PixelWave wrote

We’ve identified a potential security risk related to the upcoming feature that allows enabling/disabling Privacy Mode on Tapo cameras through Google Home

@PixelWave Is it necessary when it already support scenes / shortcuts? It's indeed more secure to create a shortcut that sets the privacy mode with the name the user wants (let's say "big brother") and say "hey google, activate big brother".

The problem with most vendors is that they just don't expose a way to activate the privacy mode, if you're lucky they offer an action in IFTTT which is the workaround I use with another brand but the free IFTTT tier is limited to two actions and that means controlling just one camera. Tapo exposing the shortcuts as scenes is much better (note that I've not tested it yet, but I'm assuming it can be done with a simple shortcut, well, two, one for on and another for off).

@mocelet

You’re absolutely right! Using shortcuts to control Privacy Mode is definitely a more secure option, and it gives users flexibility in naming their actions. Saying “Hey Google, activate [shortcut_name]” is an excellent way to manage this without directly exposing the privacy mode through voice commands.

As for Tapo, you’re correct—shortcuts can act like scenes, which is a more controlled way to manage actions, including privacy settings. And yes, you can create two separate shortcuts—one to turn privacy mode on, and another to turn it off. This gives you the same functionality, but with more control and security.

It’s great to hear you’re using IFTTT as a workaround for other brands. The fact that Tapo supports shortcuts natively should make things much simpler for you. Feel free to test it in Google Home and share your feedback!

  @PixelWave for operations like unlocking a lock or opening a garage door, other brands usually implement a pin. Google APIs allow vendors to require a pin for certain voice operations. Not sure having a pin is warranted for the privacy mode control on tapo cameras. Maybe. I don't see shortcuts as more secure either because the only additional "security" they afford is not knowing the name of the shortcut. I suppose a thief can eavesdrop to overcome that.

You said "Alexa, which allows voice commands to be disabled" - how does that work? Are you referring to the settings in the Alexa app, or to the APIs that allow device vendors to disable voice access to some functionality? I wonder if Google has similar APIs.

In my use case, I need a way to automate certain actions. When everybody leaves the house, arm all cameras. When somebody comes in, disarm cameras. These actions are not meant to be triggered by voice.

xm87jf31 wrote

I don't see shortcuts as more secure either because the only additional "security" they afford is not knowing the name of the shortcut. I suppose a thief can eavesdrop to overcome that.

@xm87jf31 So could hear the PIN... ideally you would not use voice for that anyway and set an automation based on home/away modes or other routines. With shortcuts it's easy to integrate into automations and with unknown commands good luck guessing it for a stranger.

  @mocelet yeah not arguing with you here. Any voice command seems to be a risk. Since the question was about how other vendors solving this problem, PINs are the answer. In a sense, custom shortcut/route name is like your pin or password. The security of it depends on how guessable it is.

I'm more curious about the difference between Google and Alexa here. All these features - shortcuts, privacy control and more are already available in Alexa. Does Alexa provide any better control over voice commands?

@xm87jf31

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! You make a good point about PINs being used for higher-security operations like unlocking doors or opening garage doors. Google’s APIs do allow for PIN requirements, but I agree that whether a PIN is necessary for Privacy Mode control on Tapo cameras is debatable.

Regarding shortcuts, you’re right—their “security” does depend on how easily the name can be guessed, and eavesdropping is a valid concern. As for Alexa, I was referring to the option in the Alexa app to disable certain voice commands for specific devices. It allows device vendors to restrict voice access to certain functionalities, offering more control. I’m not entirely sure if Google has a similar API, but that’s something worth exploring for this type of automation.

For your use case—automating camera arming/disarming when people leave or arrive—voice might not be ideal anyway. Setting up automations via presence detection or routines would be a more secure and seamless solution. Thanks again for the great discussion!