V380 IP camera configuring.

OK, I picked up a really cheap, new it's box, PTZ IP camera from a
charity shop to play about with, which I seem to have tracked down to a
model V380. It only offers wifi access, no LAN RJ45 and it seems to be
designed to operate as an access point mode, or to work with an
existing wifi access point where it announces 'setting up Smartlink'.

The latter is selected by pressing the reset button for two seconds
and pressing the button (name) on a router to allow it to log in -
except it doesn't. That despite resetting a spare router to default 192
range and knowing the cam's default IP is 192.168.1.1.

Browsing to 192.168.1.1, whilst connected to it's AP, does nothing. The
only official way to configure it, is using an Iphone App, or an
Android phone App, to be able to access and change the IP. Needless to
say, I don't have access to either.

I did manage to find a PC App, which does allow the output of cam to be
seen on my laptop, move it, plus audio, providing I switch my network
access point from my router, to the cam's AP - but the App seems to
have no facility to change the cam's configuration. I want to put the
cam on my 10.?.?.? network.

I have tried Telnet via various ports (80; 8899, 554) to the cam, when
connected to the AP, it doesn't respond at all. Suggestions please to
find a way to get in to configure it?

I have also tried Iphone and Android emulators and failed.

Wolf K wrote on 29/01/2019 :
In any case, IMO that camera is totally insecure. Wi-fi only access plus
"official" config limited to smartphone apps are red flags to me.

Best,

Yes, I am aware of the insecurity, but for the application I have in
mind that is not a problem.

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

In any case, IMO that camera is totally insecure. Wi-fi only access plus
"official" config limited to smartphone apps are red flags to me.

wifi and a custom app doesn't make it insecure at all.

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

In any case, IMO that camera is totally insecure. Wi-fi only access plus
"official" config limited to smartphone apps are red flags to me.

wifi and a custom app doesn't make it insecure at all.

Not marking the snips again, I see. Tsk, tsk.

no need. it's quite obvious what was snipped and what was retained.

Did you watch the CBC Marketplace segment I referenced? What's your take
on it?

linkbait.

the family in question had a weak password, which was reused on another
device. those were *their* mistakes. it was not a lack of security of
any of their devices.

Sitting in a van on the street outside, the Scalar team managed to
crack the family's Wi-Fi password in less than two hours. The same
password had been used to set up the thermostat, allowing them to
remotely turn the heat up or off completely.

next, they were phished, which is their mistake and has nothing to do
with device security:

The hackers then turned their attention to the family's front door.
Using a sophisticated phishing email, the ethical hackers managed to
trick Kenwood into giving them her log-in details for her home hub.

they also reused passwords, another mistake:

That password had also been used by Kenwood across other accounts,
including the family's Nest security cameras, allowing the team to
log in and view what was happening inside the home.

another mistake is not changing the default password:

A website called Insecam, thought to be hosted in Russia, live
streams footage from thousands of cameras still using factory-default
passwords, often without the knowledge of the cameras' owners.

and buying no name **** is never a good idea:

Both homeowners had purchased cameras from OOSSXX: a Chinese
manufacturer that only sells through Amazon.

none of that are flaws in iot devices.

the user is the weakest link.

The camera may not be insecure with the custom app, but I wouldn't bet
on it.

i would.

all of the above was entirely user error.

had they used a high entropy wifi passcode and did not reuse passwords
anywhere (not just devices, but also email, banks, etc.), none of it
would have happened. the amount of effort would be far too high to
justify bothering, at least for a drive-by.

Basic principle: if you can link to it, you can hack it. OP could
link to the camera and get its output _without_ that app. AFAICT, what
he couldn't do is get to the customisation setup.

the only way to link to it and see the video would be by being on the
*same* network, which would require either cracking the wifi passcode
or physical access to the wired lan.

don't blame devices if the user chooses to use a weak wifi passcode or
has a lack of physical security. neither are the fault of the camera.

Wolf K wrote:

Harry Bloomfield wrote:

OK, I picked up a really cheap, new it's box, PTZ IP camera from
a charity shop to play about with, which I seem to have tracked
down to a model V380. It only offers wifi access, no LAN RJ45 and
it seems to be designed to operate as an access point mode, or to
work with an existing wifi access point where it announces
'setting up Smartlink'.

The latter is selected by pressing the reset button for two
seconds and pressing the button (name) on a router to allow it to
log in - except it doesn't. That despite resetting a spare router
to default 192 range and knowing the cam's default IP is
192.168.1.1.

