Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Security Monitoring Company That Accepts VPN Video Feeds?

mache writes: My cousin is finishing up a major remodel of his home in Houston and has installed video cameras for added security. At my suggestion, he wired up all the cameras to be on a separate VLAN that only uses wired Ethernet and has no WiFi access. Since the Houston police will only respond to security alarms if the monitoring company is viewing the crime in progress, he must arrange for the video feed to available to a security monitoring company. I told him that the feed should use VPN or some other encrypted tunneling technique as it travels the Internet to the monitoring company and we proceeded to try and find a company that supported those protocols. No one I have talked to understands the importance of securing a video feed and everyone so far blithely suggests that we just open a port on his home router. Its frustrating to see such willful ignorance about Internet security. Does anyone know of a security monitoring company that we can work with that has a clue?

136 comments

  1. IP matching by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is a degree of understanding for why a security company might not want to use your VPN solution; if they have to monitor a lot of customers' cameras then they'd have to have a lot of different VPN clients running that might cause problems when the networks overlap private IP addresses.

    Configure your firewall to allow their IP address range to port-translate to the NVR's IP and port(s). ACL-off your security VLAN from your user VLAN(s), and vice-versa, and allow only the correct ports through from your user network(s) to the NVR.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:IP matching by silas_moeckel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not at all, VPN does not mean NAT traversal, IPSec is perfectly capable of security on public IP to another hell that was a design goal.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    2. Re:IP matching by TWX · · Score: 1

      When I've used VPN solutions like Cisco Anyconnect I've been given an IP on the LAN to which I am connecting, assigned to the virtual interface belonging to the client. Given that manufacturers have encouraged 192.168.0.0/24 and 192.168.1.0/24 for home networks using those as the defaults depending on how the manufacturer felt about subnet zero at the time.

      Even if there wasn't a problem with IP address and network collisions though, it would still require lots of VPN clients to be installed on the security company PCs. They're just not going to do that; there are already enough links in the chain to potentially troubleshoot without adding a VPN controller and client to the mix. It would make more sense for the NVR to initiate the connection to the security company and to push content rather than for the security company to initiate and to pull, or to just use port address translation so that the security company can reach the NVR without more complex networking.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:IP matching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I seriously doubt you'd want to send your data to another hell. Even if it was a design goal.

    4. Re:IP matching by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Um, you do realize that the security company could set the VPN to work in the OTHER direction?
      They could set it so that the security system in their client's locations opened a VPN to their network (one suitably firewalled so as to not give the client actual access to anything) rather than connecting via VPN to the client's network.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    5. Re:IP matching by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Consider that IPSec is the only commonly used open standard. Not anyconnect not they need a site to site for only a NAT IP on both ends. Cert based is pretty straight forward actually.

      Mind you I do not realy thing this buys you much over SSL with a pined cert for both ends.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    6. Re:IP matching by laird · · Score: 2

      A big problem with "VPNs" is that there are a ton of incompatible, proprietary VPN tools out there, generally horrible and incompatible with each other, and/or expensive, so it's far from surprising that the security company doesn't want to deal with any of it.

      If the goal of the OP is to make sure that nobody is watching his home's video other than the security company, I'd suggest using https streaming (which is what his system likely already does) with a certificate configured at the security company, verified by the sending side (in the house) so that can prove the stream is going to the security company. For extra credit, put a cert on the sending side, verified by the receiver.

      Of course, you still have to trust the security company. But there's no way around that.

    7. Re:IP matching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh, no and completely not "Insightful"

    8. Re:IP matching by silas_moeckel · · Score: 2

      Thus why I said SSL with pined certs and went for IPSec site to site also with certs since that is a standard and goes between vendors every day.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    9. Re:IP matching by mysidia · · Score: 4, Informative

      If the goal of the OP is to make sure that nobody is watching his home's video other than the security company, I'd suggest using https streaming

      The OP's cousin should probably just accept the risk that some unauthorized third party could in theory be watching the video data, Concentrate on making sure a third party can't Control or Disable the camera (What is really important!), understand that risk, and mitigate it by placing the cameras where they will meet security objectives without a huge risk to privacy objectives.

      Legally speaking.... the OP's cousin will have already lost any legal expectation of privacy, the second they hired an outside company and shipped camera video out of their exclusive physical control, local law enforcement/FBI/etc can compel the disclosure of such video data in the hands of a 3rd party without needing a warrant or subpoena, and even bar the monitoring company from informing that footage has been provided; it's no different than requesting transaction records from a retailer.

      The reality of the situation is; security monitoring companies are totally focused on physical security, the ones likely to offer affordable services are going to be local SMBs for the most part, and they are likely to have little knowledge of IT Security topics.

      Unless you've found a highly exceptional security provider in the local area that promises privacy of your video footage, most companies will just not care , and might not fully understand these issues, the issue is so universally neglected, that you will need a contract requiring end-to-end encryption, AND the OP will have to pay the monitoring company enough money for them to care.

      And then, unless you are paying a couple thousand a month, then it is probably a tall order to require a custom VPN solution "just to protect a home's ccTV feeds".

    10. Re:IP matching by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      There is a degree of understanding for why a security company might not want to use your VPN solution; if they have to monitor a lot of customers' cameras then they'd have to have a lot of different VPN clients running that might cause problems when the networks overlap private IP addresses.

      Configure your firewall to allow their IP address range to port-translate to the NVR's IP and port(s). ACL-off your security VLAN from your user VLAN(s), and vice-versa, and allow only the correct ports through from your user network(s) to the NVR.

      Keeping in mind that whatever you're streaming to them is in the clear for anyone who can capture the packets (though the risk is no doubt low of that actually happening unless your daughter is super hot).

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    11. Re:IP matching by SethJohnson · · Score: 1

      @Laird is 10000% on target here. The OP is attempting to introduce unnecessary, unwieldy complexity into a scenario that absolutely does not need it. The indication here is that the OP heard about VPN and thinks it's the holy grail of secure.

      The right tool for the right job.

      VPN is an ideal solution when remote users need unfettered access to an unlimited range of devices and ports on a secure, firewalled network. In this use-case, the video feed is delivered from one single aggregation server responding to HTTPS requests on a single port. The monitoring company does not need to access a bunch of devices on the internal network.

      All of this is ridiculous, anyway. The type of criminal who is breaking into a house does not possess the technical skill set to defeat SSL security or even figure out a home address from an IP address and vice-versa. If they did, there is a whole swath of crime opportunities available to them that doesn't risk being shot, cut on broken glass, and in most cases even arrested.

      Just NAT the SSL-secured port through the firewall to the video streaming server and be done with it. Thank you, please drive through.

    12. Re:IP matching by chihowa · · Score: 1

      The OP's cousin should probably just accept the risk that some unauthorized third party could in theory be watching the video data, Concentrate on making sure a third party can't Control or Disable the camera (What is really important!), understand that risk, and mitigate it by placing the cameras where they will meet security objectives without a huge risk to privacy objectives.

      This is great advice and is the approach that I took. I've tried very hard to design the system so that it can't be accessed by unauthorized parties, but there's no way that I'm going to operate as if the feeds are truly secure. To that end, there aren't cameras monitoring private spaces.

      Not to mention the complete creep factor involved in having security cameras monitoring the living spaces of your home. The WAF of that idea is so low that I wouldn't think of proposing it, even if I wasn't totally creeped out by it myself.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    13. Re: IP matching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On top of the very expensive change all the doors and locks implementation, incl fog and strobes lol, why not make the house look occupied. Lights going on and off, virtual tv screens running, shadows in the shape of people, etc etc etc.

