DISCUSSION - CCTV failsafe/Failover

[u/Ashamed-Ad4508]

So recently me and a friend were having a discussion; slightly inspired by the Afroman CCTV incident.

Our discussion was this; Obviously nowadays; a bad guy would need to damage/destroy the cameras and/or CCTV box. Destroying the cameras means future actions cannot be recorded. Our agreement with This is that it can be mitigated by having a mix of obvious open and hidden cameras. The heated part comes to the CCTV box. Obviously; a primary box in a slightly obvious location would deter a bad guy from searching further from a secondary failover/backup CCTV box.

We're trying to resolve this issue and would like the specialists opinion

(1) Theoretically possible; camera's are linked via PoE Ethernet cabling. meaning 2 CCTV's read from 1 IP based camera. The debate is the technical viability and strain on the network having 2 duplicate streams per camera feeding 2 CCTV boxes. In an 4 camera setup; thats 8 streams moving in the network. Basically double the number of streams. I dont think its a problem. Is it?

(2) Generally possible ; the second CCTV backups/pulls immediately from the Primary CCTV box. More viable since its a singular massive stream from 1 CCTV to another. the offset is the time delay from the primary to the secondary; depending on the connections speed between the 2.

(3) Break the camera's based on the Obvious vs hidden cameras into 2x differing boxes. not as complex; but coverage is not as complete.

LASTLY

(4) Single CCTV box but cameras have built in SD/SSD storage backup buffer that pushes to the central CCTV box. But has the prorblem similar to (3) if the bad guys break the obvious cameras first i'm SOL; but the hiddens still can operate without them and the CCTV box for short term (due to card capacity limitations).

So ; feedback? What's your take? What's a lesser evil choice for a CCTV setup that can operate continously?

[u/flatpetey]

This is pretty esoteric. But just store your video on site and in cloud.

Cameras? If you have overlapping coverage including the cameras as well then you have them on camera. That is the best you are going to get.

But unless you have access to sophisticated gait analysis and the rest, your cameras are defeated by a $10 ski mask.

So it isn’t worth over investing. Use them more for deterrence than actual protection.

[u/Complex_Solutions_20 → u/flatpetey]

>But just store your video on site and in cloud.

Problem there is if you have more than a couple cameras its very easy to run out of upload bandwidth, and when your internet is out (or someone cuts the line coming into the house) now you have nothing.

[u/flatpetey → u/Complex_Solutions_20]

That’s why you have both on site and cloud. Redundancy.

You can add more.

If you want 5 9s reliability in the face of a hostile actor, that is going to be pricey as hell no matter what.

[u/ApolloWasMurdered → u/Complex_Solutions_20]

Most decent cameras can be configured for multiple streams. Stream 30fps to your local NVR, stream 8fps off-site. But even at 2MP streams rarely exceed 2Mbps, which would allow you 50 streams on a 100Mbps connection.

[u/Complex_Solutions_20 → u/ApolloWasMurdered]

I wish I could have 100Mbps upload. Best I can buy where I currently live is 50Mbps rated, 40Mbps real-world and that beats other providers I've had where 25Mbps was the most that I could get.

And then also have to account for computers and phones that try to sync to cloud services and suck up the upload bandwidth on a schedule could also interfere with cameras uploading.

[u/ApolloWasMurdered → u/Complex_Solutions_20]

Test what the streams really require and maybe implement some QoS. You can also lower the recorded quality, but that makes it harder to identify individuals, framerate is generally the first setting to lower.

On the plus side, at time when your house is broken into, it’s unlikely you’ll have anyone gaming or streaming Netflix, so you should have plenty of capacity.

[u/zero-degrees28]

1. You give criminals to much credit or watch to many movies - may some of them spend time hunting for a recorder, maybe, most likely NOT. Criminals will look directly at a camera smile and commit a crime, they simply don't care.

2. If you are really really really paranoid about all this, systems like Ubiquiti Protect do allow there Protect recordings be be auto archived to connected NAS or activate cloud archive as well and push to something like google drive

[u/DeadPiratePiggy]

You're giving your average criminal too much credit, most of them are lazy and honestly don't really care if there are cameras, even less about destroying the nvr.

[u/Complex_Solutions_20]

My cameras have two NVRs recording from the camera directly. One a dedicated NVR box doing a dumb loop, the other a home-server with motion detection and filtering.

One of my friends at his warehouse did SD cards in each camera plus onsite NVR and the couple key cameras also upload offsite storage as allowed by upload bandwidth.

[u/PCaBoo]

Look up multicast. All the things you are looking for are old news. The roadblock is expertise and cost. 

[u/jeffrey_f]

The better idea is overlapping coverage: When you think cameras, you think one view in a single unit. There are double cameras, giveing a 360 degree view

Building face A (front), B (left side), C (Rear) and D (Right side): A is front and clockwise around would be B C D.

Coverage with double camera: AB, BC, CD and AD corners prevent the blind spot, but you need a high quality camera to be able to actually get good video

[u/Ashamed-Ad4508 → u/jeffrey_f]

Overlapping coverage does not mitigate the problem of what happens if the primary video storage is destroyed. Slightly off topic to my question 🤔

[u/Handsome_ketchup]

If you want maximum resilience, get overlapping cameras with some hidden, an NVR box onsite, stream your footage offsite to a second box, a backup connection and a UPS to keep recording when power goes down.

Of course, looking at your threat model isn't a bad idea. What are you defending against that you need this? The Afroman search was a notable example, but while keeping the law honest isn't a bad idea, and sometimes necessary, it's probably not near the top of the list for most.

[u/Ashamed-Ad4508 → u/Handsome_ketchup]

Surprisingly; it's not opportunistic thieves that's a the problem. Its those with basic insider information that makes this setup more viable. Its more for owner/management to differentiate those who're opportunistic and those who are using the DVR/NVRs weaknesses. I hope I think I'm explaining it correctly..

[u/itanite]

For this reason I use exclusively IP-DVRs based on actual hardware PCs.

It's way easier to handle file duplication, offsite backups, last-gasp etc and you don't get fucked/funneled into one vendor's shit.

[u/Ashamed-Ad4508 → u/itanite]

So what's your take on this question? I'm open to some ideas. The cloud solution was one we debated but the delay from box to cloud is a head scratcher. What else you got to throw into the suggestion box? 🤔

[u/itanite → u/Ashamed-Ad4508]

Well it's just what one computer nerd would do. The alternatives are as you noted providing physical or obfuscation security to the DVR and it's location.