Network-connected surveillance cameras are now widespread in both home and enterprise environments, so securing them is essential to safeguarding physical spaces and sensitive assets. As these devices continue to gain new features and network connectivity capabilities, vulnerabilities in their implementation can have significant security implications.
During our research, we discovered a denial-of-service vulnerability that affects Intelbras IP cameras systems. The flaw resides in a firmware update endpoint that is accessible without authentication and allows anyone with access to the local Wi-Fi network to knock cameras offline. A single request disrupts the camera for only about a minute, but sending periodic requests keeps the device offline indefinitely. We reported the issue to Intelbras, monitored the remediation process, validated the fix in the new firmware, and will now demonstrate the exploitation procedure step-by-step.
Following our notification, Intelbras patched the vulnerability and released updated firmware (R.260804) along with update instructions. A candidate ID of CAN-2026-2035970 has been assigned by MITRE following submission, pending the final CVE assignment. Additionally, the Intelbras team recently informed us that MITRE has classified the vulnerability as Medium, assigning it a score of 5.1 under the CVSS 4.0 framework. The issue discussed in this article is no longer present in the latest firmware version.
Firmware
Intelbras provides firmware files on its official website. While users can manually install these updates via an SD card, the cameras also natively support firmware upgrades over the local network via their web interface and mobile app. We obtained the firmware version v240927 for the iM3B-C (IM3 C) camera, which was the latest available version at the time of our research. According to Intelbras, the same firmware is also compatible with the iMX C, iM4 C, iM5 SC, iME 360 C, and iM7+ FC models. Below, we can view the firmware version and the camera model used as an example.
To provide context, we will explain how the camera’s authentication mechanism works and why it is relevant to accessing the camera’s endpoints. The main firmware component is an ARM binary named sonia, responsible for controlling the kernel drivers used by the camera hardware, authentication, and livestream recording, among other things.
How authentication works
The global.login RPC method handles authentication at the /RPC2_Login endpoint. First, the client, such as the mobile app or a custom script, sends the username and an empty password. The camera responds with an authentication challenge (a set of values to verify the password without transmitting it). This response returns a temporary session, the encryption type in the encryption field, a random value, and a realm (authentication scope). At this stage, a false response is normal and does not indicate a failed login, as the authentication process is not yet complete.
Next, the client calculates the response password from the authentication challenge. It first generates an MD5 (username:realm:original_password) hash as the base. It then calculates a second MD5 (username:random:first_md5) hash, where first_md5 is the result of the previous step. To complete the authentication, the client sends this final result back to /RPC2_Login in a second global.login call, passing the username, calculated password, and temporary session ID.
If the login is accepted, the camera returns true and a new, authenticated session. This session must be used for all subsequent RPC calls, including the camera’s other endpoints, for example, the one that reboots the device or those that expose sensitive information.
Affected endpoint
The affected endpoint is the firmware upgrade route http://<ip_address>/firmwareUpgrade_service/Demo, which lacks authentication checks; furthermore, it fails to verify whether the firmware is actually valid before initiating the upgrade process. This creates a serious issue because the upgrade requires the camera to reboot, and that is precisely when the problem occurs: the camera enters reboot mode and eventually shuts down, appearing offline to the user and anyone who has the camera registered on their device.
PoC: vulnerability exploitation
Now that we have outlined how the vulnerability works, we will use a Python script on an iM3B-C camera to exploit it for demonstration purposes. The exploit contacts the camera’s endpoint to upload firmware. Below, we can see sonia creating the endpoint responsible for the firmware upgrade.
Next, the exploit will hit the endpoint and cause the camera to reboot. Consequently, mobile phones running the Intelbras app will lose connection with the registered device. Below, we can see the camera operating normally: the green light is on and the app is showing it is available for viewing.
The camera is online
After the exploit executes, we can see the effects: the camera goes offline and loses connection to the registered devices.
The camera is offline
The exploit is quite simple: it sends an HTTP POST request with the firmware, which causes the camera to accept the request and initiate the reboot process. It does not matter whether the firmware is original; the reboot process will start regardless.
New firmware version
After we notified Intelbras about this flaw in the endpoint implementation, the company contacted the OEM vendor. As a result, a new firmware version was released that requires authentication to initiate an update through this endpoint.
Below, we can compare the new firmware, which validates cookies and session data, with the old firmware, which performed no authentication checks and proceeded directly to the update routine.
Real risk
An attacker can remotely trigger the camera firmware upgrade and reboot process without authenticating or supplying a valid firmware image. This may cause the device to go offline, which results in a denial-of-service condition preventing legitimate users from accessing live monitoring or managing the camera.
The potential impact is significant due to the number of affected users. The Intelbras Mibo Smart app, which the company provides to connect and manage the devices mentioned in this report, has over 4,000,000 downloads. Brazil represents the largest user base, followed by Paraguay, Ecuador, Colombia, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Bolivia, Uruguay, and Venezuela. As a result, exploitation of this issue affects a large number of users.
Takeaways
This is a medium-severity vulnerability that Intelbras is already aware of. The issue has been addressed in a newer firmware release (R.260804 along with update instructions), which mitigates this attack vector. Because the vulnerability directly affects the availability and normal operation of the affected cameras, it is highly recommended that users verify the firmware version currently installed on their devices and update to the latest available version as soon as possible. Keeping the firmware up to date is an essential security practice, especially for internet-connected surveillance devices, as outdated versions may remain exposed to known vulnerabilities.
Imagine you’ve ordered a small paper unicorn from an online marketplace. You clicked “Buy”, received a cheerful notification, and expect a courier to bring the box tomorrow. If the unicorn is delayed by a day, it will be annoying but not catastrophic: an apology, a discount promo code — and the incident is forgotten.
Now let’s multiply one late unicorn by several hundred thousand orders.
