Skip to content(if available)orjump to list(if available)

How criminals are using jammers, deauthers to disrupt WiFi security cameras


> A spokesperson from Ring sent a statement saying, "Like any wifi-enabled device, WiFi signal interference may affect Ring device performance. If customers are experiencing issues with connectivity, we encourage them to reach out to Ring Customer Support."

If you're a connoisseur of corp-speak, this is the 100% pure undiluted stuff. You must need a degree in Communications and 10 years experience to talk like that.


"A spokesperson, when asked to talk about an issue, found the most irrelevant issue that technically is related, and gave a useless answer for dealing with the unrelated issue instead of actually talking about the problem at hand"


It would require the PR person to commit career suicide - Ring's usage of words like "security" and " protect" in their descriptions of the camera systems, coupled with the fact that neither Ring nor Nest has a hardwired network option (or, better yet, PoE), there is hardly a surprise there.


As an individual customer buying a product: I don't care about the career of a corporate mouthpiece: I want the corporation that sold me something and claimed to be looking out for me to not be a piece of trash.


> neither Ring nor Nest has a hardwired network option (or, better yet, PoE)


Hogwash, I have a hardwired PoE Ring doorbell camera.


> Neither Ring nor Nest has a hardwired network option

Nest has one now[0].

EDIT: my bad, it doesn't have a hardwired network, it just has more local memory for recordings.



My Ring Elite is powered by PoE


come on, all that is covered in the privacy policy.


Most likely in the terms and condition.

"We're not responsible for the service in the event of a disruption of the radio field technologies used by our products"


It is a correct answer, though. You don't need a degree in Electrical Engineering to know that Ring hasn't invented an unjammable wifi device.


They say "wifi-enabled" device when the true adjective would be "wifi-required".

A security camera using wifi should still record even if it looses wifi connection for a few minutes.


This is like saying "a security camera that's wired to a central recorder should still work for a few minutes even if someone cuts through the wire." It's indeed a feature that you could add to a device, but it's clear that it would increase the cost and _not_ clear that it would be worth that cost.


He dismisses the fact that most cameras have flash storage inside and don’t need a network connection. Others can use Ethernet. He mentions wifi-enabled when it is wifi-required.


Does Ring Customer Support offer a fix?


"Might we suggest upgrading to the Ring Camera Elite, sir? Our new extra shiny, twice the price ELITE doorbell is exquisitely suited to one with such exceptionally high requirements. I'll just add that to your basket, would you like me to complete the order for you with card ending 2008, sir?"


I went with the wired network route. I'm sure to most people it seems like the more secure route, but it's important to realize that for outside cameras, you now have ethernet connections accessible from outside. Jamming WiFi is a denies you the ability to record, but external ethernet gives them access to your network. I went with building an isolated network, but I think that's outside the relm of what most consumers can do. A WiFi camera, while not perfect, really does give you the best bang for the buck.

I'm sure we all know that most residential locks can be picked with relative ease, but criminals rarely go through the trouble. The one time a person did "break in" to my house, they just opened an unlocked door. Usually I keep that door locked, a large piece of plywood in front of it, and a table saw braced up against that. Just so happened I worked on a project that day and just forgot to lock the door. Lucky break for her, but trying enough doorknobs she was bound for find some. She had gotten into two other houses that night. She was also tripped out on meth and couldn't have operated a WiFi jammer if she wanted to.

So, yea, a WiFi camera isn't great, but it's still going to get 99% of criminals out there. Next we just need WiFi jammer alarms.


> So, yea, a WiFi camera isn't great, but it's still going to get 99% of criminals out there. Next we just need WiFi jammer alarms.

All we need is onboard storage to record a couple hours of video locally which can then be synced when the connection is back again. Right? That doesn't fix real-time information transmission, but video is most often important for finding suspects after the fact.


> finding suspects after the fact

Sounds like you think law enforcement actually give a shit about/can do anything toward solving burglary crime.

Maybe it's better in other countries, but 5% solve rate sounds like they go and knock on the doors of the local known burglars to see if they still got the goods lying around.


I actually work in LE and video from domestic and commercial security cameras are always a major piece of information that we look for in every single investigation. So... Yes, LE gives a shit in many countries.

However, also in many countries, like my own, police is very under staffed and burglaries are often on the bottom of the priorities list. Armed robberies, murders, shootings, stabbings, explosions, fires, domestic abuse, rape, to name a few, are the ones that get the highest priority. And those things take a lot of work to find suspects, prove what they're suspected of, write it down and get them convicted.

