Axis Camera Vulnerabilities From Google Researcher Analyzed

By: Brian Karas, Published on Mar 23, 2017

A Google security researcher has reported 6 vulnerabilities for Axis cameras, affecting multiple models and firmware versions.

In this report, we examine these vulnerabilities, potential for exploit, and the practical risk of them.

* ****** ******** ********** has ******** * *************** for **** *******, ********* multiple ****** *** ******** versions.

** **** ******, ** examine ***** ***************, ********* for *******, *** *** practical **** ** ****.

[***************]

Vulnerabilities ********

* **** ** *** Full ********** ******* ***** the ********* * ***************:

******: ** *****-**** ******* forgery ***********

******: ****** ****** ****** for ***

******: *** ******** *** as ****

******: ****** ****** ******** allows *** ********* ***** as **** ** ********** CSRF ******

******: **** ****** .*** scripts *** ******** *******

******: ********* ** ******* the **** *********

**** *** **** ****** their ********** ** ***** ***************** ************ ************.

Key ******** / *******

*** **** ** ** attacker ************ ***** ***** vulnerabilities ** ********* ***.

** ****** ***** ******* all **** ** *** following ******** ** ** met:

  • ******** ** **** ** trick * **** **** clicking * ********* **** in ** ***** ** on * *******, ***** calls * ****** ** the ******
  • ******** ***** *** ******** IP ******* ** ******** of * ********** ******* to ******* ** ***** or *******
  • *** **** ****** ** that **** ***** ****** into ***** ******* ******** on *** **** *** browser *** **** ** clicked **
  • *** ******* *** ** firmware ***** ** *.*.* that ***** ******* ******** 3 ***** ***, ** March ****

********* *** **** ** the ***** ** **** the ****** ********** ********* as *** ******* ** 'backdoor' *** ******. *******, this ** ****** **** complicated *** ********* ** execute **** ******** ********, ***** ****** *** can ******** ******* ** a ********** ****** *** backdoor **.

************, *** ************ ******** would ********* ***** ** attacker ** ******* ****** to * **** ******* number ** *******, ** any, ******** *** ******* of **** ***** **** for ***** *******.

*** ******* ** ******* are *** ********** ** this *******, ** ***** is ** **** ** clicking * ********* **** while ****** **** * VMS **** *** ***** access ** * ******.

Affects ******** ***** ** *.**

**** **** ******** ******** prior ** *.** *** a ********* *** ************* that ***** **** **********. Users ******* ***** ******** should******** ******* ******** **** Axis' ******* ******* *** *** of **** *******. ***** many ****** **** ***** firmware *********, ***** *** still * **** ***** of ******* *** ***** updated ******** ** *** available.

** ** ******** ****** is *********, ***** ***** be ******* ** ******** the *** ** ******** to ****** *** ******, use * ******* ***** than *** ******* ******* when ***** **, *** avoid ******* ****** ** clicking ***** ** *******/********* sites **** ****** **** any *******.

CSRF ******* - *** ** *************

***** *************** ******* ****** a**** ***************. ** *****, **** attacks **** ** * user ***** ****** **** a ******'* *** ********* and **** ******* *** user ** ***** * link **** ********** ** a ******** ******* ** the ******. *** **** is ***** ********* ** something ****, **** ** a **** ** ** email ***** *** **** says "***** **** ** track **** *******", *** the *** *********** ** a ******* ** *** device (**: ****://***.***.*.**/***-***/******.***).

*** ***** ***** ******** a **** **** ***** overview ** ****:

******* *** **** ******* has ****** ** *** device, *** ***** *******, VPN, ** **** ***** means, *** ******** **** not **** ******** ****** access ** *** ******, they **** **** ** trick *** **** **** clicking * **** **** a ********* ******* ***.

CSRF **********

**** ******* *** ********* by ********* * ******* token ** **** ** the *******. *** ***** is * **** ****** generated ** *** ******, and **** ** *** client ** ******* **** the *******, ***** ***** make *** "****://***.***.*.**/***-***/******.***" ******* **** **** "****://***.***.*.**/***-***/******.***?*****=***********". ** * **** application, *** ***** ** much ******, ****** ** effectively ********** *** ** attacker ** ***** *** include **** ***** ********* link.

