No . . . not my camera. That is a PoE camera, 8 MP . . . . mine is truly a wifi camera and only 4 MP. It does pick up sound, but doesn't have a speaker. No light nor sound sirens. Excellent night vision. Seems to be good quality when functioning.

I would like to primarily access the camera with BI. But when I need to set parameters, it's predominantly by having the wired connection and using the web interface to access those features. Camera World has PC software that will also do some of what BI does, but exclusively for their cameras as best as I can tell. The PC software is called SmartPSS. It's ok I guess. I think their intention is that one also purchases their NVR for connecting their cameras. But I'm no longer convinced it would work on my network without paying a few hundred dollars more for "networking assistance" to get it to function properly.

With regards to firmware. . . . yes there is a page that gives the firmware version, but CCTV Camera World explicitly recommends against updating the firmware, and cautions that doing so will void the warranty and may require re-flashing the camera.

I'm intrigued by your situation and your rather unique problem of having a camera under warranty that will not be supported by the retailer without additional fees -- exorbitant ones at that. After a little more curiosity being aroused, I'll guess this is the camera you purchased. https://www.cctvcameraworld.com/wireles ... ullet.html

The good news is, it's still an OEM Dahua device. The bad news is, it is likely a 'gray market' unlabled device with outdated firmware that if upgraded to the latest version wouldn't necessarily 'brick' the camera, but you would need to learn Chinese (literaly) to use any of its features as that is the firmware that would be flashed. The practice of buying 'no label' OEM Dahua for rebranding is not unusual with several well known retailers doing so in an honorable fashion. The retailer involved here is looking more and more likely to not fall into that catagory.

If that is indeed the camera you purchased and is still covered under any type of warranty/return policy, return it at the earliest opportunity as defective and demand a full refund without hesitation. If they fight the refund, fight back. Worst case, demand a replacement unit. They'll either comply, or you'll find out just how fast their 'support' becomes 'free' when being faced with having to issue a refund for a bad product. Or they just hang up and you know exactly where you stand as a 'valued customer'. Their lack of support without additional fees is simply unacceptable by any reasonable standards and I would personally dump them on that principle alone. If you like the camera otherwise, buy a legit Dahua at half the price which will come with an international support structure along with a network of thousands of happy Dahua users always willing to assist in forums like these.

https://us.dahuasecurity.com/product/n41bd42-w/ (The 2.8mm version)

If you are already stuck with the camera, and to not stray too far away from the foundation of this particular forum, there are a few other things that can be done to further identify what may be prohibiting it from being used with Blue Iris -- at least in wi-fi mode.

Accurately identifying the camera would be a start. Your particular method at least identified it as a Dahua device, but obviously not the correct one -- unless of course it has been flashed with incorrect firmware somewhere along the line, or has a very stripped down version of the same basic board as identified -- or both. (Identifying it will also provide a much more solid position from which to handle retailer push back should such be necessary.)

Cross-reffing the current firmware and build to known Dahua documentation could help define where the camera stands in relation to other versions, good, bad, or upside down...., provided this actually is a Dahua camera.

Two other tools in particular can further analyze both the hardware and the firmware of the camera. The first would be ONVIF Device Manager. The second would be nmap.
Both are powerful tools. Each present a bit of a learning curve with ONVIF Device Manager being the most intuitive of the two while nmap is more involved, but also more capable. If you are running a network and setting up device address reservations and such you should be able to find your way around both. They're free and open source with no baggage. On the other hand, none of this may be worth your while, but here are the links nonetheless.

https://sourceforge.net/projects/onvifdm/

https://nmap.org/

Again, revisiting the wi-fi setup section in the webUI configuration menus may provide the answers. Finding where to set up SSID and wi-fi login credentials seems like it would be a fairly prominent and detailed feature.

I apologize for even asking this question, but are you running an active 2.4gHz band on your WAN?

It also occurs to me that your mystery 'wi-fi' connectivity without actually being on your WAN is likely P2P via the DMSS app and your hotspot. That would explain the lack of port 80 and port 554 while the others are still active. Just thinking out loud now...

And DHCP may actually be your friend until everything gets sorted out.

Here to help.

Good luck.

Pogo,

Yup . . . . you found the camera I purchased. Contacted them today and explained the challenge and plead my case. We shall see where that leads to.

The Dahua N41BD42-W looks and lists features exactly like the one I've got. I presume this wouldn't need to "phone home" via internet like some of the others? It would be a truly standalone wife camera if necessary and not require cloud storage?

Sounds very promising to me!

RickG

No cloud storage/service or phoning home required for even the most basic ONVIF compliant IP cameras. Even the cheap little TP-Link Tapos being discussed in another thread qualify.The ones being discussed here are well beyond the ONVIF 'minimum' for being considered compliant. As such they will work with any NVR meeting the minimum ONVIF standards. This include any number of software/PC based NVR solutions (such as Blue Iris) as well as the dedicated hardware platforms. Granted, many have proprietary features designed for their particular camera systems, but all will support the main ONVIF requirements necessary to be considered 'comformant' if not compliant. Some brands play pretty loose with all the buzzword acronyms and terminology. ONVIF is no exception.

The above said, using P2P for remote access does take the ONVIF situation beyond its typical bubble by the need to communicate encrypted information between devices for remote connectivity and functionality. As things currently stand, it's a pretty secure way to do it for most folks. Others feel the need to implement additional layers of security, especially with more frequent (or constant) use of remote access to their personal networks.

Good luck with your 'case'. Hopefully it will get sorted out effectively and amicably.

Just for completion . . . . it turns out that the issue with the camera was firmware. After agreeing to a reduced price for assistance, the provider investigated my network (remotely) and discovered there wasn't anything wrong . . . . except that the wifi camera needed a firmware update. Once they did that, it worked just fine. Realizing it wasn't my issue, NOTHING was charged for the work.

Thank you to those who assisted and provided me a bit of guidance and education. I shall now be investigating other IP camera options as well.

Rick G

Sounds like your patience was appropriately rewarded. Good to hear.

Thanks for the update.