Packages start heading to the wrong cities. The website shows an item is in stock, even though the required bin is empty. Conveyors stop, boxes get stuck between floors, the cargo piles up with no freight manifest. Trucks line up at the gates, and every minute of downtime turns into blown schedules, support tickets, fines, and lost sales.
It is at exactly this scale that a cyberincident in a warehouse becomes a problem for the entire business. A modern warehouse is no longer just a big building with shelving. It is a tightly interconnected hybrid system: web applications, radio channels, and an automated factory. Physical processes here depend on data, and errors in data have very physical consequences. Examples include an outage that affected warehouse management systems at the grocery giant Morrisons, and the 2025 Form 10-K annual report of United Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI), which confirmed unauthorized activity on information technology systems that impacted order fulfillment. More recently, reports emerged that a cyberattack disrupted eight CEVA Logistics warehouses across Europe and exposed customer delivery data.
This paper follows a single order through a warehouse to show where the operation is vulnerable, the stages it traverses, the systems that drive it, and the points where an attacker can reach them. We then set out the threat model: what is at risk, who is in a position to take it, and how each risk lands on the business. From there, we look at how an attacker gets in, and what reaching the warehouse management system costs in practical terms: orders unshipped, inventory records nobody can trust, and an operation that stops. We close with recommendations on where the controls that matter actually sit.
Tracing the unicorn
A modern warehouse is a sequence of stages involving many machines and people, all working together to keep the business process stable so that, in the end, your order gets delivered. This process consists of eight main stages, shown in the figure below.
Stages of order fulfillment
So let’s assume we’ve ordered our paper unicorn and are waiting for it at home. Let’s follow our order through all the main stages, from its arrival at the warehouse to the final stop on its journey.
Unloading First, the unicorn arrives in the unloading zone, packed in a big truck. The driver is assigned a gate, for example, via a tablet with kiosk mode enabled, or an outdoor display board, indicating where the truck should park and where the cargo will be unloaded. Even at this very first step, a digital command (the gate number on the screen) is already triggering a physical action. Therefore, incorrectly assigned gates can create a queue, delay unloading, or send goods into the wrong workflow.
Receiving At this stage, employees identify the cargo. They scan a barcode using a portable data terminal (PDT) and the central system receives a message indicating that this object arrives at the warehouse. From this moment, the unicorn exists in two forms at once: as a real box and as a record in the information system. If these two versions diverge, the error is inherited by all subsequent processes.
Putaway Next, the goods are moved into internal storage. Two new devices come into play here. First, a thermal printer, connected to the internal network over Wi-Fi, creates an internal label for each item. Then an employee, forklift, or automated system moves the goods to the assigned bin, often with the help of lifts controlled by PLCs. Both of these devices can be valuable attack entry points: one can let an adversary pivot into the internal network, while the other can give them control over an electric motor.
Storage Then the unicorn goes into storage. Many distribution centers use multi-level mezzanine structures: several floors of metal shelving inside a huge space. They allow efficient use of the building’s height, but at the same time complicate control over the technical infrastructure. Wi-Fi access points, cameras, switches, cables, and sensors may be mounted high overhead or buried deep inside the rows. A forgotten Ethernet cable or misconfigured networked device (access point or switch) left behind in a dark corner can become a convenient initial access point into critical infrastructure.
Picking When the customer places an order, picking begins if the goods were already stored in the warehouse or as soon as they are unloaded. A PDT, workstation, light indicator, or voice terminal directs the employee to the required bin where they pick the goods and move them to the next stage. These devices are themselves potential attack entry points: compromising a workstation or PDT could allow an attacker to manipulate picking information, which could misdirect employees to the wrong bin. Here, both the speed and integrity of the information are critical, and any manipulation or disruption can lead to wrong orders, delays, or problems in subsequent stages.
Sorting At the sorting stage, the warehouse starts to look more like a factory. Boxes move through conveyor belts and pass through different scanners, diverters, and chutes. The sorting plans are usually stored and managed by dedicated servers, while PLCs are responsible for controlling the machinery and executing these plans. For example, when the warehouse management system (WMS) decides that our unicorn should take route A, the control system needs to activate the right diverter at the right moment, sometimes within a fraction of a second.
Packing During packing, an employee or a robotic arm places the goods into the final box, prints the shipping label, and sometimes measures the dimensions and weight of the package. Safety mechanisms usually prevent robotic arms from leaving the controlled zone and harming nearby operators, but their compromise might inflict physical damage on the packages being processed.
Shipment Finally, at the shipping stage, the parcel heads to the gates. Automated guided vehicles (AGVs) and autonomous mobile robots (AMRs) move containers and pallets across the warehouse, while the dock management system coordinates the truck that will carry the unicorn onward to a store, a sorting center, or straight to the customer. These robots are themselves a potential target for attackers. Attacks can be conducted against AGVs and AMRs to interfere with their operation, for example by affecting their navigation or preventing them from reaching their intended destination.
All eight stages are coordinated by the WMS. It looks like a large web application, but in its role it’s closer to the operating system of the entire warehouse: it knows which goods exist, where they’re located, who or what should move them, and where they go next, linking employees, inventory levels, storage addresses, tasks, and orders. It also exchanges data externally: with ERP systems, transport platforms, marketplaces, dark stores, and external carriers.
Surrounding the WMS is an even larger digital ecosystem: identity services, databases, APIs, printers, carrier systems, technicians’ laptops, video surveillance, access control, fire and gas alarms, power supply, and a building management system (BMS).
That is why a single “warehouse network” doesn’t really exist. As we’ve seen, there are many overlapping technologies — IT infrastructure, OT systems, radio, cloud services, building security, and automation — layered on top of one another. A lone vulnerability scanner will never tell you whether a warehouse is secure.
