After six years of reviewing a variety of Wyze security cameras at Wirecutter, we’ve made the decision to suspend our recommendation of them from all our guides.

On September 8, 2023, The Verge reported an incident in which some Wyze customers were able to access live video from other users’ cameras through the Wyze web portal. We reached out to Wyze for details, and a representative characterized the incident as small in scope, saying they “believe no more than 10 users were affected.” Other than a post to its user-to-user online forum, Wyze Communities, and communication to those it says were affected, the company has not reached out to Wyze customers, nor has it provided meaningful details about the incident.

We believe Wyze is acting irresponsibly to its customers. As such, we’ve made the difficult but unavoidable decision to revoke our recommendation of all Wyze cameras until the company implements meaningful changes to its security and privacy procedures.

The concern is not that Wyze had a security incident—just about every company or organization in the world will probably have to deal with some sort of security trip-up, as we have seen with big banks, the US military, Las Vegas casinos, schools, and even Chick-fil-a. The greater issue is how this company responds to a crisis. With this incident, and others in the past, it’s clear Wyze has failed to develop the sorts of robust procedures that adequately protect its customers the way they deserve.

We spoke about this incident to peers, colleagues, and experts in the field, such as Ari Lightman, professor of digital media and marketing at Carnegie Mellon University; Jen Caltrider, program director at Mozilla’s Privacy Not Included; and Wirecutter senior staff writer Max Eddy. All of them agree the central issue is that Wyze has not proactively reached out to all its customers, nor has it been adequately accountable for its failures. “When these sort of things happen, [the company has to be] very open and transparent with [the] community as to why they screwed up,” Lightman explained. “Then the company has to say, ‘Here’s exactly what we’re going to be doing to rectify any potential situation in the future.’”

If this were the first such incident, we might be less concerned. However, it comes on the heels of a March 2022 Bitdefender study (PDF), which showed that Wyze took nearly three years to fully address specific security vulnerabilities that affected all three models of Wyze Cams. The company did eventually alert customers of the issue, and it notably guided them to stop using the first-generation Wyze Cam because “continued use of the WyzeCam after February 1, 2022 carries increased risk, is discouraged by Wyze, and is entirely at your own risk”—but that was long after the serious vulnerability was first discovered and reported to Wyze, on multiple occasions, without getting a response.

The fundamental relationship between smart-home companies and their customers is founded on trust. No company can guarantee safety and security 100% of the time, but customers need to be confident that those who make and sell these products, especially security devices, are worthy of their trust. Wyze’s inability to meet these basic standards puts its customers and its devices at risk, and also casts doubt on the smart-home industry as a whole.

In order for us to consider recommending Wyze’s cameras again, the company needs to devise and implement more rigorous policies, as most of its competitors already have. They need to be proactive, accountable, and transparent. Here’s what we expect from Wyze in the event of a security incident:

  • Reach out to customers as soon as possible: Send an email to all customers, send push notifications in the app, put out a press release, broadcast in the Wyze Communities online forum.
  • Describe the issue in detail and state precisely who was affected (and who wasn’t).
  • Explain specifically what steps are being taken to aid affected customers and what if any actions the customer needs to take on their own.
  • Follow-up with customers to let them know the issue has been resolved.

For anyone who has Wyze cameras and intends to continue using them, we recommend restricting their use to noncritical spaces or activities, such as outdoor locations. If you are looking for an alternative, better camera options are available—even for smart-home users on a budget.

This isn’t the first time Wirecutter has pulled a smart-home device due to concerns over accountability. In 2019, in response to a data breach at Ring, we retracted our endorsement of all of the company’s cameras. We eventually returned to reviewing Ring gear, and in some cases recommended them to our readers, after the company made a series of significant improvements to its programs and policies.

We continue to recommend Wyze lighting, since we consider them lower-risk, lower-impact devices—a security breach of a light bulb, for instance, wouldn’t give someone a view of your living room. Should Wyze change course and adopt more substantial policies like those above, we will be happy to resume testing and considering them for recommendation.

