@JourneymanGeek At least in Tarkov I had good runs

Also I had the fucking weirdest run yesterday on Woods. I was in the sunken village, heading west. I was just exiting the last building looking for food, when I saw a guy approaching the village, wearing a Kolpak. he was looking south, and when I started shooing at him with my shotgun, he just...didn't move

He just took it like an absolute Chad and died. What a hero.

I looted him, then headed more east, to the Scav Bridge. I was hugging the river, when suddenly, I heard someone shooting at me from what I thought to be the river side (which should have been outside the map, but who knows, maybe a Scav Sniper)

Suddenly, two dudes popped up from the tall grass, both wearing a Kolpak. I thought "oh fuck, I'm dead" when one of them just BOLTS OFF LIKE HIS LIFE DEPENDED ON IT

And the other just...looks at me. So I took my shotgun and shot him in the face

I just took his dogtag, but I was scared his buddy would come back, so I just left him there and headed south to the small camp (the one east of the Scav Bunker extract, with the food)

I took a snack in the hut there, ran west to the scav bunker and YET ANOTHER GUY with a Kolpak is there. I shoot him in the head, loot him and now I'm really weirded out

Like, why the fuck is everyone wearing a Kolpak. Why is nobody shooting at me? What the fuck is going on?!

I just straight up hugged the western rim, past the USEC Camp, all the way down to the scav house and exfiltrated

I swear the Kolpak incident was so weird. I can't wear that helmet anymore

Many IP security camera manufacturers have publicly available utilities to detect and program their cameras

Somebody just asked on another forum whether it would be safer for them to only allow authorized dealers/owners to download the utilities, to make it harder for attackers to mess up the system

My first thought was this was security through obscurity - the cameras still respond to the same protocols on the same ports

A determined attacker could still cause problems

But at the same time, the obscurity could eliminate lower-skilled attackers

Anybody else have thoughts on this?

A 'lower skilled' attacker, uses a hammer.

As soon as a single instance of their tools get leaked, it's over.

If attackers are on the network, the traffic is already comprimised

@djsmiley2kStaysInside :) I was thinking high school kid who manages to access a different VLAN from the computer lab

Why is the CCTV exposed in the Lab o_O

Obviously, it's already throwing up alerts somewhere, because 'weird mac address just appeared on network' too

The IT department in my hypothetical scenarios is incredibly inept

Because I'm presuming competence but sleepy operator.

Well, I imagine the first thing the kid notices, is they now have 100Mbit unfettered access to the internet, because of course they do for camera updates.

For most camera installers, they don't bother with stuff like 802.1x. It's often just electricians with basic computer skills, and IT departments just trust them to plug in switches and stuff

Yeah, my point is, a determined attacker would have no issue, tools or not

hell,m they'd go out and buy the same cameras

Right

a random kid, wouldn't care

So by no way does 'limiting access to the tools' increase security in any noticable way

infact, it'd likely mean that IT tech 1 leaves, and no one else even knows the login to get the tools, so they never get updated etc.

@djsmiley2kStaysInside Basically, anybody motivated enough to find the camera brand and download the right utility is motivated enough to get the utility through other means

yup

@djsmiley2kStaysInside You could probably count the number of IT departments who keep their cameras' firmware up to date on one hand...

Security cameras sit at a cross-section of IT department, security department, and low-voltage contractor. Nobody wants to be responsible for updating and breaking things.