Most cameras are insecure by default. Check out: http://www.insecam.org/en/ or https://www.shodan.io/ The first isn't even using default access creds, which I suspect is what was 'discovered' in this case, but cameras that immediately hook up to the internet with 0 restrictions to access.
For the goal of recording a cat scratching their car or catching an imaginary thief neighbour (a magpie or fox stole that thing that one time, you dullard) people will plug into Chinese, Russian, and American video surveillance networks in no time and pay for it.
Just click through the models. At a glance (and highly subjective) I don't see anything jumping out as oom worse than anything else. I only noticed a model placing the animal inside a plane (with seat and small window) but other than that, they all seem similar inside each model to me.
I don’t think this is as simple as it seems. For example, we have our own CA and issue several mTLS certificates, with hundreds of them currently in use across our machines. We need to check every single one (which we don’t do yet) because there is an additional distribution step that might fail selectively. And that’s not even touching on expiring CAs, which is a total nightmare.
Why would it be difficult? You have a single CA, so a single place where certs are issued. That means there’s a single place with the knowledge of what certs are issued for which identity, how long are those valid for, and has there been a new cert issued for that identity prior to previous cert expiration. Could not be simpler, in fact.
If you have your own CA, you log every certificate with the expiry details. It's easier compared to an external CA because you automatically get the full asset list as long as you care to preserve it.
