After six years of reviewing a variety of Wyze security cameras at Wirecutter, we’ve made the decision to suspend our recommendation of them from all our guides.

On September 8, 2023, The Verge reported an incident in which some Wyze customers were able to access live video from other users’ cameras through the Wyze web portal. We reached out to Wyze for details, and a representative characterized the incident as small in scope, saying they “believe no more than 10 users were affected.” Other than a post to its user-to-user online forum, Wyze Communities, and communication to those it says were affected, the company has not reached out to Wyze customers, nor has it provided meaningful details about the incident.

We believe Wyze is acting irresponsibly to its customers. As such, we’ve made the difficult but unavoidable decision to revoke our recommendation of all Wyze cameras until the company implements meaningful changes to its security and privacy procedures.

The concern is not that Wyze had a security incident—just about every company or organization in the world will probably have to deal with some sort of security trip-up, as we have seen with big banks, the US military, Las Vegas casinos, schools, and even Chick-fil-a. The greater issue is how this company responds to a crisis. With this incident, and others in the past, it’s clear Wyze has failed to develop the sorts of robust procedures that adequately protect its customers the way they deserve.

We spoke about this incident to peers, colleagues, and experts in the field, such as Ari Lightman, professor of digital media and marketing at Carnegie Mellon University; Jen Caltrider, program director at Mozilla’s Privacy Not Included; and Wirecutter senior staff writer Max Eddy. All of them agree the central issue is that Wyze has not proactively reached out to all its customers, nor has it been adequately accountable for its failures. “When these sort of things happen, [the company has to be] very open and transparent with [the] community as to why they screwed up,” Lightman explained. “Then the company has to say, ‘Here’s exactly what we’re going to be doing to rectify any potential situation in the future.’”

If this were the first such incident, we might be less concerned. However, it comes on the heels of a March 2022 Bitdefender study (PDF), which showed that Wyze took nearly three years to fully address specific security vulnerabilities that affected all three models of Wyze Cams. The company did eventually alert customers of the issue, and it notably guided them to stop using the first-generation Wyze Cam because “continued use of the WyzeCam after February 1, 2022 carries increased risk, is discouraged by Wyze, and is entirely at your own risk”—but that was long after the serious vulnerability was first discovered and reported to Wyze, on multiple occasions, without getting a response.

The fundamental relationship between smart-home companies and their customers is founded on trust. No company can guarantee safety and security 100% of the time, but customers need to be confident that those who make and sell these products, especially security devices, are worthy of their trust. Wyze’s inability to meet these basic standards puts its customers and its devices at risk, and also casts doubt on the smart-home industry as a whole.

In order for us to consider recommending Wyze’s cameras again, the company needs to devise and implement more rigorous policies, as most of its competitors already have. They need to be proactive, accountable, and transparent. Here’s what we expect from Wyze in the event of a security incident:

  • Reach out to customers as soon as possible: Send an email to all customers, send push notifications in the app, put out a press release, broadcast in the Wyze Communities online forum.
  • Describe the issue in detail and state precisely who was affected (and who wasn’t).
  • Explain specifically what steps are being taken to aid affected customers and what if any actions the customer needs to take on their own.
  • Follow-up with customers to let them know the issue has been resolved.

For anyone who has Wyze cameras and intends to continue using them, we recommend restricting their use to noncritical spaces or activities, such as outdoor locations. If you are looking for an alternative, better camera options are available—even for smart-home users on a budget.

This isn’t the first time Wirecutter has pulled a smart-home device due to concerns over accountability. In 2019, in response to a data breach at Ring, we retracted our endorsement of all of the company’s cameras. We eventually returned to reviewing Ring gear, and in some cases recommended them to our readers, after the company made a series of significant improvements to its programs and policies.

We continue to recommend Wyze lighting, since we consider them lower-risk, lower-impact devices—a security breach of a light bulb, for instance, wouldn’t give someone a view of your living room. Should Wyze change course and adopt more substantial policies like those above, we will be happy to resume testing and considering them for recommendation.

214 points

We continue to recommend Wyze lighting, since we consider them lower-risk, lower-impact devices—a security breach of a light bulb, for instance, wouldn’t give someone a view of your living room.

Call me paranoid, but I don’t want a company I don’t trust plugged into my network at all.

permalink
report
reply
83 points

I don’t consider this „paranoid“ at all.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

sadly there are a lot of people who only care about immediate gratification that would call that paranoid.

permalink
report
parent
reply
34 points

No, you’re not paranoid. I’d call it diligent.

The premise of the statement you quoted is faulty to the core. A device internal to your home network knows a lot about the design of your home network and it knows a lot about the other devices on your network, and it can be used to facilitate/relay malicious access to your other devices if it becomes compromised.