VAPIX ******** **** ***** ***

********* ** ****, ***** VAPIX *** ** *** compatible **** **** ******, which ******** **** **** using **** ********* ** prevent **** *******.

Axis **** ****** - ********* ***

**** ******** * *****-** file ****** ** ***** cameras, ** **** ** easier *** ***** ** edit ****** ***** ** other **** ***** ** the ******. **** **** editor ** ****** ** the *********, ***** **** as **** ** ******** cameras, ****** ** *** potential ** ******** ** overwrite *** **** ** the ******.

**** **** **** ****** will ** ******* ** a ****** ******* ** further ****** ******* *********.

Comments (19)

Interesting. Does Google do these tests randomly or is this a researcher doing this as a side project? Is this possibly related to the Arecont to Axis switch from last year?

I believe the research is done under the "Project Zero" program.

Excellent information and article, thanks. So if I'm reading this correctly, is it safe to assume this type of exploit is rendered even more unlikely when the camera network is logically segregated from the internet/internet connected devices?

is it safe to assume this type of exploit is rendered even more unlikely when the camera network is logically segregated from the internet/internet connected devices?

Not really. If an operator can access the cameras via a browser, it would not matter if they are local, remote, segregated or not.

Part of what makes this kind of attack different is that the operator, who is in this case presumably able to access the internet or receive email AND access the camera network becomes a kind of "proxy" for the attacker. The attacker can not access the cameras directly, but they send a malicious to the operator who CAN access the cameras, and when that link is clicked, the cameras are compromised.

Again, it is worth mentioning this still requires the attacker to know the IP address of a vulnerable camera, and get the operator to click a malicious disguised link that goes to that camera, while the operator is already logged into its web interface.

Can't believe people still sell these vulnerable devices.

Can't believe people still sell these vulnerable devices.

Jon, rather than a sarcastic comment, can you offer something of analytic substance to the discussion?

I was just making a comment similar to what I see every time there is a Hik/Dahua vulnerability announced. Yes, it was sarcasm and wasn't helpful, unless pointing out the absurdity of the typical stance.

No brand is 100% safe. Not Axis. Not Sony. Not Hikvision. For sure not Dahua. Some are far better than others. Some have larger targets due to the popularity of their products and the vast amount of deployed products.

This just goes back to my stance that you can't trust ANY IoT device entirely and they MUST be segregated to the furthest extent possible.

Anyone who relies on their particular brand to ensure absolutely zero vulnerabilities is foolish to do so. Every single integrator and end user must take preventative measures to ensure these vulnerabilities are mitigated as much as possible.

Jon -

You do recognize that there is a large degree of difference between this vulnerability in the Axis cameras, and the recent Dahua and Hikvision vulnerabilities, right?

That may be your perspective, but to me a vulnerability is a vulnerability to a great extent. Sure, some only allow you to view an unauthorized feed or something much less nefarious than root access to the OS. But to be completely frank, these devices shouldn't ever see daylight IMO. Even if you can assure me they are safe today, you can't assure the same tomorrow.

but to me a vulnerability is a vulnerability to a great extent.

But vulnerabilities, like 'accidents' and 'crimes' can vary greatly in their significance.

On a scale of 1 - 10, please rank the above Axis vulnerability to the Dahua vulnerability from this month.

I'll go first: Dahua is a 10 since it's so easy to do. Axis is a 1 since it requires a combination of nearly impossible steps to work.

Your turn, Jon. Please rate them on a scale of 1 to 10.

A vulnerability is a vulnerability? That's just silly. If you actually believe this, then it would make life impossible. We survive by taking calculated risks.

I assume that you will use some form of motor-powered transportation today. You must have a death wish! Haven't you seen the terrible accidents at the Isle of Man TT?

You'd be much safer to walk everywhere. But wait!

Forget it, just stay home!

A vulnerability is a vulnerability. Any and all devices on the network whether that network is "isolated" or not, can become a source of a network attack.

