Genetec Cloud Tested

By: Ethan Ace, Published on Aug 12, 2015

Not since Axis public and prolonged agony with AVHS, has a major manufacturer bet as heavily as Genetec is now doing on the cloud.

Genetec started with Stratocast, which took a similar small camera count approach as Axis AVHS, with similar poor adoption (their most famous customer here).

Genetec is not giving up. Indeed, they are taking an aggressive 'cloud first' strategy more deeply integrating cloud services with its flagship Security Center platform adding Cloud Archiving, Cloud Cameras, and AutoVu Plate Reader Cloud in the past year as well as offering free camera channels and storage to attract users.

In this report, we test:

  • Stratocast - the stand-alone small camera count cloud offering
  • Cloud Cameras - federating Stratocast into Security Center
  • Cloud Archiving - extended cloud archiving for Security Center
  • Cloud LPR - processing LPR in the cloud, integrated within Security Center
  • *** ***** **** ****** and ************** **** ****, *** * ***** manufacturer *** ** ******* as ******* ** *** ***** on *** *****.

    ******* ******* **** **********, which **** * ******* small ****** ***** ******** as **** ****, **** similar **** ******** (***** **** ****** ******** ****).

    ******* ** *** ****** up. ******, **** *** taking ** ********** '***** first' ******** **** ****** integrating ***** ******** **** its ******** ******** ************** *********** *********, ***** *******, ********* ***** ****** ***** ** *** **** **** as **** ** ************ ****** ******** *** storage** ******* *****.

    ** **** ******, ** test:

    • ********** - *** *****-***** small ****** ***** ***** offering
    • ***** ******* - ********** Stratocast **** ******** ******
    • ***** ********* - ******** cloud ********* *** ******** Center
    • ***** *** - ********** LPR ** *** *****, integrated ****** ******** ******

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

    Exec *******

    ****** ********** '**********' *** **** competitive ***********, *** *********** of ***** ********, **** adding ** ***** *******, archiving *** *** ** their *** / **** is ******** *** ********. We ******* *** ***** will **** ************* ******* *** some ***** ***** ***** that *** **** ********* of ***** ******** ** enhance ***** *******.

    Key ******** 

    **** ***** ********** *** key ******** *** **** of *******'* ***** ********, with **** ****** *****:

    **********

    ********** *** *********** *********** compared ** ******** ****** and ***** **** ***** VMSes:

    • **** **** ******* *** supported, ** ***** *************.
    • ********, ******, *** ****** is ******* ** * single ****** **** ** multi-camera *******.
    • ******** ****** ****** *** OAK *** *****, ***** may ** (*** ***** are) **** ****** ************, requiring **** ******* *****.
    • ** ************ ** ***** systems **** ** ****** control, *********, ***.

    ***********, ********** ****** * featureset ******* ** **** Camera ********* *, ****** with **** ******* *****, and * ******* **** ** ~$6/camera (**. ****).

    ******** ****** ***** ******* (Stratocast **********)

    ********** ********** ******* ** Security ****** *********** ********** most ** *** *********** ********* above.

    ******* *** ***** ******* and ******, ****** ******** server, ****, *** ********, with ***** ******* ********* similar to **-**** *******, **** a ****** ******** ** load **** (~*-* *******) on **** ******* *** playback.

    ***** ********

    ***** ******** ********** ****** ********** with **-**** ***** ********, with *** **** ** thumbnails *** ****** ******** in **** **** *** only ********** **********. *******, users ****** ****** ** upload ********* ****** **** using ***** ********, ** there ** ** ***** to ******** ***** ***** and ** *** ***** user's ******** **********.

    ****** ***** ****** *****

    *******, ***** ****** ***** integrated ****** **** ******** Center *** ***-** ******, reading ****** **** **** little ***** ********, **** read ****** ********* *** delivered ** ~*-* *******, only ***** * ****** more **** *******'* **** end ****** ***** ******. 

    *******, *** ***** **** of ********** ******* (******* to Axis, *********, *** ****) and *** ******* ***** (<15 *** *********) *** be ****** *** **** users.