A case, unfortunately, isn't finished when you catch a suspect. It's a crap load of work to get someone convicted and that gets massively underestimated by people who only read statistics and conclude that LE doesn't care... Most of us do, which is why we join the field.


Someone sophisticated enough to run a deauth attack is sophisticated enough to grab the memory card out of the camera.


Sophisticated criminals don't bring ladders to climb in order to fiddle with SD card slots. They want easy in and easy out.

And they usually wear masks, so the video you do record are useless anyway.


Put a very small/hidden backup camera somewhere, so they take out the main one and think they're all good.


I had WiFi cameras until my friend showed me how his cameras were jammed when his neighbour had a broad daylight burglary. A van pulled up and a second later the video was completely jammed. Then five minutes later it comes back to normal, but neighbour doors were smashed in.

So I got a wired network now, on a separate LAN and have two cameras on each perimeter, so if someone tries to cut the cable (unfortunately I was unable to run the cables inside the wall, so they run in PVC pipes attached to the wall), I very least should have that recorded. Also all my cameras are 4k. The cameras also record to built in SD card. There are also two servers hidden each is pulling the videos from DVR to back up and then one copy is uploaded to external server.


Certainly there are protocols that require authentication over ethernet like


or simply set up another vlan for the cameras (and this does not require any configuration on the cameras, just on the switch)


Why not a physically separate network? If all you care about is catching outside problems like porch pirates, car thieves, and dogs owners who don't clean up after their pets just run cables from each camera to a switch that's connected to a single machine that isn't on your network or the internet.

Cameras inside the house get internet access, so intruders can't just walk off with your footage, but external camera feeds are fine to be stored locally.

That'd take very little skill to set up, prevents anyone from using those external connections to get at the rest of your network or abuse your internet connection,you don't have to worry about jammers, the police won't be accessing your feed whenever they feel like it, and Amazon won't be keeping detailed logs of everyone who comes to your door, how often you have company over, what your daily/weekly schedule is like, how often you get food delivered, what kinds of clothing you and your guests are wearing, how many children are in your home, how many pets, how often you go out on the weekends vs staying inside, how often you vacation and for how long, how many friends you have, how often you have non-amazon packages delivered, what kind of car you drive, etc


That's what OP did and said:

"... but I think that's outside the relm of what most consumers can do."


But how many cameras support them?


I don't think that prevents MAC spoofing


Worth noting even the cheapest router chipsets normally support vlan tagging, so with a sub $100 router you can flash an opensource firmware on it like openwrt and then isolate network traffic on each port and filter it with iptables.


Can you provide an easy guide for net gear Vlan? I am pretty good w computers but some reason can never figure out how to set up


Not sure how easy it is, but its documented pretty thoroughly on the openwrt dooco:


What use is getting access to the network these day anyway? Everything has moved to a model of not trusting the network or anything else on it. I guess they could cast something to your chrome cast?


The attack I worry about is neighbourhood teenagers using my internet connection for lolz.

I imagine them downloading movies and images that get me into trouble with the wife / LEAs / both.


How is your wife going to find out what has been downloaded over your network?


Are you sure everything has? Smart appliances in particular are typically terrible with security, so having access to their network certainly gives you an edge.


So what would a robber do with them? Turn off your refrigerator? Cancel your scheduled washing program? Install some malware?

Usually it's meth heads trying to steal something that is easy to grab not the CIA.


pffff a lot of routers dont even come with ssl on by default. So yeah getting into your network is a big thing. =)


Guys I mean it, i just bought a brand new fiber router (AVM and the first thing firefox would like me to do is to switch to the http version of said configuration page.

Chrome lets me add an exception for the box itself, but really how many end user do you know that will not click on "take me to the http version(unsafe)", when talking about their home router?

So given the fact that I am in your wifi, One could use dhcp (if active) for MITM attacks, grab the router password and install tracking daemons right on top.

Next step would be to forward the dns requests to one of mine so I can build a map of what sites you use and from there all I have to to is to make you accept an insecure ssl cert and done?


> I went with building an isolated network, but I think that's outside the relm of what most consumers can do.

An off-the-shelf consumer PVR that uses wired ethernet typically has its own integrated PoE switch on its own subnet. Maybe it will route to your LAN if you probe the private ranges, but it's also a fairly straightforward software issue to fix - nothing fundamental to the arrangement, and at no additional marginal cost.


