Is there a two factor option for ring?

From: Ken Hohhof 
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2019 6:26 AM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ring doorbell lawsuit

In the case of Ring doorbells, I believe the doorbells communicate with a cloud 
server, in which case the doorbell’s IP address and whether or not you have a 
firewall is irrelevant.  Most cameras work this way, although some seem to act 
as servers and let the mobile device app contact the camera directly, I assume 
via some sort of dynamic DNS.

 

Reportedly all it takes to access your Ring account and access the doorbell or 
camera is your email address and password.  These “hackers” are using 
email/password combinations from previous data breaches and trying them against 
the Ring service to see which ones work.  Once Ring grants access to your 
account, they can view your stored video, watch the camera in real time, or 
even talk through the speaker.  It’s like hacking someone’s Gmail account, 
except Gmail does a better job of alerting you to  suspicious login attempts.

 

The reporting on this doesn’t do a very good job on this detail, you could get 
the impression they are directly accessing your device over the Internet and 
hacking into it, rather than hacking into your cloud account Ring’s servers.

 

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/epg4xm/amazon-ring-camera-security

 

I would also point out that firewalls don’t protect against a device on the 
trusted side establishing a connection to the outside, and also that all bets 
are off if you enable UPnP.

 

 

From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2019 9:44 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ring doorbell lawsuit

 

I appreciate an honest conversation. 

 

To me the whole “use temporary IPs” thing just says we are offering security 
through obscuring what IP it might be at. 

 

 


On Dec 28, 2019, at 9:34 AM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:

  Matt, I really appreciate your candor.  Your opinions often get flak for 
being blunt rather than being wrong and I think you don't deserve the heat as 
often as you get it.

  But in this particular case, that definitely doesn't meet the definition of 
security through obscurity.

  -Adam

   

  On 12/28/2019 3:17 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote:

    So security through obscurity. Got it. 


    On Dec 27, 2019, at 10:17 PM, Cassidy B. Larson <c...@infowest.com> wrote:

      temp ips are used until the tcp session ends for that stream. If I have 
an ssh window open for a  day, the temp IP is still showing in my interface 
config, but only until that particular ssh session is closed. New tcp sessions 
for a bank website would use a different temp IP then get expired after an hour 
or so if nothing else is using that temp address. 

       

      Inbound connections to temp ips that are not already “setup” (similar to 
a router nat translation rule) would be blocked by the os as temp ips are for 
outbound connections only.

       





        On Dec 27, 2019, at 20:07, Matt Hoppes 
<mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:

         

        Second time I’ve heard this. If it’s using random addresses how does 
anything communicate back with it?

         

        And things like banks that secure sessions based on ip addresss will 
break if the IP changes with each click. 


        On Dec 27, 2019, at 9:58 PM, Cassidy B. Larson <c...@infowest.com> 
wrote:

          IPv6 uses temporary addresses for sourcing outbound connections.  
Some random joe trying to connect back to that temp IP they found in their logs 
wont get them anywhere.  

          Of course, who knows if your ring doorbell on v6 might actually 
implement temp ipv6 ips. 





            On Dec 27, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Matt Hoppes 
<mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:

             

            You’re putting a lot of faith in that SOHO router. 

             

            I know NAT is not a firewall, but even poorly configured it takes 
some effort to open ports. 

             

            With ipv6 dropping the inbound firewall is rather trivial. 


            On Dec 27, 2019, at 8:24 PM, Adair Winter 
<ada...@amarillowireless.net> wrote:

              it's not like that won't be firewalled... NAT doesn't stop 
anything a firewall wouldn't. Consumer routers are going to come out of the box 
with in incoming deny.

               

              On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 7:21 PM Matt Hoppes 
<mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:

                And we want to roll ipv6 out to every device in the house and 
let them on the internet directly....


                On Dec 27, 2019, at 8:05 PM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote:

                  I am no fan of Amazon or of Ring doorbells.  But seriously, 
you can sue them for not forcing you to use two factor authentication?  Even 
when the customers say they have no idea what two factor authentication is?  As 
I understand it, these devices weren’t so much hacked as people chose weak 
passwords, or the same password as something else that had a data breach.

                   

                  It also seems that the class action suit waiver agreeing to 
arbitration should get the suit thrown out, but who knows.

                   

                  
https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/12/27/21039517/amazon-ring-hacking-lawsuit

                   

                  I’m guessing people are filling their homes with “things” 
that will have similar problems.  Oh, and I had the radio on in the car and the 
one guy said “Hey Alexa” and the other guy scolded him for saying “the A word”. 
 Evidently if you give Alexa an instruction on the radio, thousands of houses 
get their lights turned on or thermostat turned up or whatever.

                  -- 
                  AF mailing list
                  AF@af.afmug.com
                  http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

                -- 
                AF mailing list
                AF@af.afmug.com
                http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com




               

              -- 

              Adair Winter
              VP, Network Operations / Co-Owner
              Amarillo Wireless | 806.316.5071
              C: 806.231.7180
              http://www.amarillowireless.net


               

              -- 
              AF mailing list
              AF@af.afmug.com
              http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

            -- 
            AF mailing list
            AF@af.afmug.com
            http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

           

          -- 
          AF mailing list
          AF@af.afmug.com
          http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

        -- 
        AF mailing list
        AF@af.afmug.com
        http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

      -- 
      AF mailing list
      AF@af.afmug.com
      http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com





  -- 
  AF mailing list
  AF@af.afmug.com
  http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Reply via email to