|
|
Post by kmwrte on Sept 27, 2006 15:18:36 GMT -5
Is Nikon wifi connection safe? Can other people with the same equipment(photo camera) as yours steal data from you - if they live next to you? I think the range of wifi is about 20meters.
Models like nikon p3 , s6 that have wifi connection are safe ? or some data (photos) during wifi tranfer can be stolen? Does NIKON S6 have both options to transfer photos to your computer with and without wire? (for safety reasons)
Is there a way to be protected for sure? How?
Is there a way to connect the Nikon S6 to my computer but with a cable (wire) and do the same things as if it was in the wireless mode?
|
|
|
|
Post by Larry N. Bolch on Sept 27, 2006 16:06:35 GMT -5
As I understand it, at least the transmitters for dSLRs use the ftp protocol so the addresses at both ends would have to match. It does use radio waves, so of course it is much more easily intercepted. IIRC, the standard antenna had a range of about 100 feet, with an optional boost to nearly 500 feet.
"Safe" is a matter of interpretation. Not many of us shoot images that are so valuable that thieves would make the effort needed. It would probably be a lot easier just to break into your house or office and steal the computer once the images are transferred. They get your whole life's output, which would be much more advantageous than to try a hack to grab shots as you are shooting them.
When the first Nikon WiFi transmitter came on the market several years ago, someone used a football game as an example. "Couldn't a spectator bring a laptop, and capture the pictures as a photographer shoots them?"
Well, yes. I doubt that anyone paying for a ticket would want to watch still pictures on a laptop - instead of the game that is in front of them. There is an article on Rob Galbraith's site describing how Sports Illustrated shot the SuperBowl a couple of years back. They had 11 photographers who did over 16,000 exposures. Of those, only a handful of the best were chosen for the magazine. Would you want to pay for a seat at the SuperBowl and look at every shot one of the shooters did? The number would be overwhelming and most would be deadly boring.
Furthermore, the very best from all the photographers, is available to everyone a few days later for just the price of the magazine. Looking at raw images from a digital camera can be very unimpressive until they are expertly processed. It would be little better than viewing some one's unprinted negatives. Those in the magazine would be fine tuned to the very best quality. Baseball would be even worse. I was always delighted out of my mind, if I got a single really good shot from a game. If someone wanted the shots I was taking to cover the possibility that I got no good action, they would be welcome to them.
As a former photojournalist with a career in commercial photography following it, I could not be less concerned. The best of every shoot was published shortly after the shoot, and all the weaker variations were never seen. The world had access to my stuff at its best, so why steal it? Every shot is copyrighted the moment the light hits the sensor, so if the stolen picture was ever published and seen, the thief would be in deep doo-doo.
It is just not an issue I can get lathered over. My personal photography is "personal" and rarely of interest to anyone outside of my circle of friends. If it happens to be of wider interest, it will wind up on my web-site anyway. In this context, I just can not relate to the word "protected". Why would I need to be protected, and from whom?
The only concern I can think of, is if you are shooting naughty pictures of folks who you should not be photographing in such circumstances. Still, it would require finding out the ftp address of your receiving computer and setting up their machine to match. They would have to know that you were doing it, and be close enough at the time to intercept. Perhaps if you were the main supplier for an international kiddy-porn ring, it might be practical for law enforcement to go to such great lengths to gather evidence. A search warrant seems a lot simpler.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmwrte on Sept 27, 2006 16:21:03 GMT -5
Thanks but, You didnt answer my question: is there a way to connect the Nikon S6 to my computer but with a cable (wire) and do the same things(transfer) as if it was in the wireless mode?
how about the usb connection?
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffreyklassen on Sept 27, 2006 17:32:38 GMT -5
Perhaps I can answer this as a Network tech. Yes they are safe, as long as the network you are attached to is encrypted. These cameras are capable of 128bit wep which is a decent amount of security. Someone that knows what they are doing could break it but the chances of that are very slim and very unlikely. To be honest though if you are not familiar with wireless security and you are worried about people stealing your photos this might not be the best solution for you. If however you feel it would work well for you, I would suggest reading up on wireless encryption and getting a basic understanding of it before continuing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Larry N. Bolch on Sept 27, 2006 21:09:35 GMT -5
Thanks but, You didnt answer my question: is there a way to connect the Nikon S6 to my computer but with a cable (wire) and do the same things(transfer) as if it was in the wireless mode? how about the usb connection? Sure, it comes with the USB cable. Best since it uses a storage card, is to get a card-reader. They are extremely cheap, put no stress on the USB connection and are very fast. Then you are transferring the images totally outside of the camera. On the other hand, what is the point of paying for probably the most expensive feature on the camera and then being reluctant to use it? Who are you afraid of? Why do you need protection? What is un-safe? |
|
|
|
Post by kmwrte on Sept 27, 2006 23:46:54 GMT -5
Suppose next to you lives a weird person who tries to get all your family pictures and make a collection for no reason.. would you like that? or if he steals your best artistic pictures and sell them. That kind of problems you should avoid. I am not afraid of anyone, I just wanted to know how much safe wifi is. Especially after I read this article i found randomly. (click the link) (Title:Nikon Coolpix P1 WiFi cam vulnerable to attacks) www.engadget.com/2006/08/04/nikon-coolpix-p1-wifi-cam-vulnerable-to-attacks/ |
|
|
|
Post by jeffreyklassen on Sept 28, 2006 11:44:55 GMT -5
In your article the problem they are talking about is with the software, not the camera. The software opens up a access port to which hackers could connect and wreak havoc. But if you secure your network before hand you will limit this problem greatly. Also make sure you have a good firewall both in your router and a software one on your comp. Allow the Nikon application access to your LAN but not WAN access.
Do you have wireless now? If so do you have encryption enabled and ssid broadcasting disabled? If you have a open wireless router then that should be your concern, not the transfer between the camera and the computer. If I were attacking your system, I would simply defeat your wep and go for your computer not your camera. All your pictures are on your computer anyways. When I do security audits for company's I am more likely going to attempt a direct attack on a computer before I try a ARP attack.
My suggestions would be to secure your wireless with at least 128bit wep, and disable ssid broadcasting. Make sure your router is password protected. You also may want to disable admin control from wireless devices. Then just connect all your systems and cameras to the wireless network with the 128bit encryption key. Unless you have a black hat hacker next door to you you should have nothing to worry about.
|
|