  2. Can you lock the IP address? by khasim · · Score: 2, Informative

    If those companies want a port open on the router, can you lock the port to only the IP addresses that that company would be using?

    That should be fairly standard on most of the firewall/routers available today.

    1. Re:Can you lock the IP address? by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

      How well does that withstand IP spoofing?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:Can you lock the IP address? by radiumsoup · · Score: 2

      IP spoofing is only good in one direction, generally, seeing as how a sender using a falsified address would not be able to get ACK packets or other 2-way data back from the recipient (in this example, the IP camera system's video feed). In other words, spoofing is great for DOS attacks or injections of some sort, not so great for trying to view video. (Caveats for sending unauthenticated backdoor commands to alter firewall rules, etc., but that's an application layer problem, not an open port problem)

    3. Re:Can you lock the IP address? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that an attacker can't compromise any routers, NATs, firewalls, or other systems in between. In light of all the recent vulnerabilities in those sorts of devices, and the refusal of most vendors to deal with those vulnerabilities, that assumption doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny.

    4. Re: Can you lock the IP address? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How often does one deal with targeted IP spoofing to see what is on a home security system? I thought the vast majority of problems involve vulnerabilities on systems allowing people to search for them, or for the camera interfaces to end up on search engine results.

    5. Re:Can you lock the IP address? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Which is a very reasonable assumption for every scenario that is reasonable to consider for the vast majority of situations.

      Frankly, if you are worried about an attacker with that level of both sophistication and personal interest in breaking your security, then your situation is solidly out of scope for this discussion.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    6. Re:Can you lock the IP address? by SethJohnson · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that an attacker can't compromise any routers, NATs, firewalls, or other systems in between.

      Yeah, because the people who break into houses don't have those skills or they would be committing less-risky crime that doesn't involve broken glass, guns, dogs, pepper spray, and pawn shops.

    7. Re: Can you lock the IP address? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck all that. The cameras will only trip on movement. If no one is home, that means like never. So once they trip and the signal is sent it shouldn't matter if the whole world can see it just so long as the alarm company can, that's all that matters.
      My sister had a system installed but it's completely in house. Problem is once it was installed, support went down the drain. Better to run your own shit imo.

    8. Re:Can you lock the IP address? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      That is usually what I do when using a VPN tunnel to my home system from a fixed location. I adjust my firewall which also protects access to my VPN server to only allow VPN access from my IP or IPs.

  3. IPsec or simple ssh like tunneling by yes-but-no · · Score: 4, Informative

    VPN may be too heavy weight a solution. VPN is used when different sites [like branch offices of say a bank in a city] want to appear as though they are co-located in a single site. In this video surveillance use-case, it's just that you need to send the data one-way securely from point A to B. Just using an L7 secure TCP [like ssh tunneling] or using L3 IPsec like protocol should be sufficient. May be there are dedicated devices that do this.. or you may be able to run a script/software in the PC in the home which acts as a middle-man doing this tunneling and sending out of the data to the remote server. Of course the other end should be able to receive and do the necessary decryption.

    1. Re:IPsec or simple ssh like tunneling by marcansoft · · Score: 5, Informative

      If the camera is HTTP, just reverse-proxy it with something like nginx into HTTPS, and let it handle basic HTTP authentication. HTTPS should be as secure as most VPNs in practice, and the authentication at the proxy level stops pre-authentication exploits against the camera. Now that Let's Encrypt is a thing you can even get a real cert easily. The security company doesn't have to know that you're doing this; you give them HTTPS URL and off they go.

    2. Re:IPsec or simple ssh like tunneling by kyubre · · Score: 2

      Please pardon my ignorance and be gentle in rendering a /. style re-education, but isn't this precisely what https transports are supposed to do?

      I set up a similar thing for some family members but its purpose is only to monitor and document any intrusions (they already have a commercial security system, that apparently doesn't work all that well). The cameras aggregate to a single machine within their lan and my (remote) server periodically scp's all the video/picture data from all the cameras to my location where it is further consolidated to a single video file per day, per camera.

      I don't think its any more vulnerable than any other ssh connection using secure keys. It's been running flawlessly for 3 years, but if I had it to do over again, I'd probably stage the data on an https file server and skip the ssh stuff.

      --
      Nothing evolves faster than the word of god in the minds of men who think themselves divinely inspired.
    3. Re:IPsec or simple ssh like tunneling by kyubre · · Score: 1

      Great suggestion. I may try this on my next iteration of the home brew thing I've cooked up based on ssh (see below)

      --
      Nothing evolves faster than the word of god in the minds of men who think themselves divinely inspired.
    4. Re:IPsec or simple ssh like tunneling by yes-but-no · · Score: 1

      Please pardon my ignorance and be gentle in rendering a /. style re-education, but isn't this precisely what https transports are supposed to do?

      I set up a similar thing for some family members but its purpose is only to monitor and document any intrusions (they already have a commercial security system, that apparently doesn't work all that well). The cameras aggregate to a single machine within their lan and my (remote) server periodically scp's all the video/picture data from all the cameras to my location where it is further consolidated to a single video file per day, per camera.

      I don't think its any more vulnerable than any other ssh connection using secure keys. It's been running flawlessly for 3 years, but if I had it to do over again, I'd probably stage the data on an https file server and skip the ssh stuff.

      Yes, I should've included the https [to be fair.. the L7 secure TCP covers https :)].. the gist was to move from a heavy weight solution (VPN) to a much simpler one. Yes, https is probably more easier and simpler. I dont' think there is any reduction of any security compared to ssh. [ssh tunneling is something which can work on any application which is not security-aware.. so it may be more suitable in some use-cases where the necessary plumbing to connect apps can be easily done. I believe if A and B communicate, A and B can still use clear-text..while the ssh-tunnel transparently transports the data in encrypted way. So you don't need to change A or B]

    5. Re:IPsec or simple ssh like tunneling by mysidia · · Score: 1

      but isn't this precisely what https transports are supposed to do?

      I don't think the OP gets a choice in the matter. Most IP cameras and IP camera system transmit the video feed over a UDP-based protocol; it's generally RTP/RTSP; and support for SRTP/SRTCP is sparse and far between (Unless you spent mucho more $$$ to purchase high-end equipment that specifically supports it!). The only way you're going to be wrapping RTCP in HTTPS is with a SSL VPN that supports encapsulating arbitrary TCP protocols and the UDP-based RTP streams as well.

    6. Re:IPsec or simple ssh like tunneling by pi_rules · · Score: 2

      don't think the OP gets a choice in the matter. Most IP cameras and IP camera system transmit the video feed over a UDP-based protocol; it's generally RTP/RTSP; and support for SRTP/SRTCP is sparse and far between (Unless you spent mucho more $$$ to purchase high-end equipment that specifically supports it!). The only way you're going to be wrapping RTCP in HTTPS is with a SSL VPN that supports encapsulating arbitrary TCP protocols and the UDP-based RTP streams as well.

      Bluecherry (http://www.bluecherrydvr.com/) can wrap up RTSP into an HTTPS transport nicely... and I don't consider it all that expensive at $500 for a 32 camera license which is good as long as that version is supported. Hell, it can suck up MJPEG and coax cameras and rebroadcast them in HTTPS encapsulated RTSP too. It's not even a selling point of the product, just a smart decision that they made when designing it. Basically the Bluecherry server pulls up all the RTSP H.264 or MPEG, MJPEG, and coax camera feeds, transcodes them on the fly into H.264 for storage, and then rebroadcasts them over RTSP for their cross-platform client to display live. You can also suck that RTSP feed into VLC or whatever else you want.

