Ttdfjt

From the OP's link… or more precisely from the security report the tweet is linked to - Check Point Research Reveals Modern Cameras’ Connectivity to Wi-Fi Make Them Vulnerable to Ransomware and Malware

Here are some things camera owners can do to avoid being infected:

1. Make sure your camera is using the latest firmware version, and install a patch if available.


2. Turn off the camera’s WiFi when not in use.


3. When using WiFi, prefer using the camera as the WiFi access point, rather than connecting your camera to a public WiFi network.

That third point is the one - if your camera is the access point, then before you can even start to try to hack it you first need to hack into the access point. WPA2 is not impossible, but certainly not easy to hack. Once past that you would need to try to side-load the specific hack for that specific model of camera.

All the time you were doing this you'd have to be within 15m of the photographer.

Defcon does this kind of thing every year - it exposes weaknesses to make manufacturers change their practices, long-term. The thing is that you get good brownie points for finding a new exploit. It doesn't have to be one that's easy or even likely, it just has to be possible.

Cue crowds of cheering pen-testers.

As with all good white hat hackers, CheckPoint first told Canon about the exploit they had found & didn't make it public until after it had been patched.

Canon - Regarding the security advisory for Canon digital cameras related to PTP (Picture Transfer Protocol) communication functions and firmware update functions

Everything is hackable. There is no protection that cannot be circumvented, assuming that the data/device is in working/accessible condition.

The point is if is worth the effort. Arguably, there is little to be gained from getting access to a dedicated camera. A mobile phone would be far more profitable, more information, more entry vectors. It could even be used as an entry vector to other accounts/networks/devices.

Even thinking in ransomware scenarios, most photographers, from amateur onwards, usually rotate several SD cards. If you encrypt one, I'd just be sad I lost some pics, format it and move on. Then consider that all wireless connections of my camera are usually off (battery saving) and when I turn it on, it is for short periods of time (not many sniffing opportunities). And you can't really do it remotely, the hacker must have some sort of physical proximity... not trivial...

The video in your link seems to refer to this exploit where a Canon camera is attacked using vulnerabilities in the PTP implementation. This requires a data connection between the camera and the attacker: either via USB or WiFi. The camera would then accept and execute a firmware image which then can do anything, including encrypting the photos, sending them to the attacker, and bricking the camera itself, all of which can be used to collect ransom.

One important aspect of firmware viruses is that once infected, the device can never be fully trusted again: the process of updating firmware is controlled by the firmware itself, so sending a known clean firmware to the camera cannot guarantee that the device really accepts it without persisting any of the malicious code.

The good news is, firmware infections are known for at least half a decade now, but they never became mainstream. The costs of such attacks are too high to target regular users, so unless you are taking photos inside a nuclear facility in Iran, such an attack is quite unlikely. What is likely is getting your camera's storage infected with a regular PC virus.

Both attacks require a way to get the malicious data into your camera in the first place, so if you keep the wireless interfaces disabled and don't plug your camera or the storage cards into untrusted computers, there's nothing to worry about.

There are a few assumptions that go into the CheckPoint demonstration hack. Note that so far as I'm aware, this isn't a hack that is "in the wild" - this is a "white hat" hack where a ethical hacker tests the security of the device.

In ethical hacking, the findings are not immediately announced to the public. Instead, they inform the product vendor of the finding and provide them ample opportunity to produce a fix. Canon was notified and a fix is already available for the camera in question.

As someone who does work in the security field I can make a few general statements.

• There are many vulnerabilities that are detected by ethical people and where a software fix is made available prior to any unethical people learning about the exploit. Most of the time, this is how things work. But ...




• This comes with a consequence. Once a vendor makes a fix available, malicious hackers can compare the patched vs. unpatched software to see if they can work out what had to change. This provides them some clues as to where they might find the vulnerability. Once they find the vulnerability, then can build software to exploit it.




• This means that the security fix itself ... clues in unethical hackers about the vulnerability and gets them busy trying to build an exploit. But this takes time. It might happen in just a few days.




• THIS means that once a security patch is available, you really should make it a priority to download and install the security patch as soon as possible (preferably within just a few days). If you do this, your device will be patched from that particular vulnerability before any exploits show up in the wild.




• Trouble happens when security patches have been available for months (or years) and people don't bother to install the necessary updates. If you do not want to install feature updates ... that's one thing. But you should make a special effort to keep up with security updates.

Malicious hackers are regularly trying to build exploits against computers (operating systems & applications). But home electronics devices, such as home routers, security cameras, etc. -- anything with an Internet connection -- are particular ripe targets because often these devices are often a bit too casual about the security aspects of their design. They make mistakes that software vendors used to make 20 years ago when they did things such as having well-known default passwords -- or storing or transmitting sensitive data in-the-clear.

I have a home security camera (a doorbell camera) that stored the WiFi network password in-the-clear such that a malicious hacker would be able to retrieve the password and use the information to get into the home network.

While many of us have several devices that can be internet-connected in our homes, I typically choose to network these devices via "wired" connection if that's an option. This isn't just safer from a security perspective, it's also more reliable because you aren't competing for bandwidth with neighboring wifi networks.

A traditional photographic camera is a bit of a special case because the camera does not need any network connection to perform its function. The WiFi or Bluetooth option is usually just there is an option to allow remote functionality and/or to transfer files. I transfer files by removing the memory card and inserting it in the computer (it's much faster) and only use the WiFi feature if I'm away from home and don't have my card reader with me.

But as a more generalized answer ... there are more and more Internet of Things devices that need a WiFi connection in order to work. If the vendors of these products are not experienced at how to secure their products (and many are not) then they leave consumers vulnerable to these sorts of attacks.

Keep your products up-to-date ... especially for security updates.

I think you have just cause to be concerned. As stated by Fabio, everything is hackable. If you are press photographer, wedding photographer or are in the public arena as a competeitive photographer in any aspect, you should not activate wifi or you should use a body without the option. The risk of losing your own work to a competitor is too great. Can you imagine shooting a wedding and not selling any prints because someone stole everything that you shot straight from your own camera without your knowledge? Unless you absolutely need it, turn off wifi.

I am not a hacker but as programmer, I think there is not profit for such action. However it can be done. There is a lot architectures for cameras. They do not use same firmware, same hardware, same properties, etc. So writing a malware could be very very expensive. Recently, by improvement in cameras they can run limited version of operating systems. For example my canon 60D has firmware based on linux. I should note that many of electronic devices may have linux based os for better upgrades and better connectivity with peripheral devices. So the risk of be attacked by ransomware or any malware is increasing, while it is still too low to pay attention. Many of camera hardware breakage are based bad user operation not viruses, for example ejecting memory card without safe removing, ejecting memory card while camera is capturing, or using low quality memories. If some one steal your data or remove them when your camera is connected to a computer, you should worry about computer protection not camera