Genetec Expels Hikvision

Genetec informed us that we could not enroll our TruHikVision cameras at all...

So not even by a generic ONVIF or RTSP plugin? Does Genetec look at the MAC address or something when setting up a channel as ONVIF to see if it's a Hikua camera?

Thanks. I knew it had to be covered somewhere in IPVM. Now the link is here as well.

U33, thanks for the information. I'm sorry you missed it, we covered this in June 2020: Genetec Drops Support for Dahua and Hikvision

I don't see an update for this so I thought I should share that Genetec no longer offers the special license. Genetec is one of our candidates to replace our Truvision system and Genetec informed us that we could not enroll our TruHikVision cameras at all and that the option to purchase the outrageously expensive special licenses was eliminated last year. 700 cameras and 40 encoders (serving 500 analog cameras( would need to be replaced in order to implement Genetec.

NOTICE: This comment has been moved to its own discussion: Genetec Will Not Support Project With 700 Truvision Hikvision Cameras

Hikvision is "easy" to view live and recorded video? 

Can't help but feel you're missing the point.

I wonder if Trumps friendly relationship and business dealing with the Chinese gov will soften the hard stance against Chinese made products being specified for US gov installs?

NOTICE: This comment has been moved to its own discussion: Will Trump Soften The Hard Stance Against Chinese Made Products Being Specified For US Gov Installs?

Of course they will use their own brand - just as the nsa used american-manufactured routers to install back doors into. 

Any product that involves cyber security that is owned or controlled by a foreign government entity must be assumed to be non-secure. Otherwise you are just kidding yourself. 

China is a leading source of intellectual property theft and why would a security integrator want to introduce the potential of a corporate client being penetrated through integrator- supplied security gear. To save 50 bucks? Is it worth the risks posed? 

...Genetec unsurprisingly wants to protect themselves from being implicated into any potential Chinese state-sponsored penetration.

Unless you pay them $250.

With cheap labor...

Good point.

Its not fair to us that Chinese workers will accept a lower standard of living than U.S. workers. Force them to lead a life of luxury for a decade or so and we'll see how competitive their wages are then.

In 2014, I dare say that most network NVR/DVR and cameras were shipped with a default password.

So how is Hik more negligent than the others with the same practices at that time?

And don't forget that they where also hacked and used for Bitcoin mining (NVR's and DVR's).

They weren't 'hacked'.

Integrators and end-users failed to change the default credentials.

Exactly! That is the point. How many companies in the private sector have the support, or are owned, by the second largest economy in the world? I'm quite sure the brand name companies would had kicked their butts long time ago. Is not fair competition, plain and simple. Capish!!

So in all the other manufacturing sectors, besides video surveillance, where China is also 'kicking our butts', is that because the state is subsidizing those industries as well?

Capex!!

Restricted: Requires restricted camera connection part number because of increased cyber risk factors.

If they are going to use increased cyber risk factors as the reason why they are omitting support for Hikvision, why not Dahua, Axis, and Sony? If it is due to the Chinese gov link, then say so. Why the double speak?

Did I miss a memo? Are Dahua, Axis, or Sony now owned by a government?

Update: Hikvision and Huawei have been moved into a newly created 'restricted' category on Genetec's support list. The details remain the same, a waiver is need and a special license connection, but the devices now are labelled 'restricted':

These are interesting ideas but I think they would be very hard to push through.

I'm obviously not an international trade expert but I would presume that it's much easier for a country to control its defense exports than preventing imports of security-related products - even when there is a credible threat to its IT infrastructure.

The reason ITAR is enforceable is that US-based military contractors depend largely from the DoD funding. ITAR-restricted products simply wouldn't exist without DoD grants and contracts. US military contractors would never risk being barred from future contracts. Other countries don't really mind if the US exporters export less - on the contrary, it provides a chance for non-US exporters to export more.

In contrast, if the US were to block imports of some products from China, they would face internal pressure from consumers as well as from WTO, etc.

It's one thing for China to face criticisms from Trump over twitter, and another entirely to let their exports be blocked. I bet there are lots of US-based organizations influenced by China's big money that would pull strings if Trump actually tries to implement some of his promised protectionist policies.

Christian, that's very interesting.

Your posting made me think of an interesting fact that the International Traffic in Arms Regulations ("ITAR") restricts the export to certain countries of a number of items including information and software that are primarily commercial in nature but also have potential military applications. Specifically noted on the Commerce Control List under ITAR are computers. However, these items are allowed for import from ITAR prohibited countries.

The purpose of ITAR is to prevent items from being shipped to specific countries (including China) that may use such restricted items against the U.S. Given the threat of cyber warfare and terrorism, perhaps the U.S. should consider restricting the import of these same items from these same countries as they can also be used against the U.S. within our borders. While much has been said about the difference between China and North Korea, they are both ITAR prohibited countries. Further, we have verified evidence that China has a cyber warfare unit engaged in attacks on the U.S.