      And, perhaps nicest of all given the topic, Apache handles the HTTPS traffic, not their server, so anything possible in Apache is already at your fingertips.

      The product has warts, but they designed the thing so logically that I can't help but love it, and their team bangs out stuff awful fast. The product is probably 300% better than it was in 2012 when I started using it and I didn't dislike it back then.

  4. No, you completely misunderstand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    No, he wants an encrypted tunnel to the security company. Not to a third-parrty proxy.

    1. Re:No, you completely misunderstand. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah, got it. But then why not just find a security company that sends their camera video over https?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:No, you completely misunderstand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You stop now or start posting as A.C.

      The video surveillance monitoring agency is not providing an authenticated service. They want the video to be hosted and available for their monitoring server to download. The very best an HTTPS connection can offer in the scenario you describe is security through obscurity.

    3. Re:No, you completely misunderstand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly this. Most PVR's send over https
      Send them your certs if self signed. Use a free CA (or not) to sign your certificate otherwise. - that is if you're worried about mitm attack.

    4. Re:No, you completely misunderstand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The very best an HTTPS connection can offer in the scenario you describe is security through obscurity.

      If by "obscurity" you mean "authentication" and "secret key", then, yes, it's "security through obscurity". It happens to be the right kind of obscurity.

    5. Re:No, you completely misunderstand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Go back and read the second sentence in the GP and then apply it to your reply.

    6. Re:No, you completely misunderstand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather they receive video over HTTPS ;)

    7. Re:No, you completely misunderstand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not the same AC but let me try for you,:

      If the monitoring agency is not providing an authentication service and want the video to be hosted and available for their monitoring service then the very best security HTTPS could offer would be full "authentication" with "secret keys", then, yes, it's "security through obscurity". It happens to be the right kind of obscurity.

      This is precisely the thing that HTTPS can do right when set up correctly. Getting a monitoring company that knows how to use HTTPS correctly may be more of a challenge, but you are probably closer to that than finding one who knows how to use a VPN.

    8. Re:No, you completely misunderstand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Security through obscurity is not security. Access to the information does not require authentication, only the transmissions are encrypted. I think you do not understand the difference, which is unfortunately common for most admins and devs.

    9. Re:No, you completely misunderstand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you don't understand that it's quite easy to provide an HTTPS service that also authenticates clients before allowing access to the data. Guess you've never set up a reverse proxy, but that's common for ACs that like to talk shit about most admins and devs being stupid.

    10. Re:No, you completely misunderstand. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      You stop now or start posting as A.C.

      I am stealing that. LOL Thanks! Slashdot has now given me two, literally, out-loud laughs today. I am grateful or overtired, perhaps both.

      "You're demonstrating that you're an idiot. Stop it or at least have the decency to show shame and hide your ignorance and learn something." That's how I interpreted it.

      Okay, so it's overtired but that was still a brilliant reply and I shall be stealing it at some point. I'll send you a nickel every time I use it.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    11. Re:No, you completely misunderstand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HTTPS has nothing to do with authentication, unless you referring to session authentication, which does nothing to protect who has access to the data, only who can see the data while in transmission. OTOH, if by "provide an HTTPS service that also authenticates clients", you mean some authentication service that can work with HTTPS encryption, then why are you even posting? And don't ever again attempt to use an appeal to authority.

    12. Re:No, you completely misunderstand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HTTPS (TLS, actually) has quite a bit to do with authentication, actually. The purpose of the server certificate is for the client to authenticate the server; a connection may also use client certificates to enable the server to authenticate the client.

      Without the authentication component, TLS has no way to prevent MITM attacks, because neither side can tell who they are actually handshaking with.

      You might want to learn what you are talking about before you start berating others for their supposed lack of understanding.

    13. Re:No, you completely misunderstand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent job explaining session authentication! Even better than the guy who posted right before you!

    14. Re:No, you completely misunderstand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a shame that the real idiot is the AC you are quoting.

      Https is exactly about authentication (and if you think about it every encryption scheme worth its name must include authentication: you don't want to talk to the MITM). Sadly the current Web only uses server certificates but the protocol is capable of two-sided authentication using client certificates.

      At least he followed its own advice and saved the public humiliation.

    15. Re: No, you completely misunderstand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm ok absolutey not. Https is NOT about authentication. Its about encryption. The two ARE different.

    16. Re:No, you completely misunderstand. by Mattcelt · · Score: 1

      I think you're conflating HTTPS and CA infrastructure. (It's an understandable mistake.)

      There's nothing in the HTTPS protocol that requires authentication. Most HTTPS instances do provide some degree of passive authentication, in that at least one side (generally the server) has a certificate signed by a verified root authority.

      This does not, however, prevent someone from creating a self-signed (or even, technically, an un-signed) certificate and using that as their SSL enabler. In that case, there is absolutely NO authentication happening - all the certificate does is provide a public/private keypair for use to create an asymmetric crypto tunnel. There is no assertion whatsoever of an identity.

      So I'll repeat what's been said - there is no authentication whatsoever inherent in the HTTPS protocol.

    17. Re:No, you completely misunderstand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent job exposing how little you know about HTTPS.

      When the client has to provide a separate certificate to be able to see the content that is protected by the server certificate, how is that not authentication?

    18. Re:No, you completely misunderstand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You too should try to to think a bit before posting condescending answers.
      TLS is perfectly capable of mutual authentication, you are conflating the protocol and how most of the Web is using it. (It's an understandable mistake.).

      As I said encryption is perfectly useless without authentication (or do you aim at cutting out your neighborhood from your safe communication to the NSA posing as Facebook?). The fact that passwords are still the preferred way to authenticate a client with a server is just the sad state state of browser technology, but not due to the protocol.

    19. Re:No, you completely misunderstand. by Mattcelt · · Score: 1

      I was actually trying to be informative, not condescending. I'm sorry it came across that way.

      Nowhere did I say TLS wasn't capable of authentication. I said it doesn't require authentication. And it doesn't.

      I was responding to the parent post's assertion that "Https is exactly about authentication". This statement is false. For HTTPS, authentication is a non-central benefit, not a core requirement, or even necessarily in-scope. TLS doesn't provide adequate authentication service on its own in a lot of circumstances. For instance, consider that in 802.1x, TLS must be paired with EAP (The Extensible Authentication Protocol) for authentication.

      Encryption has nothing to do with authentication; the two are fully capable of existing mutually exclusively. Encryption provides two benefits: 1) integrity and 2) confidentiality. Authentication, while at times nice to have, is not essential to either one. There are loads of use cases where the necessity of confidentiality and/or integrity of the data is completely divorced from the identity of the encryptor and decryptor. So it is far from "perfectly useless".

      And as a matter of fact, all modern browsers support client authentication with certificates. It's not the state of browser technology that is lacking, but rather the state of providing certificates to end users in a secure and usable manner.

  5. Re:So, in other words by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Why does "over a VPN" mean "indeterminate location"?

    I used to connect to work via a VPN and it never happened that I was going "like, what's all this shit?". Well, the one time...