    *******

    **** ** ***** ******** is ** *******:

    • **********:**** ****** **** $*/** (edge ******* ****) ** $18/mo (***** **, ** days *******) *** ******, depending ** **** [**** no ****** *********].
    • ***** *******: ********** ******* *** ** Federated ** ** ********** charge, *** ******** ****** Enterprise ** ******** (** a ************ ************ ** * *******).
    • ***** ********:*** **** ** ***** archives ** $**/** *** TB, *.*., *** = $250/mo ****.
    • ***** ****** *****: $**/** *** ******

    **** ******** **** ****

    **** **** *** ******* users **** * ***** SMA **** ****** ** some **** ***** ******* and ********. ***** ******* for **** ******* ****** see ******* **** **** ***** Cameras / *******

    Genetec ********** 

    *******'* ********** ***** ******** uses *** ********* **********:

    • *** *** **** ********* is **** *** ********* of *** ******, ********* live *** ******** ***** viewing, ******, *** ***** user **********/***********.
    • *** ********** ********* ** used *** ****** *** ************* cameras *** ***** *******, recording *****, ******** ****** Federation *****, *** ****** monitoring.

    ** ****** *** ****** of **** ** ***** interfaces *****:


    ******* *****

    *** "****" ******* ** the *** **** ********* (represented ** *** ****** icon) ** **** *** live *** ******** ******* and ***** ******. **** that *** "***********" ***, *********** by *** ********** ***** icon ******** * **** of *********, *** ****** functions, ******* ** **** user *** **'*.

    *******, ***** ** ** multi-camera ****** ** ******. ********* a ****** ** ******** mode ** * *****-****** view ******** *** **** to * ****** ****** screen. ***** **** ****** and ****** **** ****** individually, ***** *** ** tedious ** ******** ******* are ******** ** ** incident.

    ** ****** ***** ********* in **** *****:


    ****** *******

    ******* **** ** ***** in *** ********** ********* of **********, *** ******* installers ** ***** *** serial ****** *** *** (owner ************** ***) ** each ******. **** *****, Stratocast **** ** *** connection, * ******* **** takes *-* ******* *** camera, **** ***** ****** a ********* ****, **********, and **** *** ******.

    ***** ** ** *** to *** ******** ******* at **** ** ****** the ***** ******* *** cameras ** ** *****, so ********-****** ******** *** be * ****-********* *******.

    **** ******* ** ***** in **** *****:


    **** **** *** ****** number ** *** *** address ** *** ****** and *** ** ****** retrieved *** * ******* ** the ****** ****** ** in *** *** *********. However, *** *** ** only ******** ** *** paper ************* ******** **** each ****** *** *** be ****** **** ** thrown *** ****** ************. Users *** ******* **** or ********** ******* ** retrieve *** *** *** these *******.

    Cloud *******/********** **********

    ********** ******* *** ** Federated ** ******* ******** Center ** ****** ******** a ********** **** *** entering *** ************* ********* server ****, ****, *** password. 

    ***** ******* ****** ** different **** ***** *******, with * ****** ******** in **** **** (*-* seconds **. *-*) *** only ******* **********. ***** camera ***** *** ** kept ** ********** ** archived ******* ***** **'* Auxiliary ******** ****.

    ** **** ***** ** walk ***** ******* ******** the ********** ********** *** viewing ***** ****** *****:


    Cloud ********

    ***** ******** ******** * small ****** ** *** Security ****** ****** *** uses *** *** ****** Tool ******** **** *** main ** ***********. ***** this ****** ****, ***** set ** *** ******* age ** ***** ********, with ***** ***** **** this ******* ******** ************* to *** *****.

    **** **** ***** ** no *** ** ******** bandwidth ** ***** ******* uploads *** ** *** impact ******** ***** ***********. In *** *****, ****** bandwidth *** ********* *-* Mb/s. ******* ********* **** they **** *** ********* about **** **** ** bandwidth ********** *** ** may ** ***** ** a ****** *******. 