Browsing to 192.168.1.1, whilst connected to it's AP, does
nothing. The only official way to configure it, is using an
Iphone App, or an Android phone App, to be able to access and
change the IP. Needless to say, I don't have access to either.

I did manage to find a PC App, which does allow the output of cam
to be seen on my laptop, move it, plus audio, providing I switch
my network access point from my router, to the cam's AP - but the
App seems to have no facility to change the cam's configuration.
I want to put the cam on my 10.?.?.? network.

I have tried Telnet via various ports (80; 8899, 554) to the cam,
when connected to the AP, it doesn't respond at all. Suggestions
please to find a way to get in to configure it?

I have also tried Iphone and Android emulators and failed.

Well, you could borrow a smartphone.... :-)

I think "... a really cheap... ", "It only offers wifi access",
"The only official way to configure it, is using an Iphone App"
are clues that you can't get easily there from here. I'm happy for
you that you could at least see the output on your PC. To get
further, I think you need a utility that can hack into any
"Internet of Things" devices. I know nothing about those, except
that they exist, and an expert can gain access to your IoT devices
within minutes. [1]

In any case, IMO that camera is totally insecure. Wi-fi only
access plus "official" config limited to smartphone apps are red
flags to me.

Used as a security camera, being "insecure" makes little or no
difference. The only reason someone would care is if they want to hide
their camera too. I mean, all the camera does is view an area for bad
guys. If you can see the camera, makes little difference whether you
can see the view of the camera.

If you're using it for filming your sexcapades or some private
quarters for whatever reason, of course that's different.

I have been using an IP security camera for about two years now. I
took it off of the system router because it's too much interference.
I'm currently using it on a spare router. Probably better to buy an
ordinary camera with its own box. But it's doing well enough, and it
broadcasts the way a Wi-Fi router broadcasts.

Wolf K wrote:

nospam wrote:
Wolf K wrote:

In any case, IMO that camera is totally insecure. Wi-fi only
access plus "official" config limited to smartphone apps are red
flags to me.

wifi and a custom app doesn't make it insecure at all.

Not marking the snips again, I see. Tsk, tsk.

I think "nospam" is a troll from Apple groups.

John Doe explained :
I have been using an IP security camera for about two years now. I
took it off of the system router because it's too much interference.
I'm currently using it on a spare router. Probably better to buy an
ordinary camera with its own box. But it's doing well enough, and it
broadcasts the way a Wi-Fi router broadcasts.

I already have one, which has been playing nicely for around six years.
That was accessible and configuring via Windows.

As said this second one was cheap and has better resolution than the
first. I have no shortage of spare routers, so I wonder if a router
might be used to translate the cameras IP which cannot reconfigure
which is on 192.168.1.1 to my LAN's IP of 10.?.?.?

That supposes I can get the cam to even connect its wifi to a routers
wifi access point, it seems to be another sticking point at the moment.

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 06:44:48 GMT, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

John Doe explained :
I have been using an IP security camera for about two years now. I
took it off of the system router because it's too much interference.
I'm currently using it on a spare router. Probably better to buy an
ordinary camera with its own box. But it's doing well enough, and it
broadcasts the way a Wi-Fi router broadcasts.

I already have one, which has been playing nicely for around six years.
That was accessible and configuring via Windows.

As said this second one was cheap and has better resolution than the
first. I have no shortage of spare routers, so I wonder if a router
might be used to translate the cameras IP which cannot reconfigure
which is on 192.168.1.1 to my LAN's IP of 10.?.?.?

If the camera is currently set up as an access point, you'll need a
client in order to connect to it via WiFi. Check if any of your spare
routers can be configured to be in client mode. That's step one.

Assuming step one is done, grab a second spare router and connect its
WAN port to one of the LAN ports on the router from step one. Now you
can connect a LAN port from the second router to a LAN port on your main
LAN.

You'll need to do some configuration on both of the spare routers, but
what you're describing is certainly possible.

That supposes I can get the cam to even connect its wifi to a routers
wifi access point, it seems to be another sticking point at the moment.

If the camera is an access point, it definitely will not connect to
another access point. Two access points can't connect to each other. One
(or both) have to be clients.