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  6. silly topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    You and your cousin need to get a life and stop worrying about highly optimizing the design of security systems that have almost no practical value. The reality is for most users, 99.9% of the security value of their system mostly comes from the visual appearance of the camera as a deterrent factor.

  7. try google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I worked with a company called wink streaming that does exactly this, but there are countless... How is this a slashdot post?

    1. Re:try google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because you posted as AC and therefore didn't have direct access to your awesome knowledge base

      thanks for the help

  8. SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by lesincompetent · · Score: 0

    Use 3g\4g cellular data.
    Wires can be cut.

    1. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use 3g\4g cellular data.
        Wires can be cut.

      I'm currently using motion on linux to monitor 3 cameras at a house I'm trying to sell. One camera is connected via a bridge that works over the electric connection to the shed/garage. The PC running motion mounts the storage folder to a remote FTP site via curlfsftp. This goes to a cheap VPS that only supports FTP and gets there via a cellular hotspot. The cheap VPS has a web server. Data rates are pretty low with the way I have it configured. The first time I did this it failed maybe 6 hours later for unknown reasons, so for now automatic reboots were scheduled via a cron job... I just browse the folder using the IP address/path in a web browser. It is certainly not a high security solution, but it is adequate for my needs. I have had to reset apache once on the web server. Ultra low memory environments can be a problem.. I may do something about that, if it occurs often enough..

      It is hardly monitored by a security company, but the pictures taken do stand a good chance of being accessible, no matter what an intruder may do..

    2. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      Wires can be cut.

      ... and radio can be jammed....

    3. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Radio can be jammed.....

      --
      Good-bye
    4. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by lesincompetent · · Score: 1

      More difficult, common burglars would not think of that.

    5. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by lesincompetent · · Score: 1

      Common burglars would not think of that.

    6. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by damnbunni · · Score: 1

      Cellular goes down a LOT MORE OFTEN than hardlines get cut.

      'common burglars' don't do either. The break in, grab some stuff, and take off before anyone can respond to an alarm.

    7. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pretty sure it won't be long (months, maybe) before they do especially with the TV advertisements for alarm systems that run over cell towers now. But that assumes you're dealing with professional burglars, not some thug that took the opportunity to break into an empty house.

  9. Micromanaging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do you need for the alarm company to do something a certain way? Is it not good enough that they do it securely?

    1. Re:Micromanaging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It must suck to be able to read but unable to understand what you read.

  10. Re:So, in other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uh, what? Do you have any clue about what you're asking? Do you think that not using a VPN provides any sort of guarantee about the source of a stream? It would be trivial to take video coming from Bumfuck, Egypt and forward it to the security company using my local IP if I wanted to do that. I'm not sure why I'd want to, even if I'm a nefarious blackhat, but it would certainly be simple to do.

  11. Really? by ledow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What's wrong with a port forward?

    Get them to tell you THEIR static IP, and only apply port forwarding from their address to your internal VLAN.

    Problem solved.

    Have to do it all the time for telephony, CCTV, remote software support, etc. I let them have a port-forward but only if:

    a) they give me their source IP (I get the asked the same when I set up VPN's etc. anyway, so everyone does this!)
    b) they only get one set of port-fowards to the internal system
    c) I reserve the right to cut that connection off for 99.9% of the time until they actually NEED to do something. They ring me up, I open up JUST THAT PORT to JUST THAT IP, then they have to tell me when they are finished.

    It makes it much easier to manage, to log, and to control your devices.

    Nobody sensible opens up any port to the world unless they have a public-facing service on that port and have secured it properly (e.g. email, web, vpn). But "port-forward" does not mean you let the world into it.

    And if the attackers know and can spoof the IP of your remote support, then you're in bigger trouble anyway! That's not the kind of attacker that you're going to be able to easily defend against. But with a plain port-forward, all they'll get (if you've done it properly) is into the VLAN and the cameras, not your systems.

    And, guess what. The only device that traverses several VLANs should really be your gateway anyway. There's no point VLANning off and then having everything sit on all the VLANs. So you might as well just have the gateway port-forward and then all the config is on one device.

    (Not only that, VPN setup like you suggest is a pain in the arse for most people anyway. If you have a hundred customers, with a hundred VPN's, it quickly becomes stupendous to put them all on 24/7, because of IP subnets stomping over each other and all sorts of confusions. That's before you get into the million-and-one variations of VPN and VPN settings and managing certs and credentials).

    1. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would find two issues with your proposed solution.

      The first is that there is no way to know how they manage their IP addresses, which presents at least two problems. The first being, what if they do not manage the addresses themselves and some other company gets control of the IP address. This would mean the feed can be viewed by unauthorized users. The second issue is that they may use a range of IP addresses, adding new ones, dropping old ones, and in the case of an emergency, a new address used may not be have been updated locally, which is also a issue with the first scenario.

      The second issue is that it does not address sending the video feed across the Internet in the clear. Do we even know if they can use an HTTPS connection? What if they only support insecure HTTPS configurations? What happens when a new vulnerability is discovered in HTTPS? Will the user promptly update their server configuration?

    2. Re:Really? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Well, not only that, but the camera system itself is somewhat exposed to the internet which means any weakness in the firmware or software running the https (or http) can possible be exposed and high tech criminals could actually use the system to know when the house is empty or where valuables are generally stored depending on where the cameras are placed.

      Of course it is likely much easier to just watch the place a few nights and conclude when no one is home. But being able to avoid being on camera might provide even more confidence then putting masks and crap on to obscure your appearance.

    3. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'll watch your bedroom cam 24x7x365 for ya free of charge ;-)
      hope you don't meind me making a few bucks on the backside with the vids either.
      because i will.

    4. Re:Really? by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      If the criminal is tech savvy enough and motivated enough to hack your camera's firmware in support of robbing your house, then you were boned anyway. They're already too dedicated to getting in for a small COTS CCTV solution to stop them. At that point of opposition you would need to invest in a more expensive security solution.

      The solution as presented is sufficient to stop your basic smash and grab / crime of opportunity attacks. At that level you don't have to worry about firmware hacks.

  12. This Is A Great Question! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The utter and contemptible lack of security for IP security cameras is criminal. No camera or DVR should be accessible form teh internet and no video feed should traverse the internet without encryption. Yet, they all seem to do just that.

    My Vera Edge Home Automation System - definitely not a security system - transfers video and all other data between it and the company's central servers within an SSH tunnel. This should be the industry standard.

    I'm really hoping that we'll see some options in this thread.

    1. Re:This Is A Great Question! by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      " camera or DVR should be accessible form teh internet and no video feed should traverse the internet without encryption"

      Just NO. Not everything needs to be encrypted. In lots of cases it jsut adds bloat to whatever it is you are trying to do. I absolutely believe companies should make better devices, but in the end its up to US to use the vast tool chest we have available to us to make up for these shortcomings. Dont force obfuscation where its not needed so that you dont have to think.

      --
      Good-bye
    2. Re:This Is A Great Question! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Netflix said their analyses concluded that it would be too expensive to implement encryption for VOD. 6 months later they implemented encryption for VOD.

    3. Re:This Is A Great Question! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The political types of the internet disagree. The common view there is that absolutely everything should be encrypted - because it you only encrypt what you want kept secret, it stands out like a blinking neon 'something dodgy going on here' sign. The overhead of encryption is very slight with modern hardware, and getting more so all the time.