    ***** ***** ******* ********* is ********* ********, **** video ******** *** ****** the **** *** ** local ********, **** **** thumbnails *** *** ******** when ***** ***** ****** in *** *****, ****** local *****. ***** **** this, ************* ** *********** similar.


    Plate ****** *****

    ***** ****** ***** ********** with ******** ****** *** an ***-** ******. **** installed, ***** ********* * supported ***** **** *** ****** as *** *** ******, with * ****** ****** optionally **** *** ********. Only *********

    ***** *** ********** ** triggered ***** ** ********* analytics (**** * ******* reaches * ******** *****) or ******* */* (**** a ****** ********* **** or ** **** ** triggered ** * *******) or *** ** **********. Plate ****** ***** **** includes **** ** *** analytics ***** ** *******'* latest ****** ********, **** as ***** ** ****** and ******* ****. *******, direction ** ****** *** speed ********** *** *** included.

    *** **** ******* * plate ***** ******* *** the **** ***** ********* in ******** ****** *** ~1-2 *******, ******* ** or ******** ****** **** a ****-***** ****** ***** system.


    ** ***** ** ****** reading ****** *** ** night ** ** *** or ***** ***** ** Axis ***** **** *******'* recommended ********. ***** ***** for **, **, *** NJ *** ******** **** nearly ** ****** ***% of *****, ** ****. Accuracy ** ** ***, double *** ** *** specifications, *** ***** ** well, ****** ***** ***** of ****** ****** **********. 

    Versions ****

    ***** *** *** ******** versions **** ** **** test:

    • ******* ******** ******: *.* SR1 (*.*.****.**)
    • ***** ****** *****: *.*.***.*
    • ***** ********: *.*.****.** 

Comments (10)

In reviews of "cloud" based security systems such as this, shouldn't the subject of cloud security be addressed alongside other technical considerations? A recent HP sponsored study suggests so. In other words, can it be hacked thus making client data available to cybercriminals?

In other words, can it be hacked thus making client data available to cybercriminals?

In short: maybe. The issue with making claims about cybersecurity one way or another is that so much hacking involves finding exploits, which by nature are unknown. Like Heartbleed, which left many, many systems vulnerable. No one knew that vulnerability was there until it became a problem, and literally millions of users were impacted, since so many things were developed with OpenSSL.

Genetec uses Microsoft's Azure cloud services platform for Stratocast. Microsoft does routine penetration testing on these services and have a lot at stake keeping them secure. And according to Genetec, they're using 256-bit SSL encryption. We confirmed this with Wireshark traces. After the connection is made, you don't see any traffic other than TLS, similar to this trace (from our Remote Network Access for Video Surveillance report):

So there are a lot of measures already taken to keep things secure. But does that mean it can't be hacked? No.

If anyone has suggestions for things specific to these issues we can test, please comment.

The knee-jerk reaction to cloud-based systems says they must be less secure than data under ones own purview simply because you don’t know what security measures are taking place at the cloud-provider.

This is a lot like saying I would rather put my money in a safe in my home office with my own alarm system on my doors/windows than put it in the bank—because I don’t control the bank’s security. And if I don’t control it then I can’t trust it, right?

Reality is most banks have better (physical) security than most homes. And I believe that holds true for most professionally run cloud-based service as well.

Cloud based systems present a slightly different type of risk in that everybody knows where the front door to your data is located (it’s at your-cloud-provider.com). But alas the sense of satisfaction you get from ‘security through obscurity’ when you store your data in your own wiring closet is often short lived if you suffer a deliberate and targeted attack.

As Ethan points out the large IaaS/PaaS providers like Google, AWS, Azure provide a lot of support to keep the infrastructure secure. In our case, on AWS, in addition to the underlying security of AWS’s infrastructure they also offer a tremendous amount of turn-key platform security that we can utilize ourselves to provide a much more secure environment with less effort than would be required if we constructed our own infrastructure.

All that being said, Richard’s right that cloud-security is another attribute of any cloud-based product that needs to be evaluated. I just think in many situations you’ll find that the system can be more secure as a side effect of being cloud based than systems that are not.