Hunting the unicorn
Securing an environment such as a warehouse requires a comprehensive security assessment covering all of its interconnected systems. This involves identifying vulnerabilities across each system and understanding how weaknesses can be combined into attack paths that a real attacker could exploit. But a vulnerability only matters in proportion to what it exposes and who is able to reach it, so before looking at the weaknesses themselves, we need to understand what an attacker in this environment is actually after, because in a warehouse, the blast radius extends well beyond data. Everything we just traced — the systems, the devices, and the people operating them — exists to keep goods moving, and attacks in various parts along that chain can affect the business differently. The chart below shows what is at risk in the warehouse and where those risks land for the business. The segment on the left groups them under the three core security properties: integrity, availability, and confidentiality. The segment on the right maps each property to the business outcomes a failure can cause.
Warehouse risks
The first area at risk is integrity. Inventory counts, locations, orders, and shipment data must stay in sync with the physical world. Corrupting a record silently desynchronizes the operation, and because the eight stages form a dependency chain, one falsified entry early on is inherited downstream, surfacing later as stockouts and mis-shipments. In its deliberate forms, this lets an attacker redirect goods, release stock, and perform other actions on behalf of the platform’s vendors under cover of legitimate records. Integrity is also a safety concern: when people or machines act on information that no longer reflects the physical environment, a data failure can become a physical incident. This is why integrity is the only property linked to all five outcomes, including harm to people.
The second is availability, the warehouse’s ability to keep goods moving. Halting a conveyor, a sorter, label printing, or the WMS stops orders from shipping, and in a business built on speed, every hour of downtime means delayed deliveries and broken promises. Ransomware can bring the whole warehouse to a standstill. The impact shows up as operational disruption, lost revenue, and reputational damage.
The third is confidentiality. Customer data, business records, and system credentials are valuable targets. Their exposure leads to legal liability and reputational damage, and stolen credentials often open the door to further attacks. Where the WMS connects to financial or ERP processes, the risk extends to theft of funds.
Knowing what is at risk tells us what an attacker stands to gain; the next question is who is in a position to take it. Threat actors differ in the access they already hold. For example, an attacker may be authenticated and privileged, have limited physical or remote access, or have no legitimate access to the environment at all. Based on their relationship with the warehouse and their level of access, threat actors can generally be divided into two categories:
External. An attacker with no legitimate relationship with the warehouse or the organization, operating without authorized access. External attackers can be divided into two categories based on their physical proximity to the environment:
Remote. An attacker operating from outside the site’s physical area, reaching the environment through whatever the organization exposes or makes reachable over the internet, including web services, remote access infrastructure, and third-party connections used by suppliers, carriers, and integrators.
Proximate. An attacker with no legitimate access who has nevertheless moved within physical range of the site’s locally reachable technologies. They may, for example, be in a parking lot, a neighboring unit, or a delivery bay. Their proximity may allow them to interact with wireless, radio, Bluetooth, or other short-range interfaces without possessing an account, badge, employment relationship, or other authorized access.
Internal. An individual with legitimate access to the warehouse, its systems, or its information, who intentionally or unintentionally creates a security risk. This includes employees, administrators, operators, contractors, and temporary staff.
Combining these threat actors and their access levels with the risks identified earlier, the vulnerabilities present in each system, the resulting attack surfaces, and the potential attack paths between them provides a threat model for the warehouse environment. This allows an organization to understand how different systems and people could be targeted, how individual weaknesses could be combined, and where security controls are most needed.
Cornering the unicorn
Knowing what is at risk and who might come after it still leaves the most practical question open: how they would actually get in, and how far they could go once they did. The diagram below sets out the warehouse’s attack surface: every point where an attacker can get in, organized by the access that reaching each point requires.
Warehouse attack surface
On the left are the attacker categories discussed above, distinguished by where they stand and what access they already hold. Each reaches the environment through a different set of entry points, and the impact of a successful attack can land on several systems, from the WMS to OT systems such as robots, sorters, and physical access control system (PACS). The WMS is highlighted because it is the most significant of these: it coordinates the OT systems, so compromising it can affect the entire operation rather than a single process.
Next, we will cover the initial access vectors, the points a threat actor can use to reach the warehouse environment. Following that, we turn to the impact on the logistics processes themselves, focusing on the WMS, since its compromise affects every logistics operation that depends on it.
Initial attack vectors
Internet-facing services
Remote access through internet-facing services, third-party connections, and corporate networks gives an external attacker a foothold on the warehouse network infrastructure. It is a well-covered problem and not specific to this environment, so we note it here as an entry point but will not examine it further.
Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and other radio channels
Wi-Fi connects handhelds, tablets, printers, cameras, and workstations. Bluetooth serves scanners, headsets, and positioning beacons. Zigbee and similar low-power protocols run lighting, sensors, and building automation, while LoRaWAN carries telemetry over long distances. Cellular provides a backup channel for kiosks and contractor equipment, and proprietary protocols control industrial panels and specialized machinery.
Radio passes through windows, gates, roofing, and thin external panels, so a network built for receiving and processing goods may be reachable from the parking lot and, with a directional antenna, from considerably farther away.
That reach matters in two ways. It gives an external attacker a place to start, as proximity alone is enough to reach the Wi-Fi and the low-power protocols, and from there to gain an initial foothold in the warehouse networks.
However, radio does not only lead into the network. It also connects directly to the field devices and carries the live control traffic of warehouse operations, which makes availability a first-order concern. If hundreds of handhelds lose their connection at once, picking stops. If an AGV loses its control channel, the safe reaction may be to halt in place, and a stopped machine can block an entire route.
Physical network
The scale of the warehouse itself is part of the attack surface. A fulfillment warehouse can run up to tens of thousands of square meters, with racking climbing several stories and walkways threading through it. Structured cabling runs along that racking, cameras and access points are mounted on that, and wall jacks sit behind pallets that have not moved in months. Almost none of it is in anyone’s line of sight.
That gives a person in the warehouse something a normal office does not: unsupervised access to live network infrastructure. Unplugging a ceiling camera leaves an active port. An unused jack behind a shelf leaves another. Neither requires tools, credentials, or any interaction with a system that logs anything. And since the camera or access point sits on the same segment as the rest of the site, the compromised port, not being isolated, opens a path to the network core.