"She had gotten into two other houses that night. She was also tripped out on meth and couldn't have operated a WiFi jammer if she wanted to."

You left out the dramatic details. So you stopped and confronted her directly yourself, or called the police who caught her(later)?

(In general, it is not advisable to confront meth addicts, they might be armed and not restrained in any way.)


Aren't wired cameras fine as long as you use a virtual LAN network for them and don't place them inside?


I suggest a physically separate network for ip based security systems. The GPs concerns are also why most wired CCTV at the higher end is often not ethernet, but there are ways to secure ethernet even externally (camera housings that are basically safes, very high placement that would require a ladder to get to, etc)


What's a good search term for makers/retailers of "camera housings that are basically safes"?


Of course wireless networks are subject to jamming attacks. Of course, therefore, a security system that uses those wireless networks will be subject to the same attacks. Why is anyone surprised? Aside from the fact it took this long for an exploit to hit the news.


Criminals (and cops and reporters...) aren't the most tech-savvy, so it's useful to know when possible attacks are actually used. Like, it took over a year (and it going viral on TikTok) for thieves outside Milwaukee to catch on that late model Kia/Hyundais are as easy to steal as 90's Hondas.

That said, I'm not convinced the criminals in this case jammed anything; she said hours were missing and car thieves aren't sticking around that long, and balaclavas are still cheap. And the techie "of course you need to hardwire everything" is extraordinarily unhelpful.

Actually being useful would be spreading knowledge that deauth attacks can be prevented with 802.11w (even other posters here don't seem to know that!), and pointing out what supports that and how to enable it. Or promoting cameras with enough local storage to mitigate being disconnected for a half hour or so, which is also useful for power outages...


> deauth attacks can be prevented with 802.11w

802.11w is part of WPA3 in WiFi-6, which can still be attacked,


WiFi is trivial to jam... Just run a microwave with a pencil wedged in the door hinge and nobody will be using 2.4g WiFi anywhere in the same block.

Deauth attacks are a distraction.


Thank both of you for proving my point that you all will irrationally argue "any even marginally imperfect security is completely and utterly pointless" in literally any context.

Worrying about criminals jamming wifi is the distraction, because criminals definitely carry around microwaves and portable kilowatt power sources, or implement novel DoS attacks, all just to temporarily disconnect cameras that if it's competent, cached all the video locally anyway.

Why not worry about criminals cutting mains power? That'd kill most wired cameras even harder than battery-powered wireless ones.


Anyone who is tech savvy enough to be on Hacker News isn't going to be shocked.

However MOST people don't understand the technology. As the resident IT person in my family/friends, I've been asked about this sort of thing on a regular basis. Everytime I talk them through the convenience vs security. Without fail people are surprised by the idea of being easy to "jam" wifi.

Even some of the tech savvy don't realize how cheap it is to build a deauther. I can get ESP8266 units for less than $2 each and load up pre-made deauth firmware from Github in a matter of minutes.


Heck, I've seen some projects involving trying to diy short range digital comms accidentally turn into a jammer which will mess with anything in the 2.4Ghz band. All it takes is a VCO and the wrong (or right, depending on purpose) circuit attached to it.

Deauth is a little more finesse, but barely.


I have a USB to vga device that harmonics into the GPS spectrum, allowing me to broadcast false GPS chords.

It amazes me that most people overlook the ease at which their frontline defense can be thwarted.


> Without fail people are surprised by the idea of being easy to "jam" wifi.

Don't they at least remember all the times it cuts out on them?


No, I can’t even remember the last time my home wifi stopped working.


> However MOST people don't understand the technology.

More than that, people are being intentionally mislead by Amazon who is well aware of the massive vulnerabilities their products have, but still advertise their devices as being secure and able to protect the customer. They even have police going door to door shilling for them.

It's perfectly reasonable for people to believe tech companies and Officer Friendly when they both say a ring camera is a smart purchase and they should buy one. They should feel betrayed when they find out they bought a device that's trivial to bypass and the best Amazon has to offer by way of a solution is that they waste their time calling customer support who can do nothing for them.


Not to fear though, as it is against FCC regulations to interfere with a radio signal. We all know criminals fear the FCC more than any other law enforcement agency.

