pro and con on WIRELESS!!

[tcssystem 0]

Hi guy, I think we usually get confuse on what kind of system transmission need to propose like wired or wireless. Everything there must be a pros and cons. Why not we really get into details on the advantages and disadvantages of wireless.

 

wireless

Advantages:

- convinient to install in those location wiring is difficult

- camera & system can be easily relocate

- camera can be hidden and portable

 

Disadvantages

- Video stream may be disturb from moving object or other strong frequencies.

- video and audio transmission is limited.

 

Im thinking to go in more details like security and etc. expample-is wireless data can be steal? is it possible for outsider to clone the freuency? and so on. what else about wireless??

[Thomas 0]

Cons:

Extremely expensive to do correctly.

Analog wireless is unencrypted.

IP Wireless might as well be unencrypted.

[kensplace 0]

Come to think of it, wireless (especially unencyrpted) is probably illegal in the UK for firms where their footage falls under the data protection act, as you have to ensure only authorised personel can see the footage.

With wireless, pretty much anyone that wants to can view it if they put their minds to it, after all it is being broadcast.....

 

 

Dont think I have heard of a case involving the DPA and wireless, but its probably bound to happen one day.

[rory 0]

There are 2 different types, should we go into detail with the 2 different ones, IP and Analogue?

 

Anyway, one con that is the same with both, Interference.

Also, unless you are going to use a nice big solar cell then there still has to be power wire run to the camera, so its no more hidden than if running the video wire.

 

Simply, only use wireless when it is absolutely impossible to run wire to a camera.

[WirelessEye 0]

I'd say the only con to wireless is the actual cost of the equipment. While relatively inexpensive, wired installations are generally much more cost effective.

 

I'd say the fact that wireless is insecure is a tad misunderstood. Wireless is only unsecure if you don't know how to properly secure it. If you don't run encryption on your wireless, you deserve to be hacked.

 

Wired on the other hand is limited to a much shorter range, and depending on the run length and the cable used, could be more expensive than wireless.

[Thomas 0]

Except that both encryption standards for WiFi are a joke. WEP might as well not exist and WAP can be broken in a fairly short period. If you think wireless can be properly secured then you aren't paying attention. The flaws in WEP aren't new and have been well documented for the last five years. The flaws in WPA are three years old. We're not talking about zero-day exploits here. We aren't talking about bad firmware. We are talking about fundemental flaws in how the standard is writen.

 

WEP: Easily Broken

WPA: " "

SSID Broadcasting disabled: Easily bypassed via tools like Kismet

Mac Address Filtering: Yeah, here is where the standard is great. Yep, lets broadcast MAC Addresses in PLAINTEXT. Yep. God knows the MAC Address spoofing hasn't been known for over ten years. Yep. Great thinking.

Subnetting: Okay, so I can't get at the rest of the network but I can turn your cameras into expensive paper weights by taking them off the network.

VPN Tunnel: So I can't see the camera but hey it's still off the network.

Point to point antenna: Better then 90% of the other suggestions as long as you can somehow keep the reciving end from talking to an onmi-directional source.

 

Did I miss any tricks?

 

Short of looking at microwave based gear then it should be assumed that any wireless install is insecure. Simply turning on encryption isn't going to get you anywhere.

[WirelessEye 0]

All true. However, the reality is that encryption is only one way of keeping people out or at least making it difficult for most to get in.

 

You can basically relate wireless to a house that you don't want to be broken into. You put up gates, locks, alarms, etc. to try to keep people out, just like wireless uses ecryption to try to keep people out.

 

Obviously, if someone wants in bad enough, they will get in. It's what takes place once they are "in" that is important.

 

Once they notice they are in an empty room with concrete walls and no doors, they are as harmless as someone who never got in, in the first place.

[Thomas 0]

Except that the encryption isn't anywhere near the protection of any of the things you mention. It's more akin to a gate with a broken lock. It keeps the really honest to and doesn't act like much of a speed bump to those who aren't.

 

And even if I put all of my cameras on the differant network, I still run the risk of some wanna be script kiddie taking the cameras offline at the same time something happens that needs to be recorded. Telling people that "wireless can be secured if you know what you're doing" is a really false statement because the wi-fi standards were rushed. Too many people forgot that processing power increases at rapid rate. What is "unbreakable" today is trival to break tomarrow.

 

Wireless systems have too many issues for current standards to ever be "secure". All you can do is limit the damage to a single camera going off the system. And there may be times when that is an acceptable risk. But acceptable risk is not the same thing as secure.

[WirelessEye 0]

I don't think you understood the point I was making. Of course you try to keep as many people out with encryption as you can. But once they are in, it is important that they have access to nothing. No cameras, no servers, and no settings. You can implement this type of security in wireless, much as you can in wired infrastructures.

 

We incorporate this into our security, and consider it VERY secure. You can run airsnort all day long on us and all it will do is allow you into our "concrete room".

[Thomas 0]

Except that your concrete room has valves in it. To get into that room I have to have kicked at least one camera off the network. Are you telling me that the ability to trvially remove cameras from the network is a secure design? Or the ability to remove all of the cameras from the network? Perhaps it won't allow for data loss, but will it continue to protect physical security?

[kensplace 0]

Another problem with wireless wifi type cctv is jammers, someone can jam the signal with a jammer, and the whole network of cameras could be killed.

 

Unlikely to happen unless large sums of money are involved, but thats where you need the most protection anyways......

[rory 0]

security is not even my issue ... inteference .. thats it .. if its IP based then it also quality / speed, not to mention the user has to be PC literate ..

[WirelessEye 0]

Except that your concrete room has valves in it. To get into that room I have to have kicked at least one camera off the network. Are you telling me that the ability to trvially remove cameras from the network is a secure design? Or the ability to remove all of the cameras from the network? Perhaps it won't allow for data loss, but will it continue to protect physical security?

 

Actually, to trivially remove cameras from the network, you have to get passed the concrete room. Thinking about changing radio settings to disable the association of the camera? Good luck, you got 1 shot at getting the password right before being disconnected and the encryption changing.

 

I do agree that jamming is real threat to wireless, however jammers only come with certain frequency ranges, so the subject would have to have either know what frequency you are using or have multiple jammers going at the same time-- not to mention the fact that jammers for high frequency (that actually work) are very expensive and their range is very limited.

[LittleScoobyMaster 0]

Hello WirelessEye.

 

Do you know if wireless IP cameras have the same type of interference as wireless analog cameras?

 

With wireless analog cams, interference causes the video signal to hop and roll and bend, etc.

 

What happens with wireless IP cams?

 

Same thing, or since the stream is digital, do you just drop frames and gain pixelization?

 

Thanks

[WirelessEye 0]

Please explain "wireless analog" and "wireless digital". I was under the impression any kind of data going over a wireless connection was digitized.

[LittleScoobyMaster 0]

Please explain "wireless analog" and "wireless digital". I was under the impression any kind of data going over a wireless connection was digitized.

 

Wireless analog would be like a regular television broadcast.

Wireless digital would be a stream of data that uses error correction, could be prone to packet sniffing, etc.

[Thomas 0]

Wireless analog is broadcast as a waveform. There is no binary converison.