Wyze has always struggled with security problems…and I’ll admit that I do have several wyze cameras…but long ago decided their security was not trustworthy and created an entirely new virtual lan to run just my IOT stuff from. That, at least, reduces the exposure for some of their security issues. I certainly would never have interior cameras built by wyze - that’s too risky even with robust network security on my side of it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points
*

They’ll be able to flash Morse code at you

-... . / ... ..- .-. . / - --- / -.. .-. .. -. -.- / -.-- --- ..- .-. / --- ...- .- .-.. - .. -. .

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

you laugh, but you can exfiltrate data out of airgapped systems by flashing lights

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

He wasn’t laughing, he was overcome with a sudden craving for Ovaltine. He’ll be with you in a moment.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

And playing music!

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*

I tried translating that, but Lemmy formatting has borked it. The first three words are “BE SURE TO” but the rest is not translatable.

Never mind, I got it. And yes, I drink it every day. :)

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

They could also exfiltrate your information from inside your network and turn into ping flooding zombies

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Me neither. But building an entirely off-site video monitoring server is a bit over my head. So I just use cameras like this when I’m not home.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Any security system hosted in the cloud is inherently unsecure or at the very least a privacy nightmare. Invest in being friendly with neighbours.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Switch to Unifi. It’s enterprise-grade hardware and high quality software at consumer prices. If you know networking, you can set them up without connecting them to the internet while still being able to access them outside your network. If not, you can just use their free web portal to access your cameras. It’s probably easier than Wyze, and it’s certainly more secure.

I don’t normally like to shill brands on the internet, but for these people I make an exception.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I also use Unifi but it’s worth mentioning that Unifi Protect (current offering) requires an online Unifi account and a Unifi DVR, whereas the older Unifi Video required a local account and could be run on your own hardware. I like that my videos are not stored in the cloud, but I don’t know enough about how Unifi handles security to confirm that they couldn’t allow another user to stream video off your hardware directly. I’m not too concerned about the risk because I just use these for my front yard and it’s pretty convenient.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

Imagine a world where an adult person who has self respect feels need to coach his reasonable position like this…

People are too willing to place shody spyware in their houses. I don’t understand how we got here, I guess cell phones?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Hi paranoid, I’m dad.

permalink
report
parent
reply
94 points

Remember: When dealing with any IOT device, the “S” is for “Security”.

permalink
report
reply
6 points

There’s no S in IOT!!!

Wait… oh … 😲

permalink
report
parent
reply
88 points
*

Finally. I tossed mine after the incident last year.

EDIT: Wait, they replaced it with a Eufy camera? After the same thing happened with them last year?

permalink
report
reply
34 points

🤡

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

I personally use Amcrest + Home Assistant behind a firewall, but that’s far from perfect. I’ve been interested in the new Amazon Blink cameras too, since they support self hosting (at least in some capacity). Still a bit iffy about them though, for obvious reasons.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

You can flash the older Wyze cameras with custom firmware that has more self hosting capabilities but I haven’t tried it myself.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I hope Lorex doesn’t have a problem because that’s what I’m using.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

When in doubt, assume that it probably does. Use Wireshark to find all outbound traffic from your Lorex devices, and see what they’re talking to. There’s a good chance that they’re, at a minimum, fetching the time from an NTP server.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

AFIK they have some problems but not quite this bad. Maybe I don’t know all the incidents?

I thought they sent the preview video without HTTPS. Same with a face preview, and most concerning an ID string of unknown intent with the face preview.

I have a few outside and I’m pretty happy with them. The motion detection isn’t perfect, and you’d have to be lucky to read a license plate… but they are also pretty inexpensive.

Unfortunately they are susceptible to a standard deauth attack.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Mine is recording cats on our porch. We are always home and it doesn’t catch any audio that matters as we are rarely in the room where that window is. I would never have cameras pointed inside the house where I need privacy. Not even if I had it all hooked up to my own server the last thing I’d want is my private moments recorded lol. Freaking weird.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Our cameras point outside but the microphones are so retry sensitive and my office window is near two of them. I’m sure someone could hear my side of a phone call.

permalink
report
parent
reply
81 points

The article actually names the people they talked to. So rare to see actual journalism rather than the usual lazy “we talked to experts”, which is equivalent to “we just made shit up”.

permalink
report
reply
29 points

I happily subscribe to the New York Times. I feel it’s important to support a major source of actual quality journalism and content.

permalink
report
parent
reply
46 points

Blows my mind how ready people are to hook up a camera that streams to some fucking company, who the fuck knows what they do with it all. I guess some HR fuck said nobody looks at your data so it must be safe!!

permalink
report
reply
13 points

HR?

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Probably meant PR.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

People paying the company for the privilige of handing over their privacy are a resource.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Similarly confused by that comment.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 18K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 517K

    Comments