Also, this whole interference issues is like a big DUH!!! There's a label on the devices (or at least the docs provided) with the FCC logo that states that the device much accept that interference or however the labels are worded. I don't have anything within arms reach with one of those labels.


They probably should fear the FCC. They can send you to prison.

Looks like a year, but prison is prison.


If someone uses a short range jammer to disrupt local wireless networks, is the FCC even going to know? Ever?


That’s why laser jamming is more practical for auto enthusiasts with speed limit issues - lasers are regulated by the FDA not the FCC


Have they actually sent anyone to prison recently though?


Easy jammability is not a necessary property of wireless networks. There's lots of research about it and military applications.


I wonder how well WPA3 fares here.


Everyone saying you should hardwire these cameras is right, of course. But what you are missing is that the majority of people (at least in the US) are renters (or otherwise have restrictions), which means you can’t wire cameras. Wireless cameras and doorbells are crucial for renters having any semblance of security.


> But what you are missing is that the majority of people (at least in the US) are renters (or otherwise have restrictions)

According to the St Louis Fed 65% of US households are home-owners[1]. Now if there is some other data about "or otherwise have restrictions" to show how it becomes a majority of US, I would be interested in seeing that.



Condos or other HOA situations would be a good start to look at. See [1] maybe?



Condos is a possibility. But if the HOA allows a WiFi camera on the outside of a house, then I can't see why they wouldn't allow a wired camera on the outside of a house.


I don't want to drill through my brick.


There is a product called "ghost wire" - about 6 inches of paper thin Ethernet specifically formed for fitting into the gap between a window frame and the sliding glass. The Ethernet itself is shaped like the letter "U", so it conforms to the paper thin gap and the window still operates normal. These are designed to enable Ethernet to transparently (without building alteration) be added to properties that cannot/shouldn't be altered.


If you are relying on the cameras for deterrence though then even wiring them wouldn't help. The burglars or thieves would activate their jammer and then attack the house without realizing the jamming was ineffective.


I saw a wifi camera that replaces a lightbulb. It takes power from the light socket. I don't see why you couldn't make one that also used the power line as a network cable, too. Would require no installation and could be used at your next house.


Power line as network cable is a thing, it's called power line communication (PLC, [1]). It was used in some home automation hardware back in the day, probably still used in industrial setting. AFAIU the noise is too high to be useable in residential



Power line Comms is very much alive in residential settings... There are devices that can cram gigabit data rates onto home AC wiring. They're a great alternative to running new ethernet runs.

They are controversial with other radio users, because while the devices themselves don't emit much RF energy, your home wiring and wiring in the street will typically radiate most of the high frequency data into the air, disrupting FM radio and lots of other sub 500 Mhz radio users.


That’s pretty interesting, does it look like a light bulb? Or it something that uses the socket just as a pass through?


No or at least the one I have does not. It's similar to this one on Amazon ( I was just looking for a quick and simple solution to check for package delivery. (I'm disabled; so, just hopping up and checking the front porch isn't simple.) I have the camera's app on an old phone, sitting on my desk. It detects motion and I can control it to check the entire porch. Not as good as a wired system; but, it works.


hardware required for isolation of powerline communication is gonna be hard to stuff in that small of a space.

Powerline tends to be sorta unreliable and only runs at like 5-15% of the rated max speed, but if you had buffering at the camera to ensure all frames made it to the otherside, you could work around that.


> Wireless cameras and doorbells are crucial for renters having any semblance of security.

This seems hyperbolic to me. You don’t need internet connected cameras and doorbells for your home to have a semblance of security. That’s what locks are for, and maybe a big fence behind the house.

Most people won’t ever have their home broken in to - according to a quick Google there were ~192,000 burglaries reported in 2021 in England & Wales. Extrapolate that over a typical lifetime and you’ll see 15.3 million nationwide, which for a population of about 65 million people means 76% of people never have anyone break in.

Wireless cameras and doorbells are, on the whole, products which rather than giving peace of mind leave people constantly worried that someone is going to do something, after all, we can see the constant stream of suspicious looking people setting of the motion detection.


It should be based on households rather than population. There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on the last Census Day in 2021. Meaning by your other figures/logic, you have a 62% chance of being burgled at some point if you live in England or Wales. I.e, you're more likely to get burgled than not.


Good point, and does definitely push the numbers towards the risk being somewhat higher than I intuitively think of. I still won’t be fitting cameras all over my property though!


