Sprint DSL's Security Hole Easy As 1,2,3,4

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sprint DSL's Security Hole Easy As 1,2,3,4

Posted by timothy on Thursday January 23, 2003 @08:59AM from the oh-didn't-you-catch-that dept.

An Anonymous reader points to this Wired article, excerpting "Sprint officials acknowledged that remote access to the administrative software embedded in the ZyXel Prestige 642 and 645 modems is by default protected with a password of '1234.' But the company said users are responsible for securing the equipment, which stores login data, including the user's e-mail address and password." Wired found that more than 90% of the modems they polled were using that default password.

21 of 373 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Hey! by mrdisco99 · 2003-01-23 09:02 · Score: -1, Redundant

That's the same password I have on my luggage!

--
+++
NO CARRIER
Oh No! by Ravensfire · 2003-01-23 09:02 · Score: -1, Redundant

That's my luggage combination!

--
"But we decide which is right, and which is an illusion"
1, 2, 3, 4 by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-23 09:03 · Score: -1, Redundant

That's the stupidest thing i've heard in my life!

That's the kind of thing an idiot would put on his luggage!
Way too easy... IMDB by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-23 09:03 · Score: -1, Redundant

[King Roland has given in to Dark Helmet's threats, and is telling him the combination to the "air shield"]
Roland: One.
Dark Helmet: One.
Sandurz: One.
Roland: Two.
Dark Helmet: Two.
Sandurz: Two.
Roland: Three.
Dark Helmet: Three.
Sandurz: Three.
Roland: Four.
Dark Helmet: Four.
Sandurz: Four.
Roland: Five.
Dark Helmet: Five.
Sandurz: Five.
Dark Helmet: So the combination is one, two, three, four, five? That's the stupidest combination I've ever heard! That's the kind of combination an idiot would put on his luggage!
Obligatory Spaceball's quote by cshoes · 2003-01-23 09:05 · Score: 0, Redundant

Roland: One.
Dark Helmet: One.
Sandurz: One.
Roland: Two.
Dark Helmet: Two.
Sandurz: Two.
Roland: Three.
Dark Helmet: Three.
Sandurz: Three.
Roland: Four.
Dark Helmet: Four.
Sandurz: Four.
Roland: Five.
Dark Helmet: Five.
Sandurz: Five.
Dark Helmet: So the combination is one, two, three, four, five? That's the stupidest combination I've ever heard! That's the kind of combination an idiot would put on his luggage!

--
Run with Scissors!
Unrelated, but much more serious security hole by NineNine · 2003-01-23 09:14 · Score: -1, Redundant

Of course, /. isn't going to post an article telling about a serious hole in CVS. Expecially considering their own Sourceforge, according to the article, is hostnig 55,000 projects with CVS. So here it is. Read up. Very serious news. Make sure to check *every* line of every bit of your source in a CVS repository to make sure it hasn't been altered. Well, I guess that this gives new meanign to "open source", huh?
1. Re:Unrelated, but much more serious security hole by doja · 2003-01-23 09:24 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  um... i think they did.
2. Re:Unrelated, but much more serious security hole by SpamJunkie · 2003-01-23 09:24 · Score: 1, Redundant
  
  This is a lie. There is in fact a slashdot story on the CVS exploit. You're getting a little too ambitious about spamming Slashdot, aren't you NineNine?
  
  On the other hand you seem to have all it takes to be a Slashdot Editor.
3. Re:Unrelated, but much more serious security hole by wulfhere · 2003-01-23 09:25 · Score: -1, Redundant
  
  You mean like this ?
  
  --
  -- Sent from a computer.
4. Re:Unrelated, but much more serious security hole by br0ck · 2003-01-23 09:25 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  No conspiracy here. Guess you missed it the first time. Don't worry, I'm sure it will be posted again soon.
5. Re:Unrelated, but much more serious security hole by tuanjim_2001 · 2003-01-23 09:25 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  Oh kinda like this one that was reported yesterday?
  
  --
  "If a quarter is two bits, then a dollar's a byte." -R Deric Miller
6. Re:Unrelated, but much more serious security hole by jamus · 2003-01-23 09:25 · Score: -1, Redundant
  
  You might have missed it because /. didn't post it twice.
  http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/0 1/21/1752251
7. Re:Unrelated, but much more serious security hole by 8282now · 2003-01-23 09:26 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  Gee do you think maybe it was THIS one? http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/0 1/21/1752251&mode=thread .... on the other hand, I spend altogether too much time on /. ... sigh...
8. Re:Unrelated, but much more serious security hole by Rich0 · 2003-01-23 09:27 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  Of course, /. isn't going to post an article telling about a serious hole in CVS [com.com]. Expecially considering their own Sourceforge...
  
  Yeah! Slashdot would never post an article like that! Especially not a few days ago on the front page! (If you missed it the first time I'm sure you'll get to see it again in a few days.)
  
  Note to whoever modded that up as informative. I would recommend at least reading Slashdot before moderating it. Then again, if those doing the posting would do the same we wouldn't have nearly as many duplicates... :)
9. Re:Unrelated, but much more serious security hole by BeeShoo · 2003-01-23 09:29 · Score: -1, Redundant
  
  Are you sure about that?
10. Re:Unrelated, but much more serious security hole by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-23 09:30 · Score: -1, Redundant
  
  Try developers.slashdot.org
11. Re:Unrelated, but much more serious security hole by tupps · 2003-01-23 09:57 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  Well there is this article... Remote Root Exploit in CVS http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/0 1/21/1752251&mode=thread Posted three days ago.
  
  --
  Go out and get sailing!
Parent is Troll! by KPU · 2003-01-23 09:25 · Score: 0, Redundant

Here is the slashdot article.
been there, done that. by zaphod.nu · 2003-01-23 09:25 · Score: 0, Redundant

Considering how much you seem to know I'm sure this is not what you're refering to?
Nope, sorry, already been discussed by plemeljr · 2003-01-23 09:30 · Score: 0, Redundant

Hey, this story was already discussed on 15:20 21st January, 2003.

Please move along. No conspiracy here. Try not to snark too quickly.

--

Please email all complaints to root@127.0.0.1 and the issue will be dealt with in due time.
You mean the one that /. posted 2 days ago? by devphil · 2003-01-23 09:31 · Score: -1, Redundant

...right over here? Lemme look at the advisory numbers... yep. Yep, that's the one you mean.

Perhaps a little more research is in order before you post? Or are you in training for a job as /. editor? (*ba-dum-bum*) Sorry, couldn't resist.

Yes, I know it was posted under the "Developers" section. Here's a tip for everyone reading slashdot: the editors' skill in category choice is on par with their skill in journalism. Just go into your preferences, turn on "collapse stories" (whatever the fuck that's supposed to actually mean), and you'll see all the articles, whether the editors think they're "important" or otherwise.

--
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)