New cameras from Netgear-Arlo
-
@JaredBusch said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@scottalanmiller said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@Dashrender said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
So sure, while it's possible JB could have been implying that vendors could setup a connection via proxy like I described - if that was really happening, we wouldn't have devices getting taken over because those cloud providers would (god I hope) require the user to setup an account that would be used to link their camera too.
You described ports being open. Which is what Jared had said. Those were the two things that I was putting together.
He thinks there is some way for them to not be open publicly without going through a third party. There is not.
NO I'm NOT! I am talking about using a third party 100% of the time!
-
@Dashrender said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@JaredBusch said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@scottalanmiller said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@Dashrender said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
So sure, while it's possible JB could have been implying that vendors could setup a connection via proxy like I described - if that was really happening, we wouldn't have devices getting taken over because those cloud providers would (god I hope) require the user to setup an account that would be used to link their camera too.
You described ports being open. Which is what Jared had said. Those were the two things that I was putting together.
He thinks there is some way for them to not be open publicly without going through a third party. There is not.
NO I'm NOT! I am talking about using a third party 100% of the time!
How, how does a third party help unless the third party is hosting the data stream at enormous cost?
-
@JaredBusch said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
This is exactly what I am talking about - and yes I know it requires a third party.. but the expense is so low that something like $1 a device sold will probably cover the costs of keeping it online for ages.
-
@Dashrender said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@JaredBusch said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@scottalanmiller said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@Dashrender said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
So sure, while it's possible JB could have been implying that vendors could setup a connection via proxy like I described - if that was really happening, we wouldn't have devices getting taken over because those cloud providers would (god I hope) require the user to setup an account that would be used to link their camera too.
You described ports being open. Which is what Jared had said. Those were the two things that I was putting together.
He thinks there is some way for them to not be open publicly without going through a third party. There is not.
NO I'm NOT! I am talking about using a third party 100% of the time!
Right and I told you they wont do it. Sure the odd company may (possibly nest), but most certainly will not for very simple reasons. It costs money to pay for bandwidth.
-
@Dashrender said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@scottalanmiller said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@Dashrender said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
My solution completely short circuits this by requiring your to log into the proxy host, then have the handshake solution I mentioned above. The firewall will never have general for anyone port open.
It's this proxy thing that I don't understand. Who has a proxy like this and how does it work?
Skype did for years, until just before MS bought them and changed their system to a centralized one.
In the old days Skype was point to point, the skype servers only served as a directory so users could find each other. But after their contact information was passed to each other through the proxy, the Proxy was no longer part of the conversation, therefore the fed couldn't easily intercept the and monitor the traffic.
Yes, point to point with firewalls open via UPnP. Just as Jared has been describing. If Skype is your example, I think Jared is de facto correct. Skype doesn't meet the qualification that you are looking for unless I'm missing something big about Skype.
-
@scottalanmiller said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@Dashrender said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@JaredBusch said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@scottalanmiller said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@Dashrender said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
So sure, while it's possible JB could have been implying that vendors could setup a connection via proxy like I described - if that was really happening, we wouldn't have devices getting taken over because those cloud providers would (god I hope) require the user to setup an account that would be used to link their camera too.
You described ports being open. Which is what Jared had said. Those were the two things that I was putting together.
He thinks there is some way for them to not be open publicly without going through a third party. There is not.
NO I'm NOT! I am talking about using a third party 100% of the time!
How, how does a third party help unless the third party is hosting the data stream at enormous cost?
As I said, the stream never flows through the third party.. the proxy is only there to enable the endpoints to create a point to point connection.
-
@scottalanmiller said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@Dashrender said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@scottalanmiller said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@Dashrender said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
My solution completely short circuits this by requiring your to log into the proxy host, then have the handshake solution I mentioned above. The firewall will never have general for anyone port open.
It's this proxy thing that I don't understand. Who has a proxy like this and how does it work?
Skype did for years, until just before MS bought them and changed their system to a centralized one.
In the old days Skype was point to point, the skype servers only served as a directory so users could find each other. But after their contact information was passed to each other through the proxy, the Proxy was no longer part of the conversation, therefore the fed couldn't easily intercept the and monitor the traffic.
Yes, point to point with firewalls open via UPnP. Just as Jared has been describing. If Skype is your example, I think Jared is de facto correct. Skype doesn't meet the qualification that you are looking for unless I'm missing something big about Skype.
NO!
