Slashdot Mirror
Cable Modem Hackers Release Improved Firmware
FatCat writes "SecurityFocus has a story about a group of hardware and software hobbyists specializing in embeddded systems who've released their own custom firmware for Motorola Surfboard cable modems. The firmware lets you log in to an interactive VxWorks shell, or issue commands from a Web browser through an http interface. You load it by tapping an undocumented console serial port on the circuit board. So far, uncappers are apparently the primary consumers, and they're downloading up to 400 copies a day."
I would think that doing this could put one in dangar of lossing their service. I this more then likely is a violation of the TOS of most cable ISP's and when you violate a contract( TOS's are contracts of a form ) you void it, so then the cable company is not obligated to server you any more. Is the promise of high speed you don't pay for (theft) worth the lose of service, and posable legal action?
This is not actually true; "56k" modems are actually capped at 53k due to FCC regulations. I looked quickly on google and I couldn't figure out why they are capped and it doesn't really matter because almost no-one has a high enough quality phone line to get this rate. But there could be some dial-up hackers out there trying to get an illegal 3k.
This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
errrr...... this is a discussion of CABLE not ADSL. ADSL lines are individual lines to the ISP's DSLAM, whereas cable modems are on a local network loop with other users, hence the need for capped modems......
Could the cable company not quickly whip something together to scan all of their subscribers modems, and have a list of uncapped/hacked boxes in their hands within a few minutes, hours tops?
Or even better, can hackers reach this shell from the outside?
Sounds like a good way to lose your service and wind up in court.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
As soon as someone from Motorola reads this, they'll be popping out new firmware to cable ISP's right quick. It's quite easy for the ISP's to push this out in a night or two. I do it for a living :)
-KS2k3
they dont have to take any special/extra time to crack down on them - they can check that with scripts, flag the account, and disable the modem.
Well, some cable ISP's actually have it set up to where the CMTS (cable mdoem termination system) verifies both the modems firmware and config file source, to ensure that the modem is legit, and if the source doesn't match ... the CMTS won't route packets from that modem, or even allow it to pass on DHCP to the user's PC/router, so this will only work on some Cable systems
According to this reply on NANOG, "What the FCC limits is the power (db) level you can place on the line in the PSTN. This is to limit crosstalk in copper cable bundles. This power limitation does not equal a speed limitation. This seems to have arisen from the fact that the first PCM modems - USR X2 units - could not go faster than 53.3K without violating the FCC power limitations. All other things being equal, the more power you can use, the faster you can go. To cover their ass USR put the disclaimer on the boxes talking about how X2 was capable of 56K, but limited to 53.3K due to the FCC blah, blah. Many people read this as the FCC having some cap on allowed speed since they didn't explain that the trouble was with X2's inability to go faster in
the allowed power band."
You have obviously lost touch with your inner lawyer.
IMHO, the best solution is to alter the terms of all contracts with users (those who wish to cancel service can do so)
"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." - Napoleon Bonaparte
Leaving aside the Sir Edmund Hillary rationale for hacking anything ("Because it was there")
That was actually George Mallory who died whilst climbing Everest on June 6, 1924.
It's funny that you said "huge, dedicated bandwidth" and T1 in the same sentence, especially in this context. If you opted for a T1, you'd be limited to around half your current shared bandwidth, so your reasoning confuses me.
SearchIRC - Now with live chat directory!
T-1 is 1.5M down/1.5M up, on a dedicated connection. Comcast's standard offering is currently 3M down/256K up on a shared connection, which is more or less typical for cable modem. Remember that a basic T-1 package will almost invariably have a SLA guaranteeing that you won't have more than N minutes of downtime per month, at least 5 static IP addresses, and a noticable absence of draconian/asinine AUP terms. Of course it's going to cost roughly 10X as much as a cable modem connection, but it's well worth it if you really need those extra features. Of course there's SDSL if you're close enough to your CO, which can give you the same features as a T-1 for about 1/2 the cost. The Covad web site has rates posted, if you want to see real numbers.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Why do this on a shared medium, particularly one you have to share with your neighbors?
/dev/random plays a role.
All bandwidth is a shared medium. DSL to your house is not shared between you and the CO but that unshared segment is useless. Everyone in your neighborhood uses that same CO and you all are sharing the pipe the CO has. Not much different then a CM. I'd imagine a T1 from that CO to your house would share the same upstream also. If your CO has a good pipe you may not notice it, if it is small, you all will suffer the same. I do not know under what conditions the responsible CO party decides that the CO bandwidth needed upgraded but I'm sure
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
-Lucas
Might be useful for the few geeks they don't leave their machines on 24x7.
While uncapping a cable modem cannot change monthly download limits, uncapping a modem certainly can remove speeed limits imposed on the upstream. That's one of the major reasons for uncapping a modem, to get more upstream bandwidth.
There's two sides to how much bandwidth is allowed to your cable modem, the modem, and the headend, called the CMTS (Cable Modem Termination System). As part of the modem's configuration file, there's either a Class of Service (DOCSIS 1.0) or a Quality of Service (DOCSIS 1.1/2.0) that controls how much upstream and downstream bandwidth you can get. On the CMTS, you can setup policies that dictate how much upstream and downstream bandwidth the CMTS will allocate per modem.
Most operators enforce the limits at the CMTS end (additionally specifying it in the modem config file), so that the values given to the cable modem are used just so that the modem doesn't waste it's time trying to push out/grab more bandwidth than the CMTS will let it have (in that case, the CMTS just wastes clock cycles in dropping packets from modems). However, if you don't enforce the values at the headend, then whatever the modem thinks are the correct values stands, and if you alter the config file, well, you've just increased your bandwidth.
-- Joe
What kind of cable modem do you own? The surfboards have always (from at least the SB3100 and up, from my personal experience) had a web interface (192.168.100.1) that displays upstream and downstream power levels, frequency locks, SNR, as well as an event log. I have Charter cable. SNMP would be nice if it were accessible to the customers (to set threshold monitors, etc.) but having the web interface is much better than nothing at all. I don't know if they have the capability to lock out the web interface, but there's really no point in it.
use their old software, more info from the BETTER GROUP fibercoax... :) TCNiso is gay, don't give them donations when fibercoax will give you better software for free.