This is a lot like saying I would rather put my money in a safe in my home office with my own alarm system on my doors/windows than put it in the bank—because I don’t control the bank’s security.

Disagree.

Your money is either in your home safe OR the bank safe.

Cloud security does not obviate the need for on-site security, the rule of weakest link dominates here.

Let's say, instead of money, you have the keys to your Ferrari in your home safe.

Would you really argue that putting duplicate set of keys in the bank's safe would make your car more secure?

Would you really argue that putting duplicate set of keys in the bank's safe would make your car more secure?

In my analogy I'm saying putting a duplicate set of keys in the bank's safe would not necessarily make it any less secure than only keeping a set in my home safe. I'm arguing against the idea that just because there's a cloud based component to the system now it's less secure than a VMS that is protected by only the customer's IT infrastructure.

I don't dissagree that the weakest link dominates. But when IPVM reviews a VMS people do not immediately ask "but how secure is it?" They only tend to do so when IPVM reviews a cloud based service.

I just think in many situations you’ll find that the system can be more secure as a side effect of being cloud based than systems that are not.

Guess I should have more clearly framed my question. Cloud computing security is a partnership between the provider (MS, Amazon et.al.) and the user (their clients). I’ve no doubt that providers invest heavily in their half of the equation and of course their clients and their clients end users (you and I) reap the shared benefits of this investment. However, what about the security provided by the cloud clients? Is it as robust and as well thought out and implemented? At the end of the day our end user data (yours, mine and others) are held and secured not by the cloud provider who secures the framework within which that data are held, but by the cloud client who is the first line of defense in regard to protecting that data and it’s that data we should be most concerned about. So, my original question did not pertain to the provider but rather to the client.

Hi Richard, I guess I'm not following what you mean by "client."

In the case of Genetec's service, is Genetec the client (of MS) to which you refer?

If that's true then you're asking, how do you trust Genetec's implementation of security upon MS's infrastructure?

Steve, let me start by making two points, one is that by use of names I am not pointing fingers or making accusations and two, I’m certainly not aware of the internal designs of the Genetec cloud products but can make an education guess as to the architecture.

By way of the present example, I see the following as being the likely scenario. There are likely 4 actors responsible for the security of the installation: the cloud “provider” who in this example is Microsoft, their “client” who in this example is Genetec, what I refer to as the “customer gateway” (an application at the customer site that collects such things as event notifications, equipment status, inputs from cameras and whatnot, and pushes it all to the cloud) who in this example is Genetec and finally the “customer”, Genetics customer who in this example is IPVM.

So, in the cloud itself there 2 players, the provider MS and the client Genetect. They share security responsibility within the domain of the cloud. MS is responsible for such aspects as infrastructure, cross-pollination, environment et.al. Genetec is responsible for just about everything else such as for example; protect and securely manage credentials, protecting against impersonation attacks, protecting against identify fraud, protecting customer video data, protecting customer operational and site data, encryption of sensitive data, providing for secure access and a long list of other activities. In essence, in this example Genetec assumes responsibility for ALL aspects of security in the cloud that would, in a typical non-cloud installation, be shared in part by the customers IT department and in part by Genetec.

So, as you can see, in this example Genetec, and in general the “client” in every cloud installation, takes on a HUGE responsibility role in the overall security of the installation. Hence the reason for my initial query.

Sorry Steve, forgot to answer your specific question. Yes, in this example my question is in regard to Genetec's security measures but, in general I'd ask the same question of any cloud client installation. My reason is simple, use of cloud technology does not of itself insure security but rather, in practice it tends to complicate it, and where VMS is concerned that complexity is compounded.