Barcode scanners
Barcode scanners are everywhere in a warehouse. They are the main tool workers use to tell the system what is moving and where, supporting receiving, picking, packing, and inventory management. A typical setup has handheld scanners communicating with a base station, which is in turn connected to a workstation or another business system.
This makes the scanner an entry point into the core network in two ways.
First, through the barcode itself. Since the scanner acts as a keyboard to the connected host, a maliciously crafted barcode or QR code can inject keystrokes when scanned, potentially giving the attacker an initial foothold on the host without directly accessing the network.
Second, through the scanner’s wireless link. During a customer engagement, with the provided test stand of such a device, we discovered that an attacker within range could inject keystrokes into the connected host and potentially achieve remote code execution without user interaction. This attack pattern was observed across multiple vendors, including, for example, Honeywell devices affected by CVE-2026-4272.
In both cases, the result is the same: a foothold on a host inside the warehouse network. The scanner is simply the entry point; the significance of that foothold comes from the host’s trusted position within the operational environment and its connectivity to core systems.
Portable data terminals
Portable data terminals (PDTs) are essentially ordinary Android devices with an embedded barcode scanner, carried by workers to scan items; each scan is passed to a dedicated application that forwards it to a remote server over an API. To keep workers on task, the devices usually run in kiosk mode, locking the user to that single application and preventing interaction with the rest of the Android system.
That lockdown is exactly what an attacker wants to break, and breaking it is what turns the terminal into an initial access vector: escaping the kiosk can expose the Wi-Fi password of the network the terminal is connected to, or allow malicious software to be installed that gives the attacker remote access to the network over the internet.
Printers
Warehouses contain different types of printers. Alongside the usual IT printers used for documents and paperwork, there are specialized thermal printers, small devices that use heated elements on the printhead to create labels, barcodes, and tags. As we mentioned earlier, these are mainly used to print the labels, usually containing barcodes, that are attached to goods during the putaway stage.
Here we focus on mobile thermal printers: small, battery-powered devices that workers can carry or wear. They typically connect to the internal network over Wi-Fi to receive print commands, while also supporting Bluetooth for connecting to nearby devices. This combination makes them a potential entry point into the internal network.
Some models, such as the Zebra ZQ630, support multiple interfaces and can run applications directly on the device. During a security assessment, we discovered that apps can be uploaded and executed over Bluetooth. By exploiting a pairing misconfiguration, an attacker within Bluetooth range could bypass pairing, upload malicious software, and gain an initial foothold through the printer.
Impact on logistics processes (attacks on WMS)
With a foothold in the network, an attacker can pivot to the logistics processes themselves: from the WMS through the warehouse infrastructure to the PLCs and the machinery they drive. As we saw earlier, all OT systems and devices are interconnected and the WMS sits at the head of that chain: it is the system of record every other process reads from and writes to, so compromising it reaches all of them at once. That, and its being specific to this environment, is why it is the focus here.
Warehouse management systems (WMS) are the software platforms that optimize warehouse processes from the entry of goods to their exit. They provide real-time visibility into inventory and orchestrate end-to-end fulfillment by integrating with many warehouse subsystems and pieces of automation equipment, such as conveyors, PLCs, robotics, scanners, and voice systems. A typical WMS includes modules for receiving, inventory control, order management, labor management, shipping, and reporting. Major vendors include SAP EWM, Oracle Warehouse Management, Manhattan Active, Blue Yonder, Infor, Körber/HighJump, Microsoft, and TECSYS.
To picture how central this is, think back to our unicorn. From the moment it was scanned at receiving, it stopped being only a physical box and became a record inside the WMS, a record the system then used to decide where it should be stored, when it should be picked, how it should be sorted, and where it should ship. Every device employed along the way — the PDT at receiving, the printer at putaway, the workstation at picking, the conveyor at sorting — was really just talking to the WMS. It is the thread that ties all eight stages together, which is exactly what makes it such a valuable target.
Because modern WMS platforms are usually web-based and heavily interconnected, they inherit common web and API vulnerabilities alongside flaws specific to the WMS itself. A recent example is CVE-2026-70774 in Oracle Warehouse Management, part of Oracle E-Business Suite. Oracle rated it High and described it as an easily exploitable authorization bypass flaw in which a low-privileged attacker with network access can compromise the application, affecting integrity and availability by allowing unauthorized creation, deletion, or modification of critical data.
A flaw like this may look like a typical web application issue, but its consequences in a warehouse are more serious, because the WMS is the system of record. If an attacker can modify its data, they can alter stock levels, bin locations, receiving records, picking tasks, or shipment information, silently corrupting the digital twin of the warehouse. And since the eight stages form a dependency chain, that corruption doesn’t stay contained: a falsified record at receiving is inherited by putaway, picking, and everything downstream. The physical box and its record diverge, and every later process trusts the record.
The most direct version of this attack comes from an authorization bypass flaw like the Oracle vulnerability above. Here the threat actor can be an external attacker who has reached the application over the network, or an insider such as a low-privileged operator or storekeeper who already holds a legitimate account.
The danger grows when such a flaw is chained with others. An external attacker who combines remote code execution with SQL injection could generate shipment orders to arbitrary addresses together with the documents needed for goods to physically leave the warehouse, fabricate waybills, acceptance or transfer records, and registers, while also exposing customer data such as names and delivery addresses. In effect, the goods are sent out with legitimate-looking paperwork.
This is why ordinary web vulnerabilities carry considerable weight in a WMS. For an external attacker or an insider probing beyond their assigned role, broken access control could open a path into another warehouse zone, allow manipulation of other workers’ tasks, permit unauthorized exception operations, or expose administrative APIs. A server-side request forgery flaw could force the WMS server to reach resources an external attacker cannot touch directly, and if the network is flat or only formally segmented, that server may in turn reach internal management panels, cloud service interfaces, or systems sitting close to the operational network, turning a single web bug into a bridge between IT and OT.