    4. Re:This Is A Great Question! by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      It has nothing ot do with hardware overhead. It has everything to do with overall systemic overhead. Adding encryption is just another layer that can go wrong, needs updating, penetration testing, etc etc. Like i said i take exception to the idea that all this traffic needs to be encrypted by default, not the idea of encryption. Your argument is security through obscurity and nothing more.

      --
      Good-bye
    5. Re:This Is A Great Question! by pi_rules · · Score: 1

      . Like i said i take exception to the idea that all this traffic needs to be encrypted by default, not the idea of encryption. Your argument is security through obscurity and nothing more.

      No, using decent encryption is not security through obscurity.

      Security through obscurity is when you assume nobody will crack your system because they don't know some magic number or method of yours, or some fatal flaw in your software.

      It doesn't mean using encryption to make the pile of encrypted data even larger for those that want to decrypt it. That's perfectly sound thinking.

  13. DIY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Monitor your own system and call 911 if an alarm is triggered and you see a crime in progress on your camera. If you have the technical ability to set the system up, you surely have the ability to look at your smartphone and respond to an alert.

  14. Get a provider in the commercial space by guruevi · · Score: 5, Informative

    You should have the Axis security suite or find one of their partners to install it for you, then some company might take you seriously. Once you get that contract, you can specify anything you want and pay accordingly. I've done IPSec lines for some of their customers, but you could be paying $10k/year easily to maintain a few camera recordings which are totally useless in actual protection or prosecution (unless the cops get extremely lucky with an extremely dumb criminal, they won't be looking for that one person or even recognize them when they get arrested on another charge).

    But for home or small business, this is laughable, your camera's won't do anything, they will barely be able to see any silhouettes especially at night (unless you buy a $1000 camera, the 100' IR LED cameras all wash out the image due to reflection within the housing, and yes, I have tried a number of them). Your city doesn't require any camera for monitoring by police. You do need a permit and so does your alarm company. Perhaps your alarm company told you that but they are just trying to up sell you their camera system. https://www.houstonburglaralar...

    You can do a DIY alarm system with a cheap alarm monitoring service for ~$500 (Honeywell Vista with a few sensors and remotes) and $5-15/month for the monitoring service (wired or wireless). You could hook up ZoneMinder into your Honeywell as well with an RPi or whatever, but make sure you understand the false alarm fees your city levies. Some city codes also require you to hook up at least one wired CO and smoke detector if you do get a system so you should calculate all that in, other codes require wired CO and smoke detectors on every level during renovations.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re:Get a provider in the commercial space by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      Your city doesn't require any camera for monitoring by police. You do need a permit and so does your alarm company. Perhaps your alarm company told you that but they are just trying to up sell you their camera system.

      The way it might be sort-of-true is that if all the police get is "alarm going off in X neighborhood", they're typically not going to treat it as an emergency, because about 99% of the time it's a false positive: alarm set off by homeowner who accidentally opened their door with the alarm set, or by an over-sensitive motion detector getting set off, all kinds of things. If you call in with specific information like, not only is the alarm going off, but we saw two people enter through the front window, then they'll take it more seriously.

    2. Re:Get a provider in the commercial space by TClevenger · · Score: 1

      Your city doesn't require any camera for monitoring by police. You do need a permit and so does your alarm company. Perhaps your alarm company told you that but they are just trying to up sell you their camera system. https://www.houstonburglaralar...

      In a lot of jurisdictions, video verified alarms are given a higher response priority by police.

    3. Re:Get a provider in the commercial space by guruevi · · Score: 1

      The OP states the police will only respond if there is video. If that were a policy, not only would it be published but it would also open the police department up to a number of 'neglect of duty' lawsuits.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    4. Re:Get a provider in the commercial space by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Alarm companies have to verify an alarm with the home owner. So homeowner setting off the alarm is not sent out to the cops. Too sensitive detectors happens only once, the second and further times, the city will give you rising fines or even revoke your permit until you fix it.

      Cops will respond to alarms because they are easy, they are 'verified' better than your average 911 call wild goose chase and they bring in revenue (either in fines from not getting a permit or fines from repeat alarms).

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    5. Re:Get a provider in the commercial space by threephaseboy · · Score: 1

      'neglect of duty' lawsuits

      Police have duty?

      --
      .
    6. Re:Get a provider in the commercial space by TClevenger · · Score: 1

      The OP states the police will only respond if there is video. If that were a policy, not only would it be published but it would also open the police department up to a number of 'neglect of duty' lawsuits.

      It is in fact the policy in an increasing number of jurisdictions, including San Jose, Detroit, Las Vegas, Akron and Milwaukee that alarms be verified by video or eyewitness before police will respond. In other jurisdictions, such as Bakersfield, Saturday night response times can be up to three hours for non-verified alarms.

    7. Re:Get a provider in the commercial space by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      The OP states the police will only respond if there is video. If that were a policy, not only would it be published but it would also open the police department up to a number of 'neglect of duty' lawsuits.

      It is in fact the policy in an increasing number of jurisdictions, including San Jose, Detroit, Las Vegas, Akron and Milwaukee that alarms be verified by video or eyewitness before police will respond. In other jurisdictions, such as Bakersfield, Saturday night response times can be up to three hours for non-verified alarms.

      A quick check over at Wikipedia says that they figure that between 2%-6% of home burglar alarms getting tripped are by actual burglars, so I think it's safe to say that there's a very good reason for a jurisdiction to require some type of verification. It's worth noting that apparently there's reports of such things as perfectly normal spiders successfully triggering motion detectors, and I've been through a round of a...self-testing fire alarm--thankfully we didn't have to fend off firefighters while attempting to get it shut down, but it was sufficiently loud somebody had to be sent next door to make the phone call required to get it turned off.

    8. Re: Get a provider in the commercial space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, its to shoot unarmed minorities.

  15. HTTPS with PFS should be good enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HTTPS with PFS should be good enough...
    No need to go to the complication and hassle of a VPN.

  16. Don't ask, tell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pick the provider you want. Then tell them if they want your business, they will comply with your terms.

    1. Re:Don't ask, tell by Improv · · Score: 1

      This is a good way to not end up with service.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
  17. Re:So, in other words by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Interesting

    VPN in modern slang times is generally used by people in one country trying to access restricted content in another (say copyright restrictions not allowing AU to view US shows on Hulu or something) or to obfuscate the original of the data being transmitted (dissident materiel or perhaps illegal to some extent material). The practical application of a VPN (secure tunneling access to a remote network like work access) seems to be forgotten by those using it for other reasons or the other reasons are more prevalent in certain circles that the reasoning doesn't flow as quickly.

    I used to play a game online and people were constantly complaining about having to find a VPN. Turned out their ability to access the game came at a time there would be almost no one online in their country so they used a VPN to fake their location in an area where a lot of people would be online and had a better overall game experience. The game attempted to route you to servers in your time zone to prevent culture clashes and whatever which lead to a lot of boring sessions in odd hours evidently.

  18. Unsecure on alarm by holophrastic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I certainly understand the need to secure the video, fully encrypted, of my home. But I'd be willing to have it unencrypted, and fully open in fact, during a break-in. It's a big call for help for anyone looking, and it really ought not be that often. And anyone whe'd stage a robbery to see the footage as recon for next time, well, that sounds foolish.

    So, while not perfect, why not switch to unencrypted during alarm scenarios?

