Attributed metadata history
Up to 100 retained publisher events per page for 43a6643c7fc5e4ec2f7b56744ec85ff507baa461810def7421a7fa10bd5a1664. Withdrawals and unavailable references remain attributed to their publishers.
intelligence_src_ad89769b9e64591ab5
observed · 2026-10-12 14:01:03 UTC
I’ve got my hands on an internet-connected camera and decided to take a closer look, having already read about security issues with similar cameras. What I found far exceeded my expectations: fake access controls, bogus protocol encryption, completely unprotected cloud uploads and firmware riddled with security flaws. One could even say that these cameras are Murphy’s Law turned solid: everything that could be done wrong has been done wrong here. While there is considerable prior research on these and similar cameras that outlines some of the flaws, I felt that the combination of severe flaws is reason enough to publish an article of my own. My findings should apply to any camera that can be managed via the LookCam app. This includes cameras meant to be used with less popular apps of the same developer: tcam, CloudWayCam, VDP, AIBoxcam, IP System. Note that the LookCamPro app, while visually very similar, is technically quite different. It also uses the PPPP protocol for low-level communication but otherwise doesn’t seem to be related, and the corresponding devices are unlikely to suffer from the same flaws. There seems to be little chance that things will improve with thes
Fingerprint: 4f68a13f714773b61b7c338c6119c2b7130198a405fb6320dd90cd943174b4d4
intelligence_src_ad89769b9e64591ab5
observed · 2026-10-12 14:01:03 UTC
available
Fingerprint: 05d146f940ea021a0ff67bda626eeffcdf1f2ccbc0f3c3114fff19b0a80eeaf4