-
@Dashrender said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@scottalanmiller said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@Dashrender said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@scottalanmiller said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@Dashrender said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
My solution completely short circuits this by requiring your to log into the proxy host, then have the handshake solution I mentioned above. The firewall will never have general for anyone port open.
It's this proxy thing that I don't understand. Who has a proxy like this and how does it work?
Skype did for years, until just before MS bought them and changed their system to a centralized one.
In the old days Skype was point to point, the skype servers only served as a directory so users could find each other. But after their contact information was passed to each other through the proxy, the Proxy was no longer part of the conversation, therefore the fed couldn't easily intercept the and monitor the traffic.
Yes, point to point with firewalls open via UPnP. Just as Jared has been describing. If Skype is your example, I think Jared is de facto correct. Skype doesn't meet the qualification that you are looking for unless I'm missing something big about Skype.
NO!
Yes. You are incorrect in how you think Skype worked.
-
@Dashrender said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@scottalanmiller said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@Dashrender said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@JaredBusch said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@scottalanmiller said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@Dashrender said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
So sure, while it's possible JB could have been implying that vendors could setup a connection via proxy like I described - if that was really happening, we wouldn't have devices getting taken over because those cloud providers would (god I hope) require the user to setup an account that would be used to link their camera too.
You described ports being open. Which is what Jared had said. Those were the two things that I was putting together.
He thinks there is some way for them to not be open publicly without going through a third party. There is not.
NO I'm NOT! I am talking about using a third party 100% of the time!
How, how does a third party help unless the third party is hosting the data stream at enormous cost?
As I said, the stream never flows through the third party.. the proxy is only there to enable the endpoints to create a point to point connection.
If the stream is not from the third party, then it is UPNP or UDP Punching, and those are open to the world.
-
@Dashrender said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@scottalanmiller said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@Dashrender said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
My solution completely short circuits this by requiring your to log into the proxy host, then have the handshake solution I mentioned above. The firewall will never have general for anyone port open.
It's this proxy thing that I don't understand. Who has a proxy like this and how does it work?
Skype did for years, until just before MS bought them and changed their system to a centralized one.
Skype specifically used UDP Hole Punching...
http://www.h-online.com/security/features/How-Skype-Co-get-round-firewalls-747314.html
-
@Dashrender said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@scottalanmiller said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@Dashrender said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@scottalanmiller said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@Dashrender said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
My solution completely short circuits this by requiring your to log into the proxy host, then have the handshake solution I mentioned above. The firewall will never have general for anyone port open.
It's this proxy thing that I don't understand. Who has a proxy like this and how does it work?
Skype did for years, until just before MS bought them and changed their system to a centralized one.
In the old days Skype was point to point, the skype servers only served as a directory so users could find each other. But after their contact information was passed to each other through the proxy, the Proxy was no longer part of the conversation, therefore the fed couldn't easily intercept the and monitor the traffic.
Yes, point to point with firewalls open via UPnP. Just as Jared has been describing. If Skype is your example, I think Jared is de facto correct. Skype doesn't meet the qualification that you are looking for unless I'm missing something big about Skype.
NO!
You know stuff about Skype that no one else does, then. Where are you getting this information?
-
@Dashrender said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@scottalanmiller said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@Dashrender said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@JaredBusch said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@scottalanmiller said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@Dashrender said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
So sure, while it's possible JB could have been implying that vendors could setup a connection via proxy like I described - if that was really happening, we wouldn't have devices getting taken over because those cloud providers would (god I hope) require the user to setup an account that would be used to link their camera too.
You described ports being open. Which is what Jared had said. Those were the two things that I was putting together.
He thinks there is some way for them to not be open publicly without going through a third party. There is not.
NO I'm NOT! I am talking about using a third party 100% of the time!
How, how does a third party help unless the third party is hosting the data stream at enormous cost?
As I said, the stream never flows through the third party.. the proxy is only there to enable the endpoints to create a point to point connection.
That's a nice theory, but where does this exist? Can you come up with any example of such a technology? You keep repeating this but to us it sounds like just "magic" in the middle. Skype wasn't able to do this, why would some random video vendor? How can such a technology work when it goes against the firewalls?
-
@scottalanmiller BTW, I know where he went south on this. He has apparently always thought there was some magic secret sauce to the Skype thing. It is true that the node your went through in old Skype jsut handed off address info, it did not mean that a person form that IP the node was on could not attempt to barge the call if they knew the info from port sniffing after the call was initiated. It is simple UDP/UPNP.
Edit: Skype advertised on their FAQ that the signaling nodes knew nothing about the calls. This was true from the sense that the SKype software that was the node did not do anything to know about the calls.