Attacks on a WMS don’t always target the application directly, though. As we saw while tracing the unicorn, the warehouse is full of connected devices that already hold trusted access. A handheld terminal carries authenticated WMS API access as a matter of course, and anyone who gains control of that terminal inherits it (by escaping the kiosk, for example). Depending on the device’s permissions, that might mean confirming picks that never occurred, falsifying receiving operations, adjusting stock counts, or marking orders complete — something warehouse employees themselves could use to avoid their assigned duties.
Where the WMS is connected to control and automation systems, access to the WMS can extend into physical operations, including conveyors, sorting systems, lifts, doors, and pumps.
PLCs translate WMS instructions and sensor inputs into physical actions. Compromising a system that controls them therefore creates an opportunity to manipulate those actions. The impact can be as simple as a sorting diverter sending boxes down the wrong route, a conveyor repeatedly entering an error state and creating a backlog, or a falsified sensor value causing a line to be treated as clear when it is full.
However the WMS is compromised, the business consequence is the same: inventory corruption, unauthorized shipments, and operational disruption, each reaching the customer in the end as a late or missing delivery, the wrong item in the box, or a personal address exposed to a stranger.
Securing the unicorn
We followed our unicorn through web applications and databases, radio channels and PDTs, printers, conveyors, robots, and the loading zone. Because warehouse environments combine IT, OT, wireless, physical, and human components, security controls should be implemented as a single, coordinated security architecture rather than as isolated measures. Network segmentation should be a foundational control, with clear separation between corporate IT, warehouse OT, operational devices, management networks, and externally connected systems. Segmentation should also extend across facilities and customer environments so that each site and customer integration is isolated from the others, limiting the potential impact of a compromise. A zero-trust approach should reinforce this architecture by requiring explicit authentication and authorization for connections between systems, regardless of their network location, and by applying least-privilege access wherever possible. Regular penetration testing of the corporate IT environment, including domain services, identity infrastructure, and endpoints, should be incorporated into the warehouse security program.
Physical and network access controls should be implemented together. Access to warehouse facilities, network rooms, communication cabinets, and operational areas should be restricted according to business need, with appropriate authentication, monitoring, and access logging. Network infrastructure should be hardened through controls such as switch port security, MAC-based access restrictions where appropriate, and IEEE 802.1X with EAP-TLS for strong device and user authentication. Network equipment should also be securely configured and regularly reviewed to ensure that unused interfaces, insecure management protocols, default credentials, and unnecessary services are disabled.
Web applications and their supporting infrastructure should be governed through a secure software development lifecycle (SSDLC), including security requirements, secure coding practices, code and dependency review, and application security assessment before deployment and throughout the application’s lifecycle. Third-party applications and components should be continuously monitored and updated, with a defined vulnerability and patch management process. This should explicitly include warehouse management systems (WMS), warehouse portals, APIs, and other applications that provide operational or customer-facing functionality.
Wireless technologies should be subject to dedicated security assessment and engineering. Radio-frequency surveys should be conducted to establish expected coverage, identify unauthorized or unexpected signals, validate the availability and protection of operational communications, and determine whether wireless deployments create unintended access paths into warehouse networks. Wireless security should be assessed not only from a connectivity perspective but also in terms of authentication, encryption, device provisioning, protocol exposure, interference resilience, and the potential impact of unauthorized devices.
Warehouse operational devices should be incorporated into the organization’s endpoint security and vulnerability management processes. Devices should receive security updates and firmware patches on a defined schedule, with accelerated remediation for critical vulnerabilities. Security assessments should be performed periodically to identify weaknesses in device configuration, applications, exposed services, and authentication mechanisms.
Personnel security should form an additional layer of the warehouse security architecture. In most industrial and ICS environments, getting inside means clearing background checks, holding relevant qualifications, or proving prior experience; the hiring process itself acts as a filter. A warehouse is different. Roles in sorting, packing, and courier work are hired quickly and in volume, and they typically require no prior expertise, certification, or specialized background at all. An ordinary person can walk in off the street, be hired within days, and immediately hold legitimate physical access to the facility. Therefore, a more restrictive and risk-based approach to hiring should be considered, particularly for roles that provide access to sensitive areas, operational systems, network infrastructure, or customer assets.
Ultimately, all of these measures serve the same objective: protecting the continuity and reliability of the warehouse as a whole. This matters because real warehouses handle food, medicines, machine parts, and the millions of ordinary things people and companies depend on every day. Protecting their journey means seeing the warehouse as it has actually become: a single digital system with doors, motors, shelving, and radio signals, and with entirely real consequences when it fails. And if the security program works, the customer never knows any of this happened. The unicorn simply arrives at the scheduled time.
If your warehouse operations rely on interconnected systems like these, we can help identify the gaps before an adversary does. Reach out to discuss a security assessment.
Since the discovery of an undocumented I/Q sampling feature in ESP32 chips about two weeks ago, there’s been a flood of similar features being found in other wireless chips, including LoRa and Wi-Fi chipsets. The latest chip to join their ranks is the MediaTek MT7921AU, often used in Wi-Fi adapters, with two different projects developing independent SDR drivers for it in the last few days.
The first was BirriaSDR, which discovered that the chip exposes raw I/Q samples for debugging and calibration; BirriaSDR instead streams these to the host at 40 Msps in 14-bit resolution, with the option to tune from 2156 to 2610 MHz. BirriaSDR uses libusb to directly communicate with the Wi-Fi adapter and access its registers; it doesn’t make any permanent firmware changes, so the Wi-Fi adapter goes back to its original state after being used as an SDR. BirriaSDR implements an API similar to the RTL-SDR’s.
