They do have a process for securing other services behind Access, including arbitrary traffic and custom protocols like SSH, RDP, and SMB (although I'm not sure how much dogfooding is going on; @jgrahamc might be able to comment on that):

https://developers.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-one/application...

>> cloud-connected cameras in the office

While Verkada may have not been the best choice, I fail to understand why remote-accessible cameras are bad? In fact, I'd say they are crucial at the level of security & monitoring needed by a company like Cloudflare.

> why remote-accessible cameras are bad

Because that access is not as limited as it sounds, that's why.

You have to think about the trade off between not having remote accessible cameras versus having them. If you can make systems more secure by eliminating them, you can become very secure and simultaneously not very useful.

Not having remote accessible cameras would seemingly make using the cameras take longer or be less efficient. In turn, that might make detecting or tracking physical intrusions less efficient and/or less successful. Should Cloudflare take that trade off? I think it depends on their threat model.

Besides the sibling pointing out to Cloudflare Access, there is also a new way that allows for arbitrary TCP traffic to be routed through Cloudflare network in a Zero Trust fashion: https://developers.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-one/tutorials/w...