> This seems hyperbolic to me. You don’t need internet connected cameras and doorbells for your home to have a semblance of security. That’s what locks are for, and maybe a big fence behind the house.

1. You’re correct, they don’t need to be Internet connected, they do need to be network connected. That’s how the video gets from the camera to the recording device.

2. Locks just keep an honest man honest, and are another thing you can’t change in a rental (at least in the US).

There are a lot of other precautions someone can take if they can modify the building, but pretty limited options for renters.

All that said, I take a very… American… view on this. I need /evidence/ after the fact, which is what the camera is for. I work from home and am pretty much always here, so the most likely scenario is I kill my home invader, and need that evidence for my defense. In the US, self-defense is an affirmative defense, meaning because I live in a heavily blue area, I’m guaranteed to be arrested and charged, and the camera provides evidence that the person entered uninvited.

My primary precaution against burglary and home invasion is having a tech salary that lets me afford living in an area where there are few burglaries and home invasions. The cameras are necessary for evidence after the fact, and to help with retrieving package deliveries promptly.


>That’s what locks are for

The landlord can open those locks with their keys.


You certainly can wire cameras even if you are a renter, without doing any damage to the property. It is no different than running a wire to your computer from a router in another room. You just can't poke a bunch of holes in the wall. I'm not a renter, but I don't want my camera on a network or susceptible to jammers so I have a camera on my porch with a 50' wire running inside the small gap at the upper corner of my door, and up the stairs.


It undoubtedly varies based on local law and landlord, but where I’m from, as a renter you can typically put as many holes in the walls as you want as long as you properly patch them up when you move out. Same goes for painting and other modifications.


> small gap at the upper corner of my door

I’ve done similar things indoors, however there should be no gaps with properly hung and weatherstripped exterior doors, at least there aren’t in any of the places I’ve lived, purely for energy reasons.




I've made no claims that my home is energy efficient!




This seems like a relatively easy problem to mitigate: just put some local storage in the camera (even 1TB microSD cards cost very little). When the Wi-Fi is out, simply record to local storage. When it's restored, upload the recorded footage.

Indeed a quick search shows that newer Google Nest cameras support recording for an hour during Wi-Fi outage: I'm surprised that Ring doesn't have something equivalent.


Then the criminals start off with a jammer and follow up with a baseball bat to the camera (or they steal the camera too). It's always been a cat & mouse game between someone with valuables to protect, and people wanting to take them.


Is this comment sarcastic because I don’t see anything that stops them from baseball batting the camera to start…? Seems more effective than wifi jamming.

Well - most effective is to just steal from an area where police are known to do nothing about property theft. So, most of the US then…


Ideally a wired camera would record up until its destroyed, even warning the owner of motion. In that case even wearing mask still gives away height/build clothes, direction of approach, numbers etc. If its jammed first then you dont have that potential information, and you are relying on a loss of connection to be recognized as an attack.


Running a jammer as you approach the home would prevent it from uploading video to the cloud of your vehicle (perhaps the license plate can be seen), and your appearance/gait/etc. as you walk up to the house. The baseball bat is just insurance against any locally stored footage.


My $20 Wyze camera came with a microSD slot and a strong recommendation to buy a card for it.


That works for letting you see what happened after the fact, but not for alerting you to something happening right now.


If your camera is down for an extended period that would probably be enough of an alert?


If I was the attacker I'd start off by knocking the cameras out a few times to make you think they're unreliable.


I mean the best thing you can do as an immediate reaction is call the police. Otherwise, hope nothing personal is stolen and that you can use the footage to claim insurance.


I had the same thought


This problem could be mitigated with onboard storage for the cameras. Obviously, it wouldn’t solve the alerting issue, but “wifi went down” is probably already an alert, and with onboard storage, at least the footage could be reviewed.


If I'm prepared enough to bring a wi-fi blocker, I'm prepared enough to bring a hammer and pry bar.


Which you will use to… throw at the camera through the window? This is a very different sort of attack.


I'm not blocking the wi-fi just to play in the garden.

If I'm already security aware enough to do that, I'm probably cutting power, phones and will have some idea (IR cameras are easy to find) what needs taking care of in terms of internal security.

Concealed network storage and backup power is how I go to jail.


I guess the same apply to home alarm systems that typically use 433/838mhz. Experienced a bit with that at home, and sure, could break into my own house without tripping the alarm. But I assume the alarm system is able to detect that jamming is occurring, but the alarm company did not send anyone.