We as the "good guys" must protect our network from any and all possible intrusions. For the "bad guys" they only need to find one weakness to exploit, so the advantage will always be with the bad guys.

Your presumption that certain vulnerabilities are worse than others (a scale of 1 to 10) presumes that all exploitable vulnerabilities will result in the same impact to the system. A vulnerability of "1" (your scale not mine) can be severe if it is on a mission critical system where more aggressive attacks from more determined hackers are being launched and the success of the attack will have a severe and significant impact on the system or operations of an organization which may reach beyond just the camera system.

We as an industry need to take information security more seriously. There are some manufacturers who are knowingly allowing common vulnerabilities and exposures either because they don't want to invest the money in properly hardening their devices or they are responding to customer requests to exchange convenience for security. I have unfortunately encountered integrators and end users who complain about the challenges of implementing very robust IT security in their network. In addition, a highly secure network requires constant maintenance and upkeep as new CVE's are discovered not only with the devices but with the computing and network systems that they are attached to.

We have not heard the last of these vulnerabilities and they will continue to plague our industry. The real questions for those who appreciate and desire strong IT security are, is how pro-active your vendor is being with their information security and how quickly do they react when a vulnerability is discovered?

Keep up the good work in reporting this information as awareness is the first step to providing a more secure system, but unfortunately, the bad guys are always looking for ways in and sooner or later they will probably find one.

Your presumption that certain vulnerabilities are worse than others (a scale of 1 to 10) presumes that all exploitable vulnerabilities will result in the same impact to the system.

No, my point is that some vulnerabilities are much easier to exploit than others. The Dahua vulnerability will result in large scale exploits, guaranteed. This Axis one, if it even results in 1 exploit, would be amazing given how hard it is to use.

My point is that neither would matter if they were properly quarantined in a segregated network.

Jon -

Do your customers ask for remote access to their systems? If so, what is your method for keeping everything quarantined and segregated, and also allowing customer access?

Dual NICs in the VMS server with a single port forward for the VMS only. We usually have remote access to the server via Splashtop Streamer using two factor authentication. The second NIC and the cameras are on a non-Internet facing network. Soon, we won't need the port forward for remote viewing.

My point is that both matter if they are exploited. I guess my concern is the attitude that "well it is hard for someone to exploit so it is no big deal." Perhaps I am reading something into this that wasn't meant. As an IT security professional, the risk of a CVE isn't judged based on "how hard" it is to exploit it is judged on what damage can be done by exploiting it. My concern is the disconnect between our industry and network security professionals. I guess I am objecting to the premise of the question. if we want to rate a vulnerability we need to do so based on what damage can be done. For example, if a vulnerability allows someone with special expertise to change the date/time of a camera, that might be considered a low risk. if the vulnerability can be used to launch a more serious attack on the network, delete data or launch a DoS attack for example, that is a more serious exposure regardless of how hard it is for someone to do.

regardless of how hard it is for someone to do.

How hard something is certainly impacts proper security planning. If two things have the same potential impact, but one takes a miracle to do and the other a child can do, the later one is much more of a risk. Agree/disagree?

Agree!

John, you are correct to focus on the vulnerabilities of hardware. Any responsible End-User will base their overall cyber-security programs on a Risk Management approach. It is the only practical way to administrate security.

Risk is a factor of the Threat (who is attacking), the Vulnerabilities in the system and the Consequence of an attack. While a bit simplified, this is the general equation. Some Risk methodologies are volumes long and mathematically complex processes.

Customers rarely provide enough details on Consequences to their business or the Threats they need, or are willing to, protect against. Add to this equation, that most integrators don't possess the qualified consultative assets to conduct a comprehensive Risk Management Study

So in the end, your premise is correct. Lowering the vulnerability in hardware may be the only practical step an integrator can unilaterally deliver to a customer.

Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts unique testing and research funded by member's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.