    1. Re:Unsecure on alarm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This post is massively underrated. This simple solution totally 100% solves the problem for a minimum amount of effort. The alarm company has no need to view the footage unless there is an alarm so disable the unencrypted feed for the 99% of the time that the alarm isn't going off. Do a test drill a couple times a year to make sure the encrypted feed works. Use a battery backup so cutting the power doesn't kill the CCTV system/RTSP or RTMP or MJPG server.

    2. Re:Unsecure on alarm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed if the video only comes on if the alarm is sounding.. what is the problem? It is recorded for court use anyway.

      In-home, I would want encryption. But WPA-PSK is good enough.

  19. You need ENCRYPTION not VPN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Others have pointed some of these things out but let me spell it out in big letters.

    OP started out by telling the security company "I want a VPN." He then came to /. to say to us "where can I find someone that will do a VPN."
    The problem is that a VPN is the wrong tool. When you have a problem state the problem and let the /. world help you; don't state what you think the solution is and why nobody will do it. There's a good reason they won't -- it's the wrong answer.

    VPNs are used to link separate private networks across a different (public, non-private, or other private) network. That's not what OP needs here.
    What OP needs is end to end encryption to ensure the camera video is visible only to the security company -- not the Internet at large.

    Some suggestions have been floated by other posters above me, and to summarize they are as follows. Note that the first by itself won't encrypt but any two of these together gurantee both AUTHENTICATION and ENCRYPTION, which is what OP wants.
    - IP source address filter. If the connection doesn't come from the security monitoring company it doesn't allow the connection.
    - HTTPS encryption with authentication
    - IPsec tunneling

    E

  20. Build it ... Then ask someone to work around your by BitZtream · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Custom worthless crap?

    Bwhahaha ... No security company wants to deal with some jackass that thinks they know all about it but was too fucking stupid to think about how it might interoperate before he started and now he's shocked that people have no interest in dealing with him when he walks in the door telling they run their business wrong?

    You guys are a joke. You got all wrapped in vlans and no wifi that you forgot that protecting your home was the point ... I'm not sure if that was actually the point or if you guys just wanted to waste a fuckton of money. Your security system was a waste, deal with it

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  21. Re:Rich People by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

    Let's make a list of some of the things that people steal: Cash Phones Televisions Art Appliances Furniture You suggest the solution is to not own any of those things. No thanks, I actually like owning those things. But thanks for playing the blame the victim game. Can't wait for your solutions to the problems of rape and murder.

  22. Re:So, in other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    VPN != indeterminate location

    You are misconstruing VPN with web anonymizing. Yes, you can anonymize your web viewing by using a VPN service that encrypts traffic between you and them and then goes out an unencrypted uplink the the Internet from there, but VPN services set themselves up to be that on purpose, not by the design of the VPN protocol. You can set up a VPN connection from any two points in the world and know exactly where they are. A VPN is an encrypted, private network tunnel between two IP addresses, that's all. It allows for secure communication between the two ends of the VPN connection. Where the packets go after that is up to the ends on either side.

  23. Re:So, in other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That is what authentication is for. If you hack a VPN server, you can come from Elbonia... just like you can grab the gold out of Fort Knox, all that stands in your way is the post security.

    I see two ways of solving this:

    1: HTTPS with persistant certificates AND client certs. This way, both sides authenticate with each other.

    2: A VPN/VPLS, or other way to set up and join two physically separate network segments. This is by far a solved problem.

    As for the OP, this might be too expensive for a security monitoring service to bother with, especially just for one user. To boot, even if the monitoring service did see action and call the popo, most crooks will be long gone.

    Lets do this right:

    1: Keep the CCTV cameras, but buy yourself a DVR... hell, Amazon has QNAP and Synology NAS boxes which can easily take footage from multiple cameras and stash it on a RAID protected drive for a few C-notes. Just buy some cheap external drives, shuck them, put the internal drives in the DVR, and go from there.

    2: Defense in depth. It wasn't cheap, but I replaced all internal doors with steel core doors with mortise locks that had "secure classroom", or "classroom security intruder function" functionality. This means, they will always unlock from inside the room, but a key is needed from either side to lock it. When I'm not home, all rooms are deadbolted, and hall/kitchen doors are the same. My front door has multi-point locking, and I have roll-down shutters for the windows. This is because I am out of state often.

    A burglar wanting in my place will have to smash through the front door, then smash through a hall door, bedroom door, bathroom, door, etc. All the while, the alarm is going off.

    2: Now for the alarm system. The door locks slow down a thief, the alarm system makes it know there is a burglary in progress. I purchased a commercial system that uses a fog machine and strobes. If the thief can't see anything in the room, they are not going to steal anything, and they either leave empty handed, get lost and run into the popo, or think they are at a rave, and also run into to the local police. Fog also gets a lot more attention than just a noisy alarm.

    3: Safes. Again, an easy place to put stuff. I personally use SafeLogic Xtreme dial locks on my safes, just because it gives me quick push-button access... but if the battery dies, I can slide the top bezel up, and work the safe as a dial, so no matter what, I can access my stuff. Even a crappy safe that has no protection other than a metal looking front is a lot better than nothing.

    4: The dog. A burglary is one thing, but an intruder shooting a dog has just earned felony firearms charges, and DAs will go out of their way to prosecute those.

    I don't expect everyone to do this, as I err on the side of security as I'm gone from my place often... but at least consider some defense in depth... even if it means using a Kensington lock slot or putting the desktop machine in a secure enclosure, to slow down a meth-head. It also is good to use high security locks, because if stuff does get stolen, insurance will reimburse locks that are broken or forced... but picked/bumped locks, your claim will be denied.

    None of this will give you 100% security, but the trick is to use a combination of things. For example, high security locks, and deadbolts on the bedroom doors will force a burglar to spend a lot of time kicking and far less time looting.

  24. Get real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Internet people are breaking into things because they have an idea of perfect.

    The other guys (the people who want to know that someone is "seeing" it but really will just rely on that word) are just not understanding the protocols and going on what they see.

    Nobody can learn what the Internet people (ya real hard I know, routing) know without going through learning it all or talking, and the Internet people don't want to talk to the other guys because the other guys never talked to them. Now it's stupid, just talk.

  25. I-View Now and Protection One offers exactly this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    A bit self-serving as the CTO of the company, but we provide this kind of service to commercial national account customers all of the time. Typically an IPSec VPN tunnel is established between the client site and I-View Now, and the DVR/NVR at the end of the tunnel is monitored for online status every 5 minutes (Which also helps keeps the tunnel alive). When an alarm is triggered, in under 5 seconds, the operator at the central station is viewing both a live feed from the camera associated with the zone that went into alarm, but also a 5-second pre-alarm clip of what actually tripped the alarm. This same video clip is delivered to the end users via a link sent in an SMS message so by the time they receive the call from the alarm company, they are seeing exactly what the operator is looking at as well. i-viewnow.com

  26. Ademco Total Connect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just use a Honeywell Ademco Total Connect 2.0 security panel and be done with it. Alot of central station monitoring companies support total connect 2.0, for verification the system sends 30 seconds of video, 15 sec prior and 15 sec after each alarm device activation. Plus you grt the same notification on your cell phone and have the option to send police.

  27. Ademco Total Connect by Flush1 · · Score: 1

    Just use a Honeywell Ademco Total Connect 2.0 security panel and be done with it. Alot of central station monitoring companies support total connect 2.0, for verification the system sends 30 seconds of video, 15 sec prior and 15 sec after each alarm device activation. Plus you grt the same notification on your cell phone and have the option to send police.

  28. Re:So, in other words by Teun · · Score: 1

    Damn, it would be a lot cheaper and more secure to move out of that 'hood!