Mtk79ICAP, by contrast, exposes the MT7921AU’s sampling features over a standard SoapySDR interface. Unlike BirriaSDR, it applies some firmware changes to the chip, and it requires a modified driver to work. However, it can reach a maximum bandwidth of 80 MHz and tune to the 5 GHz bands. The Wi-Fi adapter in use can also simultaneously work in monitor mode and stream SDR data, though this only works when automatic gain control is enabled.
This is the second MediaTek chip we’ve seen repurposed for SDR work, after the earlier MT7996. Conveniently, Wi-Fi adapters often have external antennas, which should make it easier to connect a frequency mixer circuit. These adapters aren’t quite there yet, but some hackers have already used the ESP32 to transmit arbitrary signals.
Wireless security monitoring in the 2.4 GHz spectrum often depends on active probing, which can not only make the monitoring infrastructure vulnerable to attackers but also clutter the radio frequency environment. On the other hand, taking a passive approach by listening without transmitting allows security teams to detect malicious wireless activity more discreetly and reliably.
To put this idea into practice, the project Travel WiFi Canary was developed. This system serves as an early-warning mechanism using ESP32 microcontrollers. By operating the Wi-Fi radio in promiscuous mode, the device passively captures raw IEEE 802.11 management frames and traffic patterns. This helps identify potential threats such as deauthentication attacks, beacon spam, rogue access points often referred to as Evil Twins, and unauthorized probe requests. Eventually, it provides comprehensive insights into the wireless environment, enabling you to act proactively rather than reactively.
In this article, we will guide you through configuring, flashing, and running Travel WiFi Canary on the LilyGo T3 V1.6.1 development platform. Let’s get rolling!
What is Travel WiFi Canary?
The Travel WiFi Canary is a project that turns a low-cost ESP32 microcontroller into a passive 2.4 GHz threat-detection device. It operates continuously by alternating between active network enumeration and passive promiscuous packet capturing across specified channels.
At its core, the device’s Wi-Fi chip listens directly to raw radio signals passing through the air rather than connecting to a specific network.
When a wireless signal arrives, a fast automated responder checks the basic structure of the incoming data instantly. It identifies network management signals, such as connection requests, disconnection commands, or nearby network announcements, and separates them from standard web traffic.
To handle intense bursts of wireless activity without getting overwhelmed or missing crucial information, the chip places these flagged security signals into a temporary holding queue. This allows the main system to process and analyze the data safely in the background while keeping the hardware radio free to capture new incoming signals without interruption.
The central intelligence of the project relies on a dynamic confidence-scoring engine rather than rigid binary alerts. As the system processes the ring queues and periodic active scans, it evaluates detected anomalies against a local memory table built during the startup baseline phase.
Active scans check nearby Access Points for structural security violations. If an Access Point using an encrypted baseline protocol like WPA2 or WPA3 is detected operating without encryption, the system identifies an open clone attack. Security downgrades, unexpected vendor prefix mismatches on familiar SSIDs, or sudden disappearances of legitimate Access Points during an active open broadcast instantly contribute points to the global confidence score.
Simultaneously, the passive sniffer thread drains the lock-free queues to detect airborne attacks. Deauthentication frame floods are monitored over rolling time windows, assigning score penalties if threshold limits are breached by single sources or broadcast addresses.
The sniffer also inspects the payload fields inside beacon frames to detect Pwnagotchi signatures, parsing JSON structures hidden in vendor tags to determine if the device is operating in an active attack state.
All calculated points feed into a unified state machine. Aggregate scores between zero and two keep the device in a normal state, scores between three and five push it into a caution state, and scores of six or higher escalate the device into an active alert state.
To prevent temporary radio noise or brief packet anomalies from causing permanent alarm states, a background timer executes a score decay routine every minute. This routine gradually reduces the aggregate threat score over time, allowing the system to automatically transition back to a normal state once threat vectors clear the area. Hardware outputs, such as status LEDs or connected display controllers, continuously mirror the internal state variable to provide real-time visual monitoring.
What is LilyGo T3 V1.6.1?
The Travel WiFi Canary was initially made for the M5Stack Atom Lite development board. However, in this demonstration, I will test it on the LilyGo T3 V1.6.1.
The LilyGo T3 V1.6.1, also called the TTGO T3 LoRa32 V1.6.1, is an open-source development board designed for Internet of Things (IoT) projects and long-range RF communication. It has an ESP32 chip that allows for packet sniffing and Wi-Fi scanning. It gives us all the necessary functionality for wireless threat detection required by the Travel WiFi Canary project.
Getting Started with Travel WiFi Canary
The best way to flash the Travel WiFi Canary is by using Visual Studio Code along with the PlatformIO IDE extension. The installation process is fairly simple, so let’s move on to the next step, which is cloning the repository. I will use the modified version designed for the LilyGo T3 device. Here’s the command to do that:
Next, connect your LilyGo T3 V1.6.1 to your computer using a data-capable Micro-USB cable. In Visual Studio Code, click on the PlatformIO status bar at the bottom and select env:esp32dev. Then, you can either click the checkmark icon in the status bar or press Ctrl+Alt+B to compile the firmware.
Once that is complete, click the right arrow icon in the status bar to start the upload process. PlatformIO will automatically detect the serial port, trigger the ESP32 to enter bootloader mode via auto-reset circuitry using the DTR and RTS lines, erase the necessary flash sectors, and upload the binaries seamlessly.
After the upload is complete, you can monitor the device with the built-in command:
pio device monitor -b 115200
At this point, the state machine and scanning engine are fully operational. During its initial scan, it detected seven nearby access points, recording their SSIDs, BSSIDs, signal strengths, channels, and encryption methods in memory.
Now, let’s simulate an open clone of a known encrypted network. The README file provides the following instructions:
I created a Wi-Fi access point from my phone with the same name as the network to which my system is connected, but without a password. Let’s observe how the WiFi Canary responds.