Related Reports on VMS

Sighthound Transforms Into Enterprise AI Provider on Jun 14, 2019
Sighthound is now rapidly expanding its R&D team, building an enterprise AI service. This may come as a surprise given their origins 6 years...
Embattled $400 Million China Funded Philippines Surveillance System Proceeds on Jun 13, 2019
An embattled 12,000 camera surveillance system project that will cost ~$400 million will proceed.  The project contract was awarded, had its...
Carnegie Mellon AI Startup Zensors Profile on Jun 11, 2019
Zensors is a startup formed by Carnegie Mellon graduates from a Carnegie Mellon research project, offering customized models per camera that they...
Avigilon 32MP and 12MP H4 Multisensor Cameras Tested on Jun 11, 2019
Avigilon has released their H4 Multi-Sensor line of cameras claiming "broad scene coverage and high image detail" We bought and tested the...
Directory of 30+ VSaaS / Cloud Video Surveillance Providers on Jun 07, 2019
This directory provides a list of VSaaS / cloud video surveillance providers to help you see and research what options are available. 2019 State...
OpenALPR Doubles Prices on Jun 06, 2019
There is no 'race to the bottom' in cloud / AI video surveillance. In May, Verkada increased their prices. Now, OpenALPR is doing the same with a...
"New" Arecont Fixes Failures "Without A Fight" on Jun 05, 2019
The "old" Arecont was infamous not only for its camera failures but for making their "partners" fight to get them fixed. IPVM drew the ire of...
Startup Rhombus Systems Says Twice the Features, Half the Price of Verkada on Jun 04, 2019
Closed cloud systems may be the fastest growing segment of video surveillance with Meraki and Verkada. Now another California company is joining...
Smart CODEC Usage Statistics 2019 on Jun 03, 2019
Smart codecs are now nearly a standard feature in IP cameras, but our statistics show integrator adoption has not increased at the same rate. In...
Panasonic Sells Off / Spins Out Security Business on Jun 02, 2019
Panasonic has sold off its security systems business to a private equity firm, after suffering years of challenges. The new company, which will...

Most Recent Industry Reports

Sighthound Transforms Into Enterprise AI Provider on Jun 14, 2019
Sighthound is now rapidly expanding its R&D team, building an enterprise AI service. This may come as a surprise given their origins 6 years...
ADT Eliminating Acquired Brands, Unifying Under 'Commercial' Brand on Jun 14, 2019
ADT is eliminating the brands of the many integrators it has acquired over the past few years, including Red Hawk, Aronson Security Group (ASG),...
NSA Director Keynoting Dahua and Hikvision Sponsored Cybersecurity Conference on Jun 13, 2019
The technical director for the NSA’s Cybersecurity Threat Operations Center will be keynoting a physical security cybersecurity conference that is...
Farpointe Data Conekt Mobile Access Reader Tested on Jun 13, 2019
California based Farpointe Data has been a significant OEM supplier of conventional access readers for years to companies including DMP, RS2, DSX,...
Embattled $400 Million China Funded Philippines Surveillance System Proceeds on Jun 13, 2019
An embattled 12,000 camera surveillance system project that will cost ~$400 million will proceed.  The project contract was awarded, had its...
False Verkada 'Unrivaled' Low Light Performance Claim Removed on Jun 12, 2019
Verkada falsely claimed that it delivered 'UNRIVALED LOW LIGHT PERFORMANCE' until IPVM questioned. In fact, Verkada's low light performance is...
Manufacturer Favorability Guide 2019 on Jun 12, 2019
The 259 page PDF guide may be downloaded inside by all IPVM members. It includes our manufacturer favorability rankings and individual...
Camera Course Summer 2019 - Register Now on Jun 12, 2019
Register for the Summer 2019 Camera Course.  This is the only independent surveillance camera course, based on in-depth product and technology...
Favorite Wireless Manufacturers 2019 on Jun 12, 2019
Many wireless options exist for video surveillance but how are integrator's overall favorites? 170 integrators answered the question: What is...
Carnegie Mellon AI Startup Zensors Profile on Jun 11, 2019
Zensors is a startup formed by Carnegie Mellon graduates from a Carnegie Mellon research project, offering customized models per camera that they...

The world's leading video surveillance information source, IPVM provides the best reporting, testing and training for 10,000+ members globally. Dedicated to independent and objective information, we uniquely refuse any and all advertisements, sponsorship and consulting from manufacturers.

About | FAQ | Contact