Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

RED-Key (security proposal for RED cameras)

RED-Key (security proposal for RED cameras)

  • Total voters
    146
Problem is that "lo-jack" and similar GPS tracking products require a backchannel (usually GSM mobile) which returns to the problem of actually making that work - being able to change SIM card, etc.

It would be much more practical to make a solution that can exist and work in-camera without any need for communication to anywhere, so long as it's created with due consideration for various problems and errors (like shoot going over schedule, or card lost). Any solution, managed that way, would have to be configurable by the owner (switch on or off, have control over behaviour and settings).

But anything like this is dependent on RED having the time and inclination to implement it. And at the moment, I think they have other priorities.
 
I know that most laptops, these days, are available with Lojack installed. It must be a fairly simple system, because it only costs like $150 USD, I think.
 
Tom said:
I know that most laptops, these days, are available with Lojack installed. It must be a fairly simple system, because it only costs like $150 USD, I think.
Click to expand...

This makes it sound very promising.

JanneJansson said:
As long there is an option NOT to have it, I'm in favor :)
Click to expand...

Yea, that's just fine... I would guess you could either ask for it not to be installed, or simply set it off in the camera's menu... whatever were deemed the best solution to make you and like minded people happy.

I would love it if it were a piece of hardware hidden somewhere and inconspicuous or downright not possible to remove and keep the camera in working order. Then the only one that can activate it could be the owner of the particular camera and they would pay a small fee for the one time service.. I dunno... but something... something that worked.

I am sure Red could figure out something that would keep all users happy and also had a ridiculously high level of success like I imagine lo-jack probably does.
 
What bothers me most about these approaches is the idea of my not enabling this, then someone else coming in and enabling it without my having access to it. In other words, someone else enabling security and locking me out of my own device...

That being said, you guys are making the key-gen WAY to complicated. The key generation could be done on the camera itself. The camera generates a key and stores it in its memory, writing the key out to SD card. You use a computer or whatever to make a backup copy of the file it puts out in case the card goes bad, then just copy that file back onto a new card. After you have the backup copy, use the camera menu to enable security.

The camera would use various factors to generate the key, such as a timestamp, number of past keys generated, etc., but at any rate wants a complete match.

As to using hacked firmware to work around, the secured camera would refuse to update unless the card with the firmware update on it also contained a copy of the key...

Stop making this so hard on yourselves; you're over-thinking the problem.

All that being said... I don't want it.
 
well if you had the lojack thing you could be the only one that could enable it via a password or other safe identification process and all you could do is find out where it is... the rest is up to you and the police, or you and your favorite baseball bat with rusty nails sticking through the tip
 
The plan I sort of formed a page or two back was basically that you'd need a valid 'superuser' card to enable, disable or configure the system. The advantage of making the key generation outside the camera is that for a rental house it could manage a number of cameras centrally. Also, a camera would never be disabled by the loss of a card, as a new one could be created with the correct credentials.

The big problem with lojack systems is that they require communications back to some monitoring service. In cars that's by mobile, and as it's hidden and the car is unlikely to leave the area in which coverage is available, it works. For a camera that would be a problem. Owners in different areas would have to be able to provide valid SIM card for their local network, and the device wouldn't be hidden. Disabling it would be as simple as removing the SIM card.
 
Wow! A lot of you are overthinking, but I think overthinking in terms of potential problems, as opposed to overthinking the security. So far the only biggest fears I hear are being "accidentally" locked out while on the set. You're using a Red, and going all digital. What happens when your HD fails, laptop requires an OS/Software reinstall, RAM fails, CF Card Fails, etc, etc, etc......From working in IT for the past 15 years, these ALL happen on a regular basis in critical uptime environments.

This would be a minor thing, and I think it would be second nature. If you need the SD card to boot your camera, you're damned well going to have the SD card to boot your camera. Or are all of you in the habit of forgetting your batteries, HD, or recording media - this would amount to the same amount of time lag as any other potential problem on set.

It's good that you're bringing up the potential problems for discussion purposes, but outright dismissing the idea based on these potential problems is silly.
 
Don't SD cards have serial numbers? If so, the firmware could just check to see if that SD card is present upon boot-up. If the card is not found, refuse to boot and power off.
 
I agree Peter, so yes, but with kinda big changes.

Some kind of anti-theft measure is probably a good idea. Personally, I prefer a clock based systems. From a safe place, i.e. not in the field, you lease the camera for another week, month, whatever. This might be part of the footage offloading process, where new leases are written to the drives when a drive is inserted, preferably fully automated. Trust has to start somewhere.