The door magnetic sensor is easily bypassed with a strong neodyne magnet, but you most likely need an accomplice as you most close the door while still holding the magnet over the sensor from the outside - might be possible to do it alone if you have two magnets. Found a YouTube video of that in action

Next thing I want to try is to blind the motion sensors with strong IR light, but have not found time for that yet.

What I am really paying for is the stickers staying I have an alarm


My alarm system can be annoying with false positives from deliveries and people walking by from time to time, but in spite of the maintenance in feeding and poop scooping, the K9 alarm system does have some oxytocin perks.

Also might consider a portable electromagnet like used to erase VHS tapes. I’ve got one on the shelf still considering what to exploit with it. I was going to try the car sensors at certain traffic signals but an engineer friend in transportation reminded me interfering with normal equipment operation is a felony if caught…which is why he wouldn’t share his Opticom clone software with me.


Sounds like PoE is the way to go. Another option might be to get a webcam that doesn't operate on wifi at all (maybe some other unregulated band which is tougher to block and more importantly, tougher to recognize)


PoE is definitely the way to go if you can.

Aside from immunity to radio signal jamming, there's no worrying about batteries/charging or ugly wall warts. You can also power your PoE switch from a UPS to survive power outages.

It's also vendor agnostic and fairly future proof. What I mean is while you might have lock-in with cameras/NVR today, you aren't locked in forever; worst case is you may be forced to replace everything but the wiring, but that's by far the hardest part to do in a finished house. The Cat5/6/7 will be useful for the foreseeable future.


I agree, but I’m having a fun time getting PoE switches that network security will sign off on at work, they are quite pricey. Just a note from the other side, wall wart is 5$ poe is like 40$ a port


Using a regular switch and using a POE injector just before the run to the camera is an option. It's about $15 to get the injector. It's not as elegant as a POE switch though.




What about Netgear? (I excluded TP-Link for security though it's cheap)


Lol. Try running Ethernet through a door jam.


Put the Wi-Fi camera with the built in speaker as the doorbell, and then a redundant PoE camera on the wall in a place where it's easier to run a cable to.


Look into Ethernet Ghost Wire, that is exactly what they do.


The problem isn't the power, it's the ethernet. Most homes are already wired for a doorbell with a single wire pair to the doorbell switch and then to the bell. So you'd have to pull an ethernet cable to the door.

I just installed an Amcrest doorbell which took me like 10 minutes. I'm using it with Scrypted to connect it to HomeKit. I didn't install it for security reasons. My old doorbell switch was broken and I figured as long as I needed to replace it, it would be nice to see what the heck my dog is constantly barking about.

If I wanted something for security reasons, I'd indeed use a PoE camera, but it wouldn't be a doorbell cam. There's very few PoE doorbell cameras in any case and they are quite a bit more expensive. And pulling an ethernet cable to the doorbell switch location would be non-trivial.


>And pulling an ethernet cable to the doorbell switch location would be non-trivial.

The tedium/difficulty/expense of running cabling through walls and crawl spaces is something a lot of tech people seem to take for granted. Wireless is convenient(ish), particularly compared to the aforementioned, so most people are naturally going to gravitate towards it if that serves purpose.

Also, ethernet cabling available right at the front door is a security concern in itself. You need to be knowledgable of networking and have appropriate networking hardware to properly secure it against physical attacks.


There’s existing two wire Ethernet PoE converters that get you 60Mb and power over a doorbell wire.

This technology could just come built into these cameras which would be the responsible thing to do.


I looked into those and couldn’t find anything suitable. This is a pretty big box:

It’s expensive, not weatherproof, and hard to order. Same for the one made by 2N. These both recycle old DSL technology I believe.

How difficult it is to install also depends on how your doorbell circuit is wired. Mine goes from a transformer in my basement to a switch on my door and from there to two chimes with a junction hidden somewhere. For these converters to work you need a straight run end to end.


That may be slightly better, but you still need to pull a connection to the chime. In my case, it wouldn’t be all that much easier to get there vs going straight to the door.


You also get cameras that take micro-SD cards and can write video to that as well as streaming it.


This should be the product people want. I'm betting that the price difference (percentage wise) is low when purchasing a camera. I can't help but think that finding out if the camera is recording to a card will lead to home invasions to get the physical media it writes to as well. Essentially, a cat and mouse game with more and more higher stakes for the thieves and their innocent targets.