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  29. OP is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) HTTPS DVR (authentication, encrypted transit)
    2) Lockdown access to IP of security company in firewall

  30. Re:So, in other words by KGIII · · Score: 1

    It might seem like I'm being a pedant but that's not my goal. My goal is to learn something so, if I'm wrong, please do correct me (preferably with a whip, chains, and sexual gratification at the end).

    Isn't there no such thing as a "VPN protocol?" Isn't VPN just what is created using any one of a few different protocols like PPTP, L2TP, and a couple others that I can't think of at the moment? Can't, with some work and however badly, VPN be done over quite a few protocols?

    I am, by no means, an expert. I do have VPN enabled in a few different ways. I use a VPN to connect to my servers at home. I then use those servers, I offload, store, compute as needed, etc, and I connect to them through the VPN but using VNC at that end. Then, to add complexity to the mix, I also use VPN out of that box. I am currently using a VPN to connect to my servers using VNC which host a desktop instance. That desktop is connected to a VPN. I'm browsing Slashdot using that computer, through that VPN, using VNC, through a VPN which is being used on this connection.

    Err... Why? Umm... I want to have a full-blown desktop and VNC was the easiest way for me to get this configured in a hurry and would be stable so that I could connect to it while using a hotel's wireless. It gets worse. I often have a VM running on that home server, which may or may not have VNC enabled, which may or may not be also connected to a VPN, and it's turtles all the way down. Seriously, I just wanted to be able to use the wifi securely while also having access to my home servers. So, they're configured to only allow certain IP addresses to access certain machines and they all use authentication schemes. I then tack on the new outbound VPN just 'cause it's already set up and I might as well.

    It's actually worked out pretty well so far. I've been on the road since September.

    Anyhow, to finally come back around to the rest of my question... Is there some sort of VPN protocol that I'm unaware of that I might have wanted to look into? I could have just used SSH, I guess, and tunneled through it but I wanted to access my desktop in a nice GUI fashion. I actually do almost everything through the home computers and the two laptops that I brought with me are basically not much more than dumb terminals. I'm now up to four laptops with me but two of them, ostensibly, belong to the missus though one is due to be retired but does hold some sentimental value for reasons too long to discuss here, well, at this point in time.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  31. Re:So, in other words by pregister · · Score: 1

    Bored in your hotel, eh?

  32. You haven't thought this through. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    One, Houston police do not require video verification for alarm response. They do, however, require that your alarm permit is up to date, so make sure of that.

    And two, you really do NOT want to pay for alarm-company-monitored camers. There's a reason that's a commercial system feature and not a residential one: It really slows down the alarm operator's handling of alarms, and raises costs for the company, which they pass along to the customer.

    Even most small businesses don't pay for that feature. Only if they have exceptionally valuable inventory. It's mostly major corporations and government installations that use it. And a few high-cost small businesses like jewelry stores.

    If you cousin's really concerned about security, tell him to make sure he has an old fashioned copper plain old landline phone to wire the alarm to, as well as a cellular communicator backup. Either one could go down but the odds of them both going down are very slim.

  33. Re:So, in other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even in "good" areas, there are still burglaries. For example the area where I live is considered one of the better neighborhoods...

    However, this doesn't mean that crime is low. A block away from the half-mil houses is a bank that wound up shutting down due to being robbed at gunpoint 2-3 times a month. Burglaries are fairly common, and skulkers who try car doors usually ply their trade fairly often, with neighbors dealing with the consequences of unlocked vehicles.

    Plus, being away for long periods of times makes a place attractive to people casing a neighborhood.

    As for the OP... assuming a monitoring place actually will care about what appears on the CCTV display is brain-dead. Keep the cameras for evidence, and use more immediate systems, such as decent locks and good alarms.

  34. Re:Rich People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you work out of the home, you might have a substantial part of your business stored there. Construction contractors might store tools at home, IT support people might have a decent collection of customer hardware, and financial consultants might have a huge collection of documents that would make identity theft very easy. Being able to secure your possessions in a manner as normal as security cameras shouldn't really be criticized that much. Insurance can only cover so much and premiums can get very expensive. Theft is very common and you'd be stupid to not try to secure your home and business. It's not materialism, its protecting the things you've invested your time and money into. Sure, a camera isn't really "protecting" anything but if you can get a clear image of the perp, you are one step closer to getting your stuff back.

  35. VPNs are not magic security sauce by Craig+Ringer · · Score: 1

    You do not need a VPN.

    Exposing a port is quite a reasonable option. Simply require HTTPs with username/password authentication.

    If your server and the monitoring provider both support it, configure the server to require an X.509 client certificate and supply one to the provider. It's unfortunately unlikely that they will support this, though.

    If your video server is a horrible insecure piece of garbage that doesn't do HTTPs, or that has a hardcoded secret key that's in 100,000 other servers around the world, proxy the SSL support between it and the router with ngnix or Apache or similar, presenting a sensible SSL interface.

    VPNs for each customer are an incredible pain. I'd refuse to consider it too. Most VPN endpoints are buggy horrible pieces of garbage. Clients are awful. Multiplexing them all is horrible, and means someone who successfully attacks the host handling all the VPNs probably gets much more access to your clients' networks than if you just used direct SSL connections.

  36. Re: So, in other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People also proved many ISPs will throttle your connection leaving your games unplayable unless you use a VPN. But what this has to do with an alarm company knowing it's customer's location is beyond me. They literally have been to the house and have the address on file.

  37. Re:So, in other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heh... However did you guess? I'm bored enough that I've used all 50 of my allotted posts. It seems an arbitrary and silly limit. My karma can go no higher. Why then do they limit the number of posts that I make? It's obvious that someone (probably a deranged someone) enjoys my posts or I'd not have "Excellent Karma." Why the silly limit?

    The good news is that I am "ahead" in my competition with my friend. I can't get into the details because that will skew the outcome. But, neither of us is allowed to spend any money - we can only spend time and effort. I can't even host on my own hardware - I have some colo'ed out and plenty of room as it's almost entirely unused except to host some backups and a few small sites for friends. I can't even buy a domain name or hosting. I can buy no software to run on the project sites but I *can* buy software to help create such. I've not yet seen a need to do so.

    Also, we can accept donations but donations can only go to the projects and any extra donations must go to a charity. Our respective lady friends are spying on us on the other's behalf. The missus will make sure that I don't cheat and his wife is making sure he doesn't cheat. We have set goals and a set amount of time and we even have a prize at the end. I can not disclose any of those but it's sure to be amusing to see what happens. I've got a framework and some basic testing done.

    *sighs* Yes, yes I'm this bored. ;-) You can see it here if you're curious. It's kind of a mess. I did most of it today, really. I'm that bored... Most of it is placeholders and testing but it's getting there. In a short while, I'll be "blogging." Well, I'm shooting for something a bit higher than plain ol' blogging. We'll see what happens. I can't even buy traffic. Everything has to be free BUT I can trade work for stuff if need be. I don't do graphics so I'll have to figure something out there. The logo, obviously, as to go. That's the stock logo.

    So, yes, yes I am bored. I'm bored out of my mind. I've been to D.C. before but the missus hasn't. Sometime this week we'll be in Florida assuming she's done shopping and site-seeing. We've hit the museums and enjoyed ourselves but it is still, at its core, D.C. and has all the vibes one might expect from a city like this. I retired to the remote woods of Maine for a reason. I don't even live in a town. My house in Maine is in an unincorporated township and there are a total of six houses that are occupied full-time. There are a few hunting camps, four I think, and that's it. It's about 24 miles from the village. The village has fewer people than this whole block has. Hell, I think the hotel might have more people in it than the village does.