I also like grace periods. I write software, video is a new hobby for me, cinematography... just a dream, for now. However, our clients get quite agitated when our copy protection incorrectly blocks access. So we just never do that at first. Someone mentioned $250.000 shooting days, I guess the same should be the MO for Red-Anti-Theft. I think I read most of the posts in the thread, I didn't see this suggested.

During the grace period, how about right after booting, showing on all the monitors attached to the RED "I am the property of X. If you see this message please contact Y. This camera is probably stolen." The message stays up 120 seconds and the camera will do nothing else. Or variations of this. After 120 seconds, the camera operates without any restrictions. With a scrolling version of this message during the entire operation on all screens.

In fact, just flat out disabling the camera is the best way to make sure thieves don't get caught. They can't sell useless things, they can sell semi useful things. Besides, they can still sell all the modules anyway. The brain is only a part of what they got. I may be best to keep the loot in tact.

For time based security (I don't suppose RED boot firmware is based on OFW?) you could do worse than look at the XO-1 laptop from OLPC.
 
Lojack, I'm all for. A security password that could potentially lock me out. NO, Never, I would not even purchase a camera that had this feature. I have been burned one too many times by software that had a security feature bug. More specifically, Adobe photoshop CS1. This is when Adobe started their software activation feature, meaning that if you did not activate ths softare after a short period of time it would no longer work. The bad thing is, this software could be deactivated if there was a system change, meaning that when I defragmented my hard drive adobe saw this as a system change and locked up photoshop. I did not open photoshop on my laptop until I'm 3hrs away from civilization and an internet connection on a shoot that was costing me money. I go to open up photoshop to pre comp some of my shots with others I had allready taken and photoshop refueses to open until I can connect to the internet and re-activate.

To me this is complete BS, and even having the remote possibility of something going wrong on the camera that will lock you out is rediculous. Insurance should be your security, that is why it is there.
This security key thing is also not going to stop any thefts of the camera from people who don't know what the camera is, only that it looks expensive. Do you think they will just give the camera back once they figure out they need your key?
 
My two cents:

Please, no dongles. That won't work and it's annoying. And any kind of lock on footage would be far too problematic and ultimately, useless. Software security is, generally, ineffectual. Even if an encryption method is secure, hackers will just bypass the security check and people getting locked out of their own cameras would be very, very bad. Even something as simple as a PIN could be a major problem, if a renter/borrower could enable one on a camera that didn't already have one.

A 'LoJack' type of security might help. Although, I'm guessing it would be a bit harder to hide the device in a camera than in a car. Once a thief knows where the transmitter is, it's over. It would have to be very hard to get to.

The only suggestion I might add is a hidden tag in the camera hardware that is non-user-serviceable. Since all cameras go through Red, they should be the only ones able to access this. If the camera changes hands, it would presumably go back to Red, right?

The tag would probably be owner information, displayed while the camera is running. Granted, thieves aren't going to care if their camera displays "Property of Some Company - City, State", but it might make it more difficult to sell... and that might be a deterrent, which is probably the best we can hope for. A 'secure' camera is as unrealistic as it is impractical.
 
A lot of laptops have lojack, so it can't be that difficult to install and hide. plus you get the added benefit of being able to track the bastards down, right to their front door. :gun:
 
Insurance may not be enough for some

Insurance may not be enough for some

I guess its just knowing that you have that second safety net...
Its kinda like "yeah I've got the insurance but I've lost my first RED Camera..." imagine if you had like red #10 and that got stolen,It's not as if buying another RED camera is going to bring that #10 back is it?so basically its just extra peace of mind...at least thats what I'm guessing some are looking for...call it closure. Brilliant idea though...can't wait to see if it happens,definitely give me peace of mind!
 
Zak, the main problem with insurance is that most won't cover You for lost income while You are waiting for all the paperwork, payout and purchase & delivery of a new camera. This could be couple of months in some cases...

:) Peter
 
Peter Majtan said:
Zak, the main problem with insurance is that most won't cover You for lost income while You are waiting for all the paperwork, payout and purchase & delivery of a new camera. This could be couple of months in some cases...

:) Peter
Click to expand...

Two things. First, have you considered how much more it would be to insure a production shooting on RED after the first shoot stalled from a false positive anti-theft incident? More than likely it will never get that far, because producers just won't trust a production schedule to a camera that can lock out people. No matter how good the system is people have to operate it, thousands of people over the population of RED cameras. I can only imagine the man hours Jim would have to burn that would have to be dedicated to "unlocking" cameras.

Secon, thankfully there is no lag time in months for Red cameras anymore. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top