It's trivial to open most door locks.

One mitigation is to secure the physical camera, e.g. Axis P1204 can separate the camera lens by 25 feet from the camera with SD card, which can be located inside a locked enclosure/safe/room.


That’s the magic of Eufy (the Anker brand for this).

The cameras run on a separate wireless network and save to an SD card in the base station. You can also do RTSP streams.


Good luck with the other radio band stuff. PoE is likely easier to find and more reliable. Most WiFi based security cameras already struggle to function decently on WiFi.


Most of the spectrum is cellular. The reason we have wifi at all is because 2.4Ghz is the frequency of water and rain heavily disrupts it. Microwave ovens also work on 2.4Ghz, because they are dumping energy into the water molecules and making them spin.


> Microwave ovens are not tuned to any specific resonance frequency for water molecules in the food, but rather produce a broad spectrum of frequencies, cooking food via dielectric heating of polar molecules, including water. Several absorption peaks for water lie within the microwave range, and while it is true that these peaks are caused by quantization of molecular energy levels corresponding to a single frequency, water absorbs radiation across the entire microwave spectrum.


Interesting entry on Wikipedia, I thought that this a la carte style article isn't allowed.


Wouldn't a low-tech ski mask be an easier/cheaper option than a wi-fi jammer or deauther? Or maybe two inches of duct tape over the Ring camera?


Certainly in my area they seem to just wear dark plain hoodies and face masks and don't care much about cameras as at 4am no-one is likely monitoring any alerts that come up and once people see the footage in the morning there isn't anything distinctive to ID them.

I have seen some cases of just using spray paint or even some kind of oil or whatever else to mess up the lens (mainly for doorbells or otherwise where the camera is easy to reach and see) or if it's too far out of reach they just throw rocks or hit it with a long stick or similar until it's out of action.


With silly string you could disable a second story security camera


I joined NextDoor partially from curiosity, partially for some deals on secondhand goods. Not a week goes by that several points aren't made with little clips from these sorts of cameras. A few have gotten jammed, although the owners didn't immediately know it -- they didn't understand why the cameras suddenly stopped working as someone came in range.

I'm not really sure what these things are for. Nobody seems to be able to identify anyone from these (low resolution, not a great frame rate or bit depth, the person is often masked), yet people post "Do you know who this is who was trying the handle on my car door at 3 a.m.?" I would think people would do better with concealed, street-adjacent pairs of cameras pointed antiparallel to capture license plates and just use this Ring business as a way to know when to check the cameras. As it stands, they seem to be "Yes, a porch pirate did in fact take your stuff" confirmations and little else.


All it took was a work truck across the road from my house caused my WiFi, Zigbee alarm system to start sending "Jam Detected" notifications to my phone. I assumed his CB Radio was the cause.


> I assumed his CB Radio was the cause.

Another possibility is that the employee might be running a jammer to reduce the effectiveness of any company tracking.


Really shouldn't be, CB is 27MHz and max of 4 watts. No radios should be on WiFi frequencies.


Yes, the legal max is 4 watts, but that is if you're 'running barefoot' as they say, or without amplification.

There are car RF amplifiers that can run into the hundreds of watts or more and they do cause significant interference across many frequencies. CB radio users using these amps can easily be heard on home stereo systems, and sometimes even toasters (as lore goes, from their common use in the 70s & 80s).


Honestly, cctv is a bit pointless anyway. My bike was stolen and the police had cctv footage from a neighbour but it was no good because they had their faces covered. Unfortunately, the best way to protect a bike is a stronger shed, or a car is fit a steering wheel lock.


The best way to protect a bike is actually an insurance policy. Anything can be cut with a battery powered angle grinder. Bike lock, shed, whatever.


Another option is to have a bike so unattractive nobody would steal it (the Amsterdam way).


My wife and I dislike both our cars. They're older than average, they're externally unimpressive, and they're internally unimpressive. So long as we remember to take anything of value out of them, we don't give a fuck if they get stolen. The only hassle would be the insurance paperwork and finding a suitably average replacement vehicle.

They also don't mark us as the type of people that have anything worth the effort and risk of stealing.


In the U.S. it doesn't matter what it is, people want it for the scrap value at the very least. Its like a bed frame's worth of scrap but you can ride it off versus having to schlep it.


Fair point, but most policies will require you to apply some protection mechanism anyway.