Whilst I still like Wyze Cameras and think that this community is great, it is time for me to say goodbye.
I loved your products and was fully aware when I first purchased them that support ended at the US borders. Still considering how many international customers you have, I would have expected at least global Alexa support by now.
You have a great team and you have successfully rebranded Xiaomi products with better Firmware and a great value philosophy.
Unfortunately, you have diversified into so many different products that it seems that you have neglected your original core business. Of the dozens or so new products launched these past two years, only 2 were cameras.
Requests for an ONVIF solution and NAS integration have been ignored for years with not even an attempt at promising it.
Some loss of features were not your fault. That Apple took over the company behind your person detection for example.
I can also understand that you wish to move to a recurring revenue model by charging for person detection. Again, I would have paid if the other features I needed where available in Europe.
Furthermore there are the connectivity issues with the cameras which occur regularly and, the lack of support (only partially explained by the pandemic).
A big thank you to Gwendolyn who has been the soul of this community and has managed to keep us under control which cannot always have been easy. She is doing a wonderful job and I will miss both her and everyone else in this forum.
Unfortunately my SmartHome has grown up and needs to cover more than just basic needs and this is why I need to quit Wyze and switch to a system that fully integrates and works in Europe too.
I wish the Wyze Team success for the future and hope that everyone else remains happy with their Wyze products.
Note that I will continue to follow Wyze and hope that one day I may be able to return or integrate their products into my set-up.
Lol. As if you know what’s best for Wyze. How do so many people not understand how product development works? Why do so many poeple have this belief that wyze can’t work on more than 1 thing at a time? Or why do so many people think Wyze is just a camera company and that by expanding into other smart devices, they’re neglecting their real role?
Wyze is a smart device company. Not limited to cameras or door locks or sprinklers or home monitoring systems. They’re limited to smart devices. Any smart devices. I honestly can’t believe so many people don’t understand this.
I just came here to see if Wyze had any communication/response to this. I’ve already returned a few cameras since I cannot rely on their detection to always work, let alone their notifications (and I pay for it). I’ve already been looking at alternatives but pushed it off - but this may be the most insulting thing I have ever seen a company do to their customers. In the end, the article says its “theoretically” possible, so hoping its not realistically possible lol.
Thanks for the statement but, I expected at least a warning to users who were exposed to risk for nearly 3 years. Also, as Wyze’s statment points out: “We have fixed these issues and no longer consider this ongoing after the release of the final critical security updates for the last of the local vulnerabilities found in the report in February 2022.”
During this time anyone whose Network was exposed to the Internet (probably most users) was left vulnerable.
But, as I wrote above, I hold Bitdefender just as culpable for keeping a lid on it so long especially since the blew the Whistle on the Babymonitoring Firm they mention as a example in their paper.
Probably not… Your router may or may not be exposed to the internet depending upon your ISP. The cameras definitely are not unless you setup port forwarding to allow direct access. My ISP NATs my router behind a firewall on their connection to the internet, so no direct access to my router from anywhere outside my network.
None of which exacerbates or uses this Wyze vulnerability in any way! The open port(s) would have to have been directed specifically to the local address of a WyzeCam, and no one would be doing that because there was no known reason to. Someone else pointed out that an already compromised (infected) PC inside your network does provide an additional attack vector for this vulnerability. But your point about ports forwarded to other internal devices doesn’t mean anything in this context.
Incorrect. You can use both. Port forwarding redirects one or more specific ports to one or more devices on the internal network. The connection is made through the router (via its routeable IP address) and the router forwards to the NATd device.
Incorrect. It gives access to one port on one device address at a time. If that device is specifically your computer, it exposes NOTHING about your WyzeCam. That’s why it’s called port forwarding. It’s not an open invitation (to anything except the internal device and service on that port, if any).
Incorrect. Essentially every Wyze user uses a firewall, because that is exactly the service provided by every ISP and consumer class NAT router for decades.
@WildBill handled your remaining incorrect paragraph. Can you see why this is an internal-only threat and many of the press reports have had to be corrected for sensationalism?