I watch accounts get popped all the time in cloud providers. Is it a good idea to bridge such risks to your home physical security?
back
2 comments
It is about a million times faster and easier to use a pick gun on a lock than trying to compromise someone's Amazon account.
The difference is, the attacker must be physically at the lock. Sure, they do that all the time. They risk getting shot. My neighbors have shot invaders. The Sheriff high-fived them.
Now they can be in your neighborhood, using a list of popped accounts to unlock a batch of houses. They can look at your Amazon connected camera to know when you have left your home or children unattended. Amazon accounts get popped all the time.
Amazon is also a great place to get GB/TB of customer data from public S3 buckets.
If you're technologically savvy enough to hack Amazon, you can probably tell if the homeowners are at home without getting shot at. Like by ringing the bell.
Certainly, but you are increasing your risk by entering the property. Internet is entirely remote and can be somewhat anonymous through proxies. Perhaps you could even hire some kid to go ring the doorbell for you, but then that kid has seen your face. I mean, we could keep going down the PR rabbit hole, but I think some people will be able to see the differences in risk here.
But you can't affect physical property over the Internet (yet, much). The security risk still seems pretty minimal.
I watch windows get popped all the time on physical houses. Is it a good idea to build windows into your house?
It is not. In fact, homes occupied by mafia or drug producers commonly have the windows blocked by steel panels. The same is true for safe houses occupied by special agents.
Some custom built homes intentionally have multiple windows that are too slim for a human to fit through for this reason.
[ Special Note: ] If you decide to do this, ensure you build other methods of escape for fire hazards.
If you wear a reflective vest and carry a barcode scanner and just walk into a house nobody will ask questions and you know you'll be able to unlock the door and get in before you even knock on the door. Way less risk than any sort of forced entry.
When a window gets broken, you at least know someone was (or still is) there.
That is not a strong counter-argument. Causing damage is not inherent to getting unauthorized entry into a house. A skilled lock-picker can open many locks without destroying them.
The crazy thing is, very few B&Es are done via picking the lock, even though it's not a difficult skill. It's easier and faster to just hit the window with a rock, grab some stuff, and run.
There is a public perception of these super-smart techno hackers that crack all of these damn gizmos and rob you blind, but the reality is that most all B&E is done by dumbass drug addicts who barely make anything on a haul and get caught quickly. Even the more sophisticated ones use basically the same tactics but also make sure to move to a different county every couple of houses to avoid sitting in a jurisdiction for too long.
It's a high risk low reward game. Only the most desperate play it. Someone smart enough to hack the system is smart enough to have many better ways of making money. Even if someone sells a kit for dummies to do this it's still more work than picking up a rock.
> It's easier and faster to just hit the window with a rock, grab some stuff, and run
Or put a quick kick to the door. The idea that a hollow door with a inch of metal hanging onto the frame is going to stop someone is laughable. Most homes aren't secure.
"There are other ways additional ways to cause harm" is not something that requires a counter-argument in the first place. It's like saying "Nobody lives forever anyway, why ever visit a doctor? After all, not ever visiting a doctor is not inherent to mortality or illness."
And while we're at it, the package being left on your porch is not inherent to packages getting stolen or not containing what they should. Heck, ordering stuff isn't even the only way to buy things. So why prevent against it by giving Amazon access to your house, of all things out of all the possibilities there are? The decision to be made isn't between having windows or an Amazon lock, those things are orthogonal. You're adding a shitty additional link to an already weak chain.
Now any random person can break your window with you knowing, any random person can kick the door in with you knowing, and -- I'll pretend to not see the moved goalposts because as I said, no counter-argument is required to a non-argument anyway -- a skilled lockpicker can let themselves in without you knowing. Now, thanks to this amazing technology and given enough time, a script kiddie, not to mention hardened cyberwebs criminals, might be able let anyone in without you knowing or without even knowing the completely unskilled person they let in. That is to say, now even people who wouldn't be able to kick in a door, break a window, or pick a lock can potentially get into your house. And for what? So you can order at Amazon. It's not even a standard to be used for any delivery you want to use it for, just Amazon. This doesn't need an counter-argument. If you want to buy this, you have my blessing.
Even an unskilled lock-picker can open locks without destroying them. Beating them up with scratches is another matter, but who inspects their locks regularly?