  • @NevermindNoMind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1682 years ago

    We continue to recommend Wyze lighting, since we consider them lower-risk, lower-impact devices—a security breach of a light bulb, for instance, wouldn’t give someone a view of your living room.

    Call me paranoid, but I don’t want a company I don’t trust plugged into my network at all.

    • @krayj@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      312 years ago

      No, you’re not paranoid. I’d call it diligent.

      The premise of the statement you quoted is faulty to the core. A device internal to your home network knows a lot about the design of your home network and it knows a lot about the other devices on your network, and it can be used to facilitate/relay malicious access to your other devices if it becomes compromised.

      Wyze has always struggled with security problems…and I’ll admit that I do have several wyze cameras…but long ago decided their security was not trustworthy and created an entirely new virtual lan to run just my IOT stuff from. That, at least, reduces the exposure for some of their security issues. I certainly would never have interior cameras built by wyze - that’s too risky even with robust network security on my side of it.

    • @Rediphile@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      72 years ago

      Me neither. But building an entirely off-site video monitoring server is a bit over my head. So I just use cameras like this when I’m not home.

      • @Chickenstalker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        142 years ago

        Any security system hosted in the cloud is inherently unsecure or at the very least a privacy nightmare. Invest in being friendly with neighbours.

      • @gamer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        32 years ago

        Switch to Unifi. It’s enterprise-grade hardware and high quality software at consumer prices. If you know networking, you can set them up without connecting them to the internet while still being able to access them outside your network. If not, you can just use their free web portal to access your cameras. It’s probably easier than Wyze, and it’s certainly more secure.

        I don’t normally like to shill brands on the internet, but for these people I make an exception.

        • @olympicyes@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 years ago

          I also use Unifi but it’s worth mentioning that Unifi Protect (current offering) requires an online Unifi account and a Unifi DVR, whereas the older Unifi Video required a local account and could be run on your own hardware. I like that my videos are not stored in the cloud, but I don’t know enough about how Unifi handles security to confirm that they couldn’t allow another user to stream video off your hardware directly. I’m not too concerned about the risk because I just use these for my front yard and it’s pretty convenient.

          • @gamer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            22 years ago

            Are you sure? I currently have an online account (because it was easier to give other people access and I too only have these watching my yard), but I remember when I first set it up in my home I was using a local account created in the DVR’s portal (a Cloudkey Gen 2). The web portal is hosted on the cloudkey, you can access it via any web browser, and the cameras will record to it without an internet connection.

            I could’ve sworn you could host the camera server without a Unifi DVR, but apparently not. The network stuff can be though. I guess that’s important to keep in mind, although I’d be surprised if they removed the ability to use the DVR without an online account.

            • @olympicyes@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              22 years ago

              I know there was an issue a while ago that you couldn’t connect directly to your cameras using iOS via the LAN. It had to go online. I remember now a hastily rolled out patch in response to a data breach. So to answer your question, I’m not 100% sure. I use my cameras like you do but this is an important topic for someone who doesn’t want their system online in any capacity.

    • sadreality
      link
      fedilink
      6
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Imagine a world where an adult person who has self respect feels need to coach his reasonable position like this…

      People are too willing to place shody spyware in their houses. I don’t understand how we got here, I guess cell phones?

  • @DigitalFrank@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    622 years ago

    The article actually names the people they talked to. So rare to see actual journalism rather than the usual lazy “we talked to experts”, which is equivalent to “we just made shit up”.

    • @theragu40@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      232 years ago

      I happily subscribe to the New York Times. I feel it’s important to support a major source of actual quality journalism and content.

  • @Fades@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    402 years ago

    Blows my mind how ready people are to hook up a camera that streams to some fucking company, who the fuck knows what they do with it all. I guess some HR fuck said nobody looks at your data so it must be safe!!

    • @0110010001100010@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      232 years ago

      If you want to self-host you NVR then anything RTSP or ONVIF. I have a combination of Ubiquiti, Reolink, Dahua, and Amcrest cameras. They sit on their own network with no Internet access and can only talk to the NVR. That’s not exactly an easy setup though unless you are fairly technical but it is a private one.

