- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
It’s weird that DLINK’s response was basically “tough shit buy our newer product we don’t work on those anymore” especially given the extent of the attack.
Hasn’t that been basically been those domestic network appliance vendors’ answer to most such problems?
Most tech companies are of the same mentality
This calls for new legislation. There are FTC best practice laws being discussed for just this kind of situation.
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/plain-language/913a_careful_connections.pdf
So, basically the enforcement of the above documents recommendations from what I understand. Not an expert though.
The thinking is this kind of bullshit directly compromises national security.
I agree with that thinking.
Is there a nice up to date list of companies like this that have clearly little desire to improve security or are just very anti consumer?
They’re all like that. Unless it’s enterprise grade gear, which has a much longer support plan (although this kind of thing can happen there as well). It’s a classic with domestic network gear.
Your way out is to replace the original firmware with an open source one if possible. Of course if you buy a brand new model, you don’t know if it’s going to eventually be supported.
For nas specifically, synology is usually fairly reliable, or you can build your own with one of several specialised system distributions, such as Truenas (there are several others). It may require a bit of learning, depending on how familiar you are with computing and networking.
Cool. My rule of thumb of only buying products that either are open source or can have open source firmware and software is sticking.
That’s really the only reasonable way to go nowadays.
I’m still learning Cybersec in general, if I’m reading this right, were these credentials hardcoded in by D-Link, these devices reached EOL, and so they refuse to remove that backdoor on the basis that the devices are EOL?
Is there a likely reason that these were left in, like could it have been a development oversight, or does it look more likely that this was malicious?
Regardless, I definitely hold the opinion that D-Link should do the right thing for their customers and patch that vulnerability, regardless of the device being EOL, similar to how Microsoft pushed a security update to Windows XP re WannaCry when it was EOL, on the basis that “Yes, XP is unsupported and you shouldn’t use it, but we are patching this particular vulnerability anyway.”
D-Link suck, they probably just overlooked it. Consumer-grade router manufacturers generally have abysmal/terrifying software QA. One prominent reason I recommend picking up hardware that supports an open router firmware.
Well I’ll add D-Link to my ‘never buy’ list. Not just for their crappy response, but for the poor security practices used in a networked product in the first place!
deleted by creator