    Yes, yes I do get bored. That does kind of explain my strange setup. For as frail as it sounds? It's been really solid. I'd expected it to have some failing but no problems have occurred so far. I have a couple of other computers that are also configured as backups should any of them fail and, so far, I've only needed to maintain them. The one I'm connected to at the moment is running Lubuntu 15.10 which, if you know the release cycle, indicates that I am doing well so far. I even managed to upgrade to the newest version - I went from 15.04 to 15.10 without a problem.

    I seriously expected more issues than this. If I'd known it was going to be this stable, I might not have spent the time configuring a second server and a failover laptop. I'd also like a decent home-cooked meal. I've eaten so much restaurant food as of late. I'm kind of surprised that I'm not getting fat.

    Ah well... It's obviously KGIII... I don't think anyone else is this bored or verbose. If they are, I hope they've better grammar than I.

  38. Re:I-View Now and Protection One offers exactly th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you offer any simple bundles for a tech-savvy home-owner? I.e. 24x7x365 Monitoring of 6 (supported IP) cameras @ $50month - with some sort of clause to protect you from badly configured/false movement cameras?

  39. Business services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your not likely to find that from a residential service. Talk to business class security companies and you'll have traction. Probably won't want to pay for it though. I'd be surprised if you generally found anything in that range for less than $150-200 a month.

  40. Obvious but non obvious answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your security companies are not interested in data security, only property security. If they were really concerned with data security, your security devices (eg cameras) would call out TO the security company, just like they used to do when they required phone lines.

    More or less what is required to solve this problem is to "keep alive" a connection originated from the home-side (eg on a UPS) and periodically update the status every minute or so. When a monitoring alert is triggered, proactively send the data to the monitoring company (after all that is what they are supposed to be doing.) If the connection is disabled, go over the "expensive" link, eg a GPRS/LTE device with an alert that the main connection has been disabled and send video frames within the expense parameters (eg reduced frame rate or reduced delta-frame resolution.)

    Your average monitoring company, again, doesn't care about data security or voyeurs/perverts watching you. Simply knowing the IP address range of your target and the ports used by the security devices is enough for idiot kiddies/perverts to hijack the security monitoring system.

  41. You are doing it wrong. by drolli · · Score: 1

    No company will help you to set up a solution specifically for you.

    Do it the other way round: Specify that it must be encrypted, ask for offers, and let them suggest HW and SW. If you dont like it, look for another company.

  42. Don't over complicate things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't need VPNs and hosting companies. Setup an RTSP proxy between private cam net and internet, give security company public proxy IP.

    That's a huge gloss over with the details but it'll point you in the right direction.

  43. Everything you're looking for. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SecureCom Wireless has a video solution that supports VPN and video verification. Basically, the cameras automatically tunnel back to the servers using an encrypted VPN protocol. This would make the video solution available to your cousin via his app anytime he likes, and in the event of an alarm it would allow the central station to view the video live for 30 minutes after an alarm, in real-time. So, this would allow your cousin to get video without opening any ports on his home network. Additionally, all communication from the cameras to the SecureCom servers are fully tunneled and encrypted. The the best of my knowledge they are the only one that offers this type of service.

    Basically, any if you're looking for that service any DMP dealer can help with that. I would contact Digitial Monitoring Products to find out whose a dealer in the Houston area. http://dmp.com

  44. Re:So, in other words by cHiphead · · Score: 1

    It's always amusing when someone tries to supplant a definition with the slang of it. Sorry, but VPN is already well known in 'modern times' regardless of what the new generation of kids try to appropriate slang as while not understanding any of the underlying technology. The VPN slang is still the same exact thing, you must not understand that it just routes traffic out to the internet differently based on different use cases.

    --

    This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  45. Re:So, in other words by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

    Actually, there is a Karma level higher than yours.... it's called Bennett Hasselton.

    --
    Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
  46. Re:Build it ... Then ask someone to work around yo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cunt.

  47. Alarm.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work on the Ops side for Alarm.com, a home automation and security company. All of our video connections to customers utilize a VPN. We have over 2.5 Million customers globally and I'm sure we could find a dealer for you to work with. Please go to our site to learn more.

  48. security company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you thought about Rogers Smart Home Monitoring? I don't know if their outside oc Canada, but they have pretty good service if you're willing to cough up the dough.

  49. Re:So, in other words by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    I understand it quite well. The point was that people are more commonly using it to appear like their traffic has originated somewhere else which is why the parent poster didn't know what the GP was trying to say. The fault lays with the GP's lack of knowledge not mine.

  50. You Fucking Moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has nothing ot do with hardware overhead. It has everything to do with overall systemic overhead. Adding encryption is just another layer that can go wrong, needs updating, penetration testing, etc etc. Like i said i take exception to the idea that all this traffic needs to be encrypted by default, not the idea of encryption. Your argument is security through obscurity and nothing more.

    So, rather than have an encrypted stream whose software may or may not need updating in the future, you think it's better to have no encryption at all? You are some kind of fucking idiot. Why do you use HTTPS/TLS for your web activities? Is that security through obscurity?

    Secure Real-time Protocol(SRTP) already exists and could be used for IP based CCTV video right now. It is currently used for VoIP and video calling and could be used in IP cameras and DVRs just as easily. But, lazy people and fucking morons like you have delayed this inevitability.

    Use your head! How is it logical to expose unencrypted DVRs and IP cameras and the IoT to the world without some type of encryption?

    1. Re:You Fucking Moron by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      "Use your head! How is it logical to expose unencrypted DVRs and IP cameras and the IoT to the world without some type of encryption?"

      Why? What are you trying to secure? That is the important question. IT does not matter to me if someone can see my IP camera signal on most of my public facing cameras. There is jsut no need for that most of the time. Im not saying there should be no encryption, im saying that requiring it by default is retarded.

      --
      Good-bye
  51. same problem with many IP cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been using webcams and motion (software) to scp camera snapshots up to my VPS. I want something more standalone (i.e. not requiring an external computer and scripts to run the cameras), but couldn't find *any* IP cameras that upload via sftp. Just lots of ftp and samba.

  52. Why not use SSH or OpenVpn, but before you ... by jobdrb · · Score: 1

    I was thinking about home security in a Global View, neighbors, energy-backup (thieves may down your power connection), internet supplemented connections (thieves may cut you wired internet connection) , store images (secure place with backup). And then look to secure the internet access to:
    - view cameras
    - control cameras
    - control other house system
    -> ssh and OpenVPN could help, you could have encryption and login control, tunneling, profile, have scripts, etc.
    Its also good thing create an wifi mesh network (or routed wired) with neighbors using VLan where all security traffic will go.

    just some toughs

  53. Re:So, in other words by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Imma get that. ;-)

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  54. CCTV Video Feeds by n4bme · · Score: 1

    There are several national providers that are doing just this, viewing CCTV footage before a police dispatch. Your best bet would be to ask your alarm monitoring company if they have affiliated with any of them yet (or why not?). I would expect that within 10-20 years all alarm monitoring will be verified this way and may actually eliminate the need for an alarm system if you configure the video system to report motion. Time will tell how well the public accepts someone who has the ability to view their cameras on demand.