        • @totallynotarobot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          132 years ago

          If someone uses acronyms without explaining them, they’re “flexing” and can be ignored.

          But this person made it extra confusing by typo-ing “your NVR” as “you NVR,” which makes “NVR” seem like a verb.

          NVR = Network Video Recorder. A thing that records videos locally from your cameras.

          • @RaoulDook@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -1
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Nah, that’s just a cope statement. I knew what all those acronyms meant already, as would anyone who deals with security cameras with any regularity. Also, using acronyms properly is a concise method of communicating useful information.

            If you were actually interested in the topic instead of just trying to imagine that people are “flexing” their knowledge to cope with lack of your own, you could simply use a search engine to learn what those acronyms meant in a few seconds of time.

        • @olympicyes@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 years ago

          RSTP is the streaming cam protocol. It shows up as a url with rstp:// instead of https://. You can type that url into streaming video apps like VLC (video lan client) and watch your videos with no configuration. There is no security on the feed so you have to secure your network instead.

        • @corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          To translate, a decent set-up involves a self-hosted controller and recorder unit, to which cameras speaking an open protocol connect. RTSP- or ONVIF-style cameras are often chosen for compatibility with a standard central unit (Network Video Recorder, or NVR).

          Brands like ReoLink, Dahua, Armcrest, and (to a lesser extent) Ubiquiti, will easily connect to that self-hosted NVR; although, if some of those camera brands are sketchy then you may need to confirm they’re isolated from the world and test that assumption regularly.

      • @gamer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        32 years ago

        Any specific reason for the mixed brands? I went 100% Unifi in my home (cameras and networking equipment) and it’s amazing. Everything just works, and the apps are great. While I haven’t bothered to go through the effort of setting up a VPN so that the NVR is disconnected from the internet, I know it’s doable.

        • @0110010001100010@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 years ago

          Not really. I have a third-party NVR that can take any standards-based camera. I like the Dahua camera over the garage since it handles direct headlights VERY well. The Ubiquiti ones were a holdover from when I ran all their stuff I just haven’t replaced them. The Reolink was a cheap option to watch the corner of the basement where the water and sewer lines are. And the Amcrest is a cheap PTZ to watch other parts of the basement as needed.

          The benefit of a third-party NVR is you can mix and match cameras at will for whatever is best in that specific circumstance without vendor lock-in. Yeah it’s more complicated for sure but I like the flexibility.

          I use Wireguard on my phone for remote access when needed and it works great.

    • @Hyzerflip@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      122 years ago

      Ubiquiti is who I chose. Everything is self hosted, no service fees, good quality equipment and no extra frees for remote maintenance. The motion and AI detections work very well and of course all the products integrate seamlessly into their UniFi network equipment…BUT it’s more a whole network approach than just cameras.

      • AtHeartEngineer
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 years ago

        They are pricey compared to wyzecam though, but probably worth it at this rate

      • @corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        My posh friend has an ubi setup. And then she bought a camera to see under the ice in her Koi pond.

        Ubi refused to connect it.

        I stayed back, as she’s technically proficient and I want to mess with cameras like I want to mess with printers - make my own work, but that’s it - but it really seemed like Ubi doesn’t work with anything else, and that’s by choice a la apple.

    • @nobo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      72 years ago

      I have had good luck with reolink cameras, which, so far, have with RTSP as a feature by default. They offer a program, which amazingly doesn’t require an account be made.

      I put custom RTSP firmware on all of my old Wyze cameras and then blocked them from WAN access.

    • @jmanes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 years ago

      You can use Ecobee’s cameras with HomeKit secure video. Just block the cameras from being able to talk to the internet via firewall first.

    • @gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 years ago

      Foscam is relatively cheap and I like the few PTZ cameras I have. I use RTSP and block their access to the internet. For the timestamp to stay synced I redirect the Foscam DNS requests to an NTP docker container.

    • Ertebolle
      link
      fedilink
      62 years ago

      Yeah, Bribercutter has really gone downhill since the NYT acquisition

  • SeaJ
    link
    fedilink
    English
    112 years ago

    They recommended them in the first place? They have always had absolutely garbage security.