The script successfully identified the clone and granted 4 points to the score, changing the state to caution. The rogue open clone remained active in the following 20-second scan with a strong RSSI, adding another 4 points, which brought the total score to 8 and changed the state to alert. At the 310-second mark, the decay timer activated, decreasing the score from 8 to 7. However, since the score remained above the SCORE_ALERT threshold of 6 or higher, the system continued to maintain its alert state until the threat was resolved and the score naturally decayed back to zero.
Limitations
Despite the benefits of confidence scoring in reducing unexpected alerts, the possibility of false positives still exists. This is particularly true in enterprise networks, multi-node mesh setups, and crowded public venues, which can display behaviors that resemble attack patterns. On the flip side, false negatives may arise if a skilled attacker impersonates a legitimate BSSID while carefully adjusting their transmission power to fit in with normal signal strength variations, thus evading detection.
The limitations of the physical hardware create additional coverage boundaries. Passive detection of deauthentication relies heavily on the distance from the receiving device, meaning that low-power or far-off transmitters may be beyond the reach of the antenna. Furthermore, monitoring is confined solely to the 2.4 GHz spectrum, leaving the 5 GHz and 6 GHz bands completely unmonitored.
Lastly, the design of the radio architecture leads to a temporary gap in scanning whenever the chip switches between promiscuous packet sniffing and active environment scanning, resulting in a three-second blind spot where airborne deauthentication bursts can go unnoticed.
Summary
For many travelers and remote workers, understanding whether the Wi-Fi around them is secure is crucial. Private messages and sensitive information can be easily compromised when malicious actors set up fake hotspots or disrupt local connections. A device like the Travel WiFi Canary can continuously monitor the airwaves and alert you the moment a wireless attack is detected.
This device uses active Wi-Fi scanning and passive signal listening to find threats in real time. It constantly checks nearby networks against a trusted standard to spot fake open hotspots, duplicate routers, or security issues. At the same time, it listens for harmful activities like deauthentication attacks or rogue scanning tools. When it detects a threat, it raises a danger level with an internal scoring system and triggers a clear visual alarm. This alerts you immediately, giving you a warning before your devices may face any risk.
If you’re interested in improving your knowledge of wireless security, take a look at our Wi-Fi Hacking training. This course will guide you on how to assess the security of wireless networks and equip you with modern strategies to protect them effectively.
A Storm-2945 campaign layers device code phishing onto hijacked hotel Wi-Fi to bypass MFA on Microsoft 365 accounts. Here's how it works and how to shut it off.
Lately, we’ve covered several tools you can use with your laptop to track nearby devices and people. While they’re useful, their effectiveness depends on the strength of your Bluetooth adapter, and, of course, you need to have your laptop with you.
This time, we’re doing things differently. We want to show you a device that can automatically monitor nearby devices for extended periods, anywhere you choose to place it, and as often as you want. It doesn’t rely solely on Bluetooth, as it also uses Wi-Fi, which is far more likely to be enabled, increasing the chances of detecting someone in your area.
What is Paxcounter
Paxcounter is an open-source firmware project that takes a cheap little ESP32 development board and turns it into a sensor that can count people. Almost every smartphone in the world is constantly sending out small Wi-Fi signals, called probe requests, and Bluetooth signals too, even when the phone is not connected to anything. Paxcounter listens for these signals in the air. It counts how many different devices it hears during each scan, and from that, it can tell you a real time estimate of how many people are nearby.
The project started out as a simple way to measure how many passengers or pedestrians pass through a certain spot. But over time, it grew into something much bigger. Now it works as a general purpose IoT platform, built on hardware that usually costs somewhere between $10 and $30. Besides its main job of counting Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices, a Paxcounter can also read environmental sensors, track its GPS position, keep accurate time, and send all of that data out through LoRaWAN, MQTT, a local serial connection, or straight onto an SD card.
How the Counting Works
The way Paxcounter counts people is simple, but it was clearly built with privacy in mind from the very start. Every scan cycle, which lasts 60 seconds by default, the device switches its Wi-Fi and Bluetooth radios into scanning mode and listens for probe requests and advertisement packets coming from nearby devices. Each of these packets carries a MAC address. Paxcounter takes just the last two bytes of that address and turns them into a short, temporary ID. This ID is only used to check for duplicates during that one scan cycle. Once the cycle ends, the count of unique IDs gets sent out, and the whole list is wiped from memory. The firmware also does not try to fingerprint any device. It never tries to figure out a phone’s brand, its operating system, or who owns it. All it wants to know is whether that device has already been counted in the current window.
This scan and clear cycle just keeps repeating, either nonstop or on a schedule if deep sleep power saving is turned on. The results, which include the Wi-Fi count, the Bluetooth count, and sometimes live sensor readings too, get packed into a small payload and sent out through whatever channel the device is set up to use. One thing worth knowing is that Wi-Fi and Bluetooth scanning actually share the same 2.4 GHz radio hardware on the ESP32. So running both scans at the same time slightly lowers the accuracy of each one. Because of that, the project’s own advice is to split Wi-Fi only counting and Bluetooth only counting across two separate devices whenever the best possible accuracy is needed for both.
One Firmware, Many Boards
Paxcounter comes with a hardware abstraction layer and its own pin mapping files for dozens of ESP32 and ESP32-S3 boards. These come from well known manufacturers like LILYGO and TTGO, Heltec, Pycom, WeMos, M5Stack, and Adafruit, and there is also a generic template ready for boards that are not officially supported yet. LILYGO even sells a ready-made board called Paxcounter LoRa, built specifically to run this firmware.
Depending on which board you pick, your device can end up supporting a LoRaWAN radio for sending data over long distances while using very little power, an OLED status screen, or a single color, RGB, or larger LED matrix light to show status. It can also support a physical button for flipping through display pages or sending an alarm message, battery voltage monitoring, GPS positioning, a real time clock chip along with IF482 or DCF77 time telegram output, and even an SD card slot for logging data locally when there is no network around.