Now, I'm all for global trade but, the fact is China is, in effect at war with the U.S...perhaps much like the UAE would consider themselves at defacto war with Israel.

While my first concern is that the Chinese government's support of HikiVision is unfairly driving the market lower, let's not be so naïve as to think the Chinese do not want to harm the U.S.

If ITAR were to be applied to imports and exports, HikiVision (and many other countries) would not be allowed to ship computers and peripherals or any other items that could have military applications to the U.S. It is not a stretch to suggest that IP cameras would be included in this restriction.

The following are ITAR prohibited countries:

Afghanistan, Belarus, Central African Republic, Cuba, Cyprus, Eritrea, Fiji, Iran, Iraq, Cote d'Ivoire, Lebanon, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Vietnam, Myanmar, CHINA, Haiti, Liberia, Rwanda, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Republic of the Sudan (Northern Sudan), Yemen, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Best,

David Coughlin

You had mentioned you believed that only ONVIF integration would be supported, have they comfirmed this?

When will genetec officially confirm this i cant find any info from anyone

Huawei also ? We need to inform Genetec, that most of cameras has HiSilicon chip inside and Huawei is HiSilicon's mother company.

let's talk about how many other device will be dropped by Genetec due to vulnerability issues?

Consistency is one of the most remarkable measure of a company.

Genetec says they dropped Hikvision and Huawei due to Chinese government control concerns. As such, they have been 'consistent' in their approach since those are the two companies with video surveillance products widely viewed as being controlled by the Chinese government.

You can think they are wrong in doing so but they are not suffering from any 'consistency' issues.

But the security industry started to be much more an "everyone knows" industry, and enthusiasts (professionals who really care) are a really few.

The post has 15,000 reads in a week, 180+ likes on LinkedIn, it's forced Hikvision to issue a formal response letter, etc. If that is what you consider 'really few', so be it.

But to cut the long story short, time will tell. I don't expect that hikvision will be 2nd or 5th next year because of this message.

Well Hikvision's revenue was ~$3 billion more than #2 Dahua's, so yes Hikvision's revenue will not fall $3 billion because of this. And since 75% of that revenue is from China, I doubt anyone in China will choose not to business with Hikvision because Genetec says they are insecure.

So impact is zero.

Saying that Hikvision's revenue will not fall $3 billion, which is what you are implying with your claim, does not equal no impact.

You are conflating your disagreement with Genetec's decision here with whether or not people care or that it will have an impact among others.

John, I agree with you in many points, but as above.

Size not comparable. Market not comparable.

Genetec sending out this "message" to an almost empty room, "people" in this roome still not concerning Hikvision as a PRO manufacturer, so the message is lost. But at least inappropiate.

Is it much of a step up from 4200?

John, when a system is vulnerable, and can be hacked with skills, is it important who owns the manufacturer? What if Axis is controlled by Illuminati (LOL)? Who knows?

It is interesting that 61% of IPVM readers thinks that Hikvision will lose something with this move.

1: Genetec size is not comperative with Hikvision

2: Genetec aims for a different market segment

3: There are hundredth of Genetec like solutions worldwide

4: The low to mid market segment is significantly larger than the pro

So who will lose and what?

Just because customers sign waivers doesn't preclude lawsuits from third parties...

Sure, but what would the lawsuit even allege?

"Genetec connected to a camera they told me not to buy. This camera later participated in a DDOS attack on a third party, that was unrelated to Genetec in any way."

"Still Genetec was negligent by connecting to this camera, which gave me the sense that it must be trustsorthy, and so over their objections, I purchased one, to my regret."

IMHO, they have more liability from someone slipping in the lobby.

Andy, I'm calling BS on your claim of "550+ scientists and engineers" as your website claims just over 600 total employees. Grandiose claims like this may lead others to question the veracity of Genetec's other claims.

Also, there are other reasons beyond security to isolate IP video traffic on its own network (physical or virtual). One is that it allows for network traffic to be contained so that it doesn't impact other network traffic.

Nevertheless, I do agree with your premise that there are additional costs for HikVision based upon their history, marketing methods, and company ownership.

On a side note, I'm not a fan of HikVision because I believe the overall marketing of their products cheapens our industry, and the company is able to do this due to government subsidies and a low paid workforce. Then again (and perhaps directly opposed to this bottom feeding mindset), I've also found Genetec to be overly arrogant...Case in point, you made me look up "antithetical."

Cheers,

David Coughlin

Director, Security Sales & Operations

ENE Systems

The extra charge for HikVision is likely to support administrative costs and to hedge against legal fees/exposure. Just because customers sign waivers doesn't preclude lawsuits from third parties...and even by the customers who signed the waivers.

"They don't want to cooperate with open platform software in China, because they believe that their software is the best. "

Well every VMS maker thinks (or says) they are the best. But how much competition do they really have? Seriously, how does the VMS choice landscape look in China- meaning how many big names can one say they have, domestic and foreign?

(-Signed......... hold on, have to find my driver's license......;)

That's a lot of rolls of change in profit to deposit.