bullshit.
zeeozersaide t1_iyaeuii wrote
People are still buying proprietary IOT stuff after years of warnings from security experts? I mean come on...
gpmidi t1_iyalzth wrote
Just remember, The "S" in IOT stands for "Security"
flyswithdragons t1_iyas50z wrote
Unfortunately cameras even big expensive ones, were not built with security from the start. The industry has known about these issues for over 10 years. The open source security researchers have been yelling at enterprise about this issue but they don't want to care about security.
Corporations will not improve security unless forced to.
Hsensei t1_iyax1vq wrote
Yeah they couldn't fix it with a patch so they just stopped actively supporting it
thalassicus t1_iyb7whj wrote
It shouldn’t be precarious to believe a company when they say “your data isn’t in the cloud. The only things that go through our servers are metadata tags so your app knows which video to pull from your server, but the stream is E2E encrypted and only you have the key.” Anker has a fantastic reputation and I believed their public statements about privacy. I’m very curious if this is a bug and their initial claims are true or if they overtly lied.
Sweaty-Emergency-493 t1_iyb8ehj wrote
How do you know your batteries are not selling your data?
thermal_shock t1_iybjqzo wrote
Don't buy more though. Vote with your money.
thermal_shock t1_iybjtvl wrote
I'd agree, but there is no security involved with a charger. I have a few Anker products.
downtownbake2 t1_iyboiqc wrote
Damn look at you asking for more info than just a tweet. Are we (the internet collectively) learning ? GG
dagbiker t1_iyboqbs wrote
And didn't even mention the security problems.
jshiplett t1_iybqmrl wrote
That’s not what minimally viable means. SDLC should always take security into account. I would argue not doing so means your MVP is missing the V.
[deleted] t1_iybt9ls wrote
[removed]
_Rand_ t1_iybyt2j wrote
I've been meaning to give this a try.
https://github.com/gtxaspec/wz_mini_hacks
So far as I'm aware with that software "installed" on the camera (which can be removed simply by removing the SD card) you should be able to set up the camera's with standard local access and block them from the internet entirely.
Its a thing I plan on trying out in the near future, but it works like it should then its like a $45 (CAD) wireless(ish) security camera. Which isn't bad.
killerdrgn t1_iybza05 wrote
Yeah seriously, internet access should be optional for security devices.
[deleted] t1_iyc3imk wrote
[deleted]
LogicalWeekend6358 t1_iycgpna wrote
God I hope so.
[deleted] t1_iyci529 wrote
tickettoride98 t1_iycpdzj wrote
Anker shills, go away.
[deleted] t1_iycqlap wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iydhp6a wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iy9jzh0 wrote
[deleted]