    • @teruma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      10
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      They were also the easiest to use offline. I needed internet to set them up, but once they were up, as long as I didn’t want to ever use the app, they didn’t actually need a connection to operate.

    • drphungky
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 years ago

      They used to be good. They were cheap, you could flash them with custom firmware, they were very need friendly. They just gradually got worse and worse though, starting with them wanting to keep you in their app. It’s always garbage profit seeking. No one is happy being good to consumers if they can make more money not doing so.

  • @xpinchx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    92 years ago

    We have a wyze camera set up in our living room, it’s usually turned towards the wall but we flip it around when not home to keep an eye on our doggy.

    I was home on sick leave with COVID and noticed the light turn red a couple times. I assumed it was my fiance checking on with me but I asked her and she said it wasn’t her. Same thing the next day, I checked my account and it’s just me and her that have access. I unplugged that shit.

    • @Reygle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      252 years ago

      Yeah- your own wired cameras wired to your own ON PREMISES NVR. Anything type of wifi cameras handled by a web portal are completely un-securable and it’s not a question of if the company shuts them down, but when.

      • archomrade [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        6
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Edit* - someone mentioned Amcrest as an alternative. Not as cheap as Wyze but they have a couple $70 cameras that aren’t unreasonable, definitely giving them a try.

        It drives me absolutely crazy that there are no cheap NVR cameras in the wyze price-range. If only I could afford a Unifi camera, i’d do it in a heartbeat, but I don’t have several hundred to shell out for the camera and several hundred more for a dream machine.

        If there were $30 cameras somewhere that can only be accessed through LAN or PoE connections, I’d absolutely cream my pants over it.

        • @planish@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 years ago

          There kind of are: they’re the Wyze cameras, just with custom firmware. They stand up a little web server, and you never log them in to Wyze.

      • @RaoulDook@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        32 years ago

        Not accurate. I have a number of wifi cameras with web administration portals on each device, not on the Internet, and they are secured by my firewall. The firewall does not permit them to access or be accessed by the Internet.

        • @Dimand@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          42 years ago

          Purely anecdotal but in my experience unify is overpriced garbage. Had a dream machine die at 13 months and could only get an, it’s out of warranty, buy a new one response. Looking at the internals it was pretty clear they were never designed with any service in mind.

          They also force you into plenty of cloud bullshit. They lost my password hash for my local device because they fucked up some cloud transfer. If I didn’t have an SSH key I would have been screwed.

          It takes a bunch of time and tech know-how but foss has been a much better solution. Have a openwrt pi4 router, truenas server and switched my Wyze cams to openmiko firmware. Far better than anything offered by these prosumer companies.

          • @limelight79@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            32 years ago

            I have ubiquiti access points and a router, and a Tp-link Omada router. The Unifi interface is more slick, but the Omada interface is good too. And the Omada stuff costs a lot less.

            • @Dimand@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              12 years ago

              Plus you can flash wrt to a lot of the TP-Link stuff including the access points. I haven’t looked in ages but I remember that most or all ubiquity stuff was locked down.

  • HidingCat
    link
    fedilink
    52 years ago

    Hmm, I recall someone saying there’s a way to avoid this by having custom firmware on the Wyze cameras?

    • @orb360@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      62 years ago

      Install the rtsp firmware, run the cams on a network without internet access, run zoneminder or other CCTV software to self host the video feeds… if you want object detection you can add it on but you’ll need a processor like a coral device.

      • czech
        link
        fedilink
        22 years ago

        Is there a way to access the feeds remotely if you have the cams on a network without internet access?

      • @steltek@lemm.ee
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 years ago

        I tried RTSP on the wyze v3 cameras and it was unstable bordering on nonfunctional. Even if they worked, I think you also had to power cycle them occasionally to keep them going.

  • Jeremy [Iowa]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    42 years ago

    Hikvision has a decent line of chinesium local-only PoE cameras. I’ve used a few of them with Frigate and Home Assistant with great success.