Harry Bloomfield wrote:
John Doe explained :
I have been using an IP security camera for about two years now. I
took it off of the system router because it's too much interference.
I'm currently using it on a spare router. Probably better to buy an
ordinary camera with its own box. But it's doing well enough, and it
broadcasts the way a Wi-Fi router broadcasts.

I already have one, which has been playing nicely for around six years.
That was accessible and configuring via Windows.

As said this second one was cheap and has better resolution than the
first. I have no shortage of spare routers, so I wonder if a router
might be used to translate the cameras IP which cannot reconfigure which
is on 192.168.1.1 to my LAN's IP of 10.?.?.?

That supposes I can get the cam to even connect its wifi to a routers
wifi access point, it seems to be another sticking point at the moment.

But your camera is an access point.

You "connect" your PC to the camera as if the
camera is a "router with an SSID".

I must be missing something, because when I say the
previous sentence, all that comes to mind is
"what were they thinking?".

The camera runs BusyBox, which would be suitable for
devices that don't have enough Flash to run a larger OS.
It's possible there is a telnet back door, but once
in, what do you do then ? Freak out when you see a
BusyBox prompt ? I would.

Someone made a hacked firmware for generic V380
designs, but that's been removed from Github. It's not clear
whether DMCA takedown noticed were involved, or how that
came about. The archive.org copy is missing everything below
the top level. Including some kind of development environment
for making runtimes for the ingenic SOC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingenic_Semiconductor

(T20)
https://web.archive.org/web/20180209...uct/id/14.html

Paul

on 30/01/2019, Paul supposed :
But your camera is an access point.

You "connect" your PC to the camera as if the
camera is a "router with an SSID".

I must be missing something, because when I say the
previous sentence, all that comes to mind is
"what were they thinking?".

It is not very useful having to switch from my routers access point
which provides access to the rest of my LAN plus the Internet, to look
at the camera then back again.

Harry Bloomfield wrote:

Paul supposed :

But your camera is an access point.

You "connect" your PC to the camera as if the camera is a "router
with an SSID".

I must be missing something, because when I say the previous
sentence, all that comes to mind is "what were they thinking?".

It is not very useful having to switch from my routers access
point which provides access to the rest of my LAN plus the
Internet, to look at the camera then back again.

An access point IP camera would suit me. Instead of using a spare
router, I would connect it directly to my dirt cheap Moto E4 Plus.
Or to an inexpensive 8 inch tablet. I need to look and see what
model you have. I recall looking for an access point type, but
finding one is very tricky given all the hype. I vaguely recall
someone here saying it was a stupid idea. But it's a good idea for
me, given my circumstance. I don't need to access the thing remotely
and currently I have only one camera.

Will your camera transmit directly to a smartphone? If not, it's not
an access point.

I would assume there is no easy answer for switching your PC from
the Internet to an access point IP camera, or preferably having the
camera running in a window at the same time you are connected to the
Internet. Otherwise everybody would point it out.

Harry Bloomfield wrote:

John Doe explained :

I have been using an IP security camera for about two years now.
I took it off of the system router because it's too much
interference. I'm currently using it on a spare router. Probably
better to buy an ordinary camera with its own box. But it's doing
well enough, and it broadcasts the way a Wi-Fi router broadcasts.

I already have one, which has been playing nicely for around six
years.

If you (not you, personally) use a VPN and the VPN software requires
uploading it through one of their servers, then it becomes
problematic.

It happens that John Doe formulated :
Will your camera transmit directly to a smartphone? If not, it's not
an access point.

The graphics suggest it can act as an access point, so a Iphone or
Android phone can connect directly to it, software available, or the
cam can conect to either via a router. The picture quality seems quite
good HD on both colour and in black and white using the built in IR
LED's. The two way audio is not so good and the instructions are
hopeless Chinglish.

PC software is also available, but that only allows the cam to be
viewed, aimed and recorded - it has no facility to change the cams
configuration, or none I could find in it. Hence my problem.

Harry Bloomfield wrote:

It happens that John Doe formulated :

Will your camera transmit directly to a smartphone? If not, it's
not an access point.

The graphics suggest it can act as an access point

You failed to answer the question.

In article , Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

But your camera is an access point.

You "connect" your PC to the camera as if the
camera is a "router with an SSID".

I must be missing something, because when I say the
previous sentence, all that comes to mind is
"what were they thinking?".

It is not very useful having to switch from my routers access point
which provides access to the rest of my LAN plus the Internet, to look
at the camera then back again.

then set it up so you don't need to do that or get a different camera.