this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2025
382 points (99.7% liked)

World News

50674 readers
3174 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 25 points 22 hours ago (15 children)

Ok this sounds bad, but I have a question...

Was the camera system accessible from the internet?

If not, this issue is far too overblown.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 19 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (3 children)

Usually, there's a network for IP cameras, with a central server holding the video. There's then, usually, a firewall to anything outside that, and frequently just a hardline to a monitoring system. (another computer with lots of monitors, typically.)

Most modern systems can VPN to the firewall and run a client there via remote desktop, and then access the monitoring system that way; but the server itself is not.

As to the complexity of the password, typically there's different levels of permissions. The basic ones would just let you monitor real time, probably review recordings, and maybe rip those recordings. (but not change settings, or otherwise delete anything.) A place like the Lourve would have multiple guard stations connecting in on the local network; with dozens of guards watching cameras at any given time; and would each need their own account/logins if you wanted to make the password actually complex.

a large part of the problem is just the sheer amount of people that would need to have acounts- the lourve says they have ~1300 'reception and security' staff. (for the record, reception would also be part of the security envelope... though they probably wouldn't need the password.)

anyone dialing in from off sight would likely have their own password (and have elevated permissions to allow that.). Frequently, by remote desktoping into a system on the local network.

You'll also notice theyre not saying the security system was actually compromised- even if the cameras were pointed the right way, they'd still have gotten in and out because the windows were a point of vulnerability. They might have been able to respond faster, but they were in and out in ten minutes. a camera wouldn't be able to stop that, if you account for normal human reaction times... if they'd even notice the 'contractors'.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 11 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Also, this was found by an audit years ago. Doesn't mean it was fixed, but doesn't mean it was still the same during or after the theft.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 7 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

At least it wasn’t the default password.

I’ve known clients that have never removed the default admin account, with a default admin password… and looked at me like I had a horn growing out my ear…

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 1 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

I'll admit it, I have systems at work with weak or default passwords. But they don't handle any sensitive information, and exploiting them wouldn't get you any additional privileges on the network.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago

that's just it... any vulnerable system lets them get their nose in the door, then the camel starts snooping around the tent for whatever it can get. Eventually, they find away to something juicy.

The thing is, whether we're talking about digital or physical security, the weakest thing in any system is the humans. The sloppy passwords (c'mon it should have been Louvre25! lol.) is a human thing. clicking that phising scam is a human thing. kipping off to the egyption bedroom for tryste with receptionist is a human thing.

the simple password isn't the problem. The people being complacent is.

[–] comrade_twisty@feddit.org 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Until someone figures out how to use this non critical system to exploit other parts of your network. An ssh shell on an internet connected coffee machine in a bank would make a great starting point to gain access to more critical systems for example.

[–] SaraTonin@lemmy.world 4 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

There was a story a few years back about a casino getting hacked through a smart thermometer in a fish tank.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago

the Target hack went in through the HVAC system.

Usually, there’s a network for IP cameras, with a central server holding the video. There’s then, usually, a firewall to anything outside that, and frequently just a hardline to a monitoring system. (another computer with lots of monitors, typically.)

I hate to say it man, but this assumes someone is going above and beyond to lock down the cameras.

I used to have a milestone implementation where I work. There was a security PC in a security office that has the cameras on and always logged in but nobody shuts down requests for camera access for other users. The flimsiest of justification is all that is necessary for the highest level of leadership to give the go ahead. We do manufacturing and everyone thinks these low quality grainy security cameras are a replacement to going on the floor and actually watching how things are working so dozens of non-security people had access.

When I started everybody was using the same local account to log in. I migrated us to AD authentication (with exception of the security PC) but anybody could still technically reach the camera system from the network.

Absolutely anybody could just enter the IP of a camera on the network though and view what it sees. Every camera had default passwords. We even had some fun brands like Hikvision that were banned in 2022 by the FCC. We had a firewall from the outside world, but a guest network that was not isolated at all.

We've migrated to a different solution that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and over a year of replacing cameras, but still probably a third of people in the org have access to the cameras for bullshit reasons and leadership doesn't care to shut it down. Thankfully none of them are admins and nobody but myself and a couple of others have any kind of admin level permissions now, but my point is that it's the wild west out there in terms of IT processes... and often Shadow IT from groups like a security team that isn't truly tech-savvy ends up running something like this.

If money didn't flow like water due to a total lack of purchasing controls and nobody complaining about expenditure at the time, we'd still be using the same old security cameras. I can't imagine the Lourve having much of a budget. museums are run like shitty nonprofits and are held together with string and bubblegum in the US.

[–] Ziggurat@jlai.lu 1 points 16 hours ago

You’ll also notice theyre not saying the security system was actually compromised- even if the cameras were pointed the right way, they’d still have gotten in and out because the windows were a point of vulnerability. They might have been able to respond faster, but they were in and out in ten minutes. a camera wouldn’t be able to stop that, if you account for normal human reaction times… if they’d even notice the ‘contractors’.

This, Camera are useless at stopping/preventing crime. Thanks to the Camera 5 persons have been charged and wait their trial in jail but camera won't prevent a jackasss to steal something in a museum

load more comments (11 replies)