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

Rhombus Cameras, VMS and Analytics Tested on Nov 06, 2019
Rhombus boasts they have created "the new standard in Enterprise, cloud-managed video security" and told IPVM in January 2019 they offer twice the...
90+ Companies Profile Directory on Nov 05, 2019
While IPVM covers the largest companies in the industry regularly (like Axis, Dahua, Hikvision, etc.), IPVM strives to do a profile post on each...
Pelco Sarix Pro3 Camera Tested on Oct 16, 2019
Pelco has released their Sarix Professional Series 3 cameras, claiming "more security detail in challenging scenes with excellent low light and...
Last Chance - Register Now - October 2019 IP Networking Course on Oct 10, 2019
Last Chance - Register Now - Fall 2019 IP Networking Course. The course starts next week. This is the only networking course designed...
Network Optix NxWitness 4.0 Tested on Oct 10, 2019
Network Optix released Nx Witness 4.0, proclaiming new features like a deep learning analytics metadata SDK, increased H.265 support, and UX...
'Bunker Busting' Wireless Access Startup: Sure-Fi Profile on Oct 03, 2019
An access startup is claiming its 'bunker busting' wireless Wiegand radios can punch through 'any obstruction'. We examine their offering,...
Vivotek 4K S-Series Camera Tested on Sep 30, 2019
Vivotek's highest-end S-series camera claims "Supreme Night Visibility", "Smart IR II", "Smart Stream II", "WDR Pro for unparalleled visibility in...
Consumer IP Camera Analytics / AI Shootout - Arlo, Google / Nest, Amazon / Ring, Hikvision / Ezviz, Wyze Cam, Yi Home on Sep 26, 2019
AI analytics are hitting the mainstream in the consumer camera market, with entrants Wyze and Yi Home releasing free people detection on their...
Directory of 70 Video Surveillance Startups on Sep 18, 2019
This directory provides a list of video surveillance startups to help you see and research what companies are new or not yet broadly known. 2019...
Genetec Stratocast VSaaS Tested on Sep 05, 2019
The VSaaS market is rapidly expanding in 2019, with Verkada, Meraki, Eagle Eye, Avigilon and numerous startups growing their market share. When we...

Most Recent Industry Reports

ADT Stock Surges - "Leading The Commercial Space" on Nov 15, 2019
Don't call it comeback... but maybe call it a commercial provider. ADT, whose stock dropped by as much as 2/3rds since IPOing in 2018, has now...
Gatekeeper Security Company Profile - Detecting Faces Inside Vehicles on Nov 14, 2019
Border security is a common discussion in mainstream US news and politics, as is the use of banned Chinese equipment by US Government agencies....
Hikvision CEO And Vice-Chair Under PRC Government Investigation on Nov 14, 2019
In a surprising and globally covered move, Hikvision CEO Hu Yangzhong and Vice-Chairman Gong Hongjia are being investigated by China's securities...
Camera Field of View (FoV) Guide on Nov 13, 2019
Field of View (FoV) and Angle of View (AoV), are deceptively complex. At their most basic, they simply describe what the camera can "see" and seem...
UK Big Brother Watch: Hikvision Is 'Morally Bankrupt' on Nov 13, 2019
UK civil liberties advocate Big Brother Watch has condemned Hikvision as being 'morally bankrupt' following IPVM exposing Hikvision marketing...
Color Low Light Mega Camera Shootout - Avigilon, Axis, Bosch, Dahua, Hanwha, Hikvision, Panasonic, Speco, Sony, Vivotek on Nov 12, 2019
This is the biggest color low light shootout ever, testing 20+ super low light models from 10 manufacturers: Increasingly, each manufacturer...
Wireless / WiFi Access Lock Guide on Nov 12, 2019
For some access openings, running wires can add thousands in cost, and wireless alternatives that avoid it becomes appealing. But using wireless...
Hikvision Global News Reports Directory on Nov 11, 2019
Hikvision has received the most global news reporting of any video surveillance company, ever, ranging from the WSJ, the Financial Times, Reuters,...
Hikvision Markets Uyghur Ethnicity Analytics, Now Covers Up on Nov 11, 2019
Hikvision has marketed an AI camera that automatically identifies Uyghurs, on its China website, only covering it up days ago after IPVM questioned...
Open vs End-to-End Systems: Integrator Statistics 2019 on Nov 11, 2019
Preference for open systems is on the decline, according to new IPVM statistics. We asked integrators: For video surveillance systems, do you...