But he took that to mean that the call was somehow secure point to point which it never was (encryption not withstanding).
-
It was a very cleaver trick that worked based on timing.
Camera tells proxy server it's IP address and Port abc that it will talk on
viewer tells proxy server it's IP address and port xyz that it will talk onthe Proxy gives the camera the viewer info, and the viewer the camera info.
Now there's a race condition - the camera will attempt to connect directly to the viewer on the provided information, this pokes a hole in the NAT firewall of the camera network, that will only accept traffic back on the port provided by the camera to the proxy and only from the IP of the viewer (again, just like how web surfing works)
At the same time, the viewer is doing the exactly same thing - the viewer will attempt to connect directly to the camera on the information provided though the proxy, the viewer's firewall will only accept traffic back on the port provided to the viewer to the proxy and only from the IP of the camera (again, just like web surfing)Assuming these connections happen at an overlapping time frame, both firewalls will consider the traffic from the other peer as expected and allow it through the NAT firewall into the device.
-
@JaredBusch said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@scottalanmiller BTW, I know where he went south on this. He has apparently always thought there was some magic secret sauce to the Skype thing. It is true that the node your went through in old Skype jsut handed off address info, it did not mean that a person form that IP the node was on could not attempt to barge the call if they knew the info from port sniffing after the call was initiated. It is simple UDP/UPNP.
Edit: Skype advertised on their FAQ that the signaling nodes knew nothing about the calls. This was true from the sense that the SKype software that was the node did not do anything to know about the calls.
But he took that to mean that the call was somehow secure point to point which it never was (encryption not withstanding).
Wow - I really didn't make any of those assumptions.
-
@Dashrender said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
Camera tells proxy server it's IP address and Port abc that it will talk on
It also has to public which one it will listen on, that's the "open firewall" portion. YOu can't talk without listening in TCP/IP.
-
@Dashrender said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@JaredBusch said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@scottalanmiller BTW, I know where he went south on this. He has apparently always thought there was some magic secret sauce to the Skype thing. It is true that the node your went through in old Skype jsut handed off address info, it did not mean that a person form that IP the node was on could not attempt to barge the call if they knew the info from port sniffing after the call was initiated. It is simple UDP/UPNP.
Edit: Skype advertised on their FAQ that the signaling nodes knew nothing about the calls. This was true from the sense that the SKype software that was the node did not do anything to know about the calls.
But he took that to mean that the call was somehow secure point to point which it never was (encryption not withstanding).
Wow - I really didn't make any of those assumptions.
Then explain what assumption you are making, because you are claiming something that does not exist.
-
@Dashrender said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
It was a very cleaver trick that worked based on timing.
Camera tells proxy server it's IP address and Port abc that it will talk on
viewer tells proxy server it's IP address and port xyz that it will talk onthe Proxy gives the camera the viewer info, and the viewer the camera info.
Now there's a race condition - the camera will attempt to connect directly to the viewer on the provided information, this pokes a hole in the NAT firewall of the camera network, that will only accept traffic back on the port provided by the camera to the proxy and only from the IP of the viewer (again, just like how web surfing works)
At the same time, the viewer is doing the exactly same thing - the viewer will attempt to connect directly to the camera on the information provided though the proxy, the viewer's firewall will only accept traffic back on the port provided to the viewer to the proxy and only from the IP of the camera (again, just like web surfing)So there is something huge missing here.... you are talking about application data but thinking that it controls the firewall. But it cannot do that. How would a camera proxy tell your firewall to do this? It can't. The only way to do this that I can see is to turn off the main firewall completely unless you are using UPnP or similar.
-
The idea that a proxy could feed information to an application somewhere to listen on a specific port is one thing, but that would do nothing for the outside firewall, leaving the devices unable to communicate.
-
@scottalanmiller said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
@Dashrender said in New cameras from Netgear-Arlo:
Camera tells proxy server it's IP address and Port abc that it will talk on
It also has to public which one it will listen on, that's the "open firewall" portion. YOu can't talk without listening in TCP/IP.
OK let's step back and answer another question first.
how does web surfing work through a NAT firewall?
A client behind a NAT firewall sends out some traffic to the NAT, it then assigned a port to that traffic and send it to the web server, the webserver gets the traffic along with the port it needs to respond on, and then responds on that port?
The firewall sees the incoming traffic on that port, from the IP it sent traffic out on, on behalf of our client PC, so it knows that it's valid incoming traffic and sends it inside the network to the client.
is this correct?