Because the whole system was designed to be truly portable, the documentation goes into real detail about power draw, which usually sits somewhere between 450 and 1000 milliwatts depending on how the device is set up. It also makes good use of the ESP32’s deep sleep mode, so a device can keep running for a long stretch of time on just one 18650 lithium ion battery cell. Members of the community have already shared several 3D printable enclosure designs on Thingiverse for the more popular boards.
Getting the Device Up and Running
Paxcounter is built using PlatformIO instead of the plain Arduino IDE. This choice lets it work smoothly with editors like Visual Studio Code, Atom, or Eclipse, and it gives the project reproducible, script driven builds. In fact, the repository runs an automated PlatformIO build check every single time the code changes, using GitHub Actions, and there is even a CodeFactor badge that keeps an eye on ongoing code quality.
The configuration is intentionally spread across a handful of different files instead of being crammed into just one. This keeps board specific settings, behavioral settings, and personal settings nicely separated from each other. The platformio.ini file is where you select which board’s hardware profile you want to compile against. The paxcounter.conf file handles behavioral settings, things like how long a scan cycle lasts, sleep timing, and payload options. The shared lmic_config.h file sets the LoRaWAN region and frequency plan, so it matches the rules where you live. The shared loraconf.h file holds the device’s LoRaWAN join credentials, and the project recommends using OTAA rather than ABP for this. And the shared ota.conf file stores the Wi-Fi credentials the device uses for over the air firmware updates.
You can upload firmware the traditional way, over USB, or once a device has joined a LoRaWAN network, you can push updates over the air instead. A remote command tells the board to connect to Wi-Fi, check a hosted repository called PAX.express for a newer build, and then download and flash it automatically. If anything goes wrong during that process, it will roll back to the previous version on its own. Devices can also be set up to open a small local web based bootstrap menu right when they power on, which lets you upload a firmware file manually, even from a phone in tethering mode, without needing PlatformIO installed on site.
Configuration and Extensibility
Beyond just picking a board, Paxcounter gives you a long list of settings you can tune to fit your needs. It can log environmental data from sensors like the Bosch BMP180, BME280, BMP280, or BME680, read a Nova SDS011 particulate matter sensor to track dust in the air, and keep accurate time using either a DS3231 real time clock or a connected GPS module.
Display and LED
On boards that come with an OLED display, Paxcounter shows live status information you can cycle through with a short press of the button. This includes the current pax count, meaning the people count, a histogram of recent activity, GPS status, environmental sensor readings, and the time of day.
A long press of that same button sends an alarm message out over the network instead, which is a simple way to flag a problem from out in the field without needing any other kind of interface. Even on boards that do not have a display at all, a status LED still tells you what the device is doing through its blink pattern. You get a brief flash whenever a new Wi-Fi or Bluetooth device is spotted, a quick blink while the device is joining the LoRaWAN network, a short blink during data transmission, and a slow, long blink if there is a LoRaWAN stack error. Boards that have an RGB LED get a color coded version of these same signals.
How You Receive the Data
Once a Paxcounter has counted the people nearby and packed everything into a message, that data has to go somewhere so you can actually see it. How that happens depends on which output the device is using, and the good news is you can turn on more than one at the same time. If you are using LoRaWAN, which is the most common setup, the device does not send the data straight to you. Instead, a nearby LoRaWAN gateway picks up the signal first and forwards it on to a network server, usually The Things Stack. There is a small decoder script included with the project, and its job is to take that raw message and turn it into numbers you can actually read, something like a pax count of 14. From there, The Things Stack can pass the data along to your own app or dashboard using MQTT or a webhook, or you can simply watch it come in live through the built in console.
If a board does not have LoRa hardware built in, it can just skip the gateway completely and send that same kind of data straight to an MQTT service over Wi-Fi instead. You can also connect the device to a computer using a USB cable and read the numbers directly from a serial connection. This is a simple way to test things out without needing to set up a network at all. If SD card logging is turned on, everything also gets saved locally as a CSV file, so you can pull the card out later and open it up in a spreadsheet. This comes in handy in places where there is no network coverage to rely on.
Where It’s Used
Because a single Paxcounter device is cheap to build and can be left running unattended for a long time, you will find it popping up in a pretty wide range of places. Retailers and shopping centers use it to measure foot traffic without needing to install cameras. Event organizers use it to watch how crowds move around a venue in real time. Pentesters can get a passive read on how many Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices are active in a building, or to notice unexpected devices showing up where they shouldn’t, all without needing camera access or network credentials.
Legal and Privacy Considerations
Since Paxcounter’s whole job involves listening to wireless traffic, its documentation is unusually upfront about the legal side of things. It points out that sniffing Wi-Fi and Bluetooth MAC addresses may be regulated or restricted depending on where you live, and it links to specific starting references for the US, the UK, the Netherlands and the EU, and Germany. It also makes clear that the legal responsibility for how a device is built and deployed falls on the person doing it, especially for public deployments where the results might get published somewhere. On the technical side of privacy, the project’s own design actually holds up pretty well against that legal backdrop. Identifiers are only ever built from the last two bytes of a scanned MAC address, they are kept in memory just for the length of one scan cycle, and then they are discarded completely. No MAC addresses or identifiers are ever sent out over the network, and the firmware does not do any extra tracking or fingerprinting of the devices it scans.
Summary
What really makes Paxcounter stand out is not any single feature on its own. It is the whole combination working together. One piece of open source firmware supports dozens of cheap boards, runs for a long time on a small battery, counts people without saving anything identifying about them, doubles as a general environmental sensor node, speaks LoRaWAN, MQTT, serial, and SD card all at once, and can be fully reconfigured from a distance once it is out in the field. The full source code, the complete board list, and all the documentation are available on GitHub.
If you enjoy experimenting with frequencies and trying new things, we recommend signing up for our SDR for Hackers training. With Master OTW, you’ll learn how to use your computer and inexpensive SDR hardware to explore and hack a wide range of radio signals.
Login
