Slashdot Mirror


Netgear's Amusing "fix" for WG602v1 Backdoor

An anonymous reader writes "Recently Slashdot reported that the Netgear router has as WLAN backdoor. According to this report by the news service of the German publisher Heise Netgear "fixed" the problem with a firmware update. And what is the fix? According to Heise, they didn't remove the backdoor at all. Instead they just changed the login information! They replaced the old user name 'super' with 'superman', and changed the old password to '21241036'. "

53 of 515 comments (clear)

  1. Oops... by danielrm26 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Chalk up another loss for 'security by obscurity'.

    --
    dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge
    1. Re:Oops... by einhverfr · · Score: 5, Informative

      Chalk up another loss for 'security by obscurity'.

      Well, that might be good enough, if they could choose the login information. But now that they published it....

      First rule of passwords is that you don't talk about your passwords....

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    2. Re:Oops... by isthisthingon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why are companies allowed to get away with this crap just because we pay them for their shoddy wares?

      Any open source coder would be summarily flogged for such a transgression. Why on EARTH is this not literally considered a criminal offense for a company to do?

      And I for one used to hold Netgear in reasonably high regard, too.

      Never again.

      --
      And then one day you find, ten years have gone behind you....
    3. Re:Oops... by Petrol · · Score: 4, Funny

      What's the second rule?

      --
      ...and that's the end of our show. Donk!
    4. Re:Oops... by AndroidCat · · Score: 5, Funny

      If someone war-chalks it up, it won't be obscure for long. What is the symbol for "lame gateway security"?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    5. Re:Oops... by djansen · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, it IS an improvement. The increase from 5 characters for the login to 8 now makes it SO much harder to crack. What was the old password? Someone do the math and figure out the number of new permutations they've added. Ha. I bet this is how the guy who did it justified the whole thing.

      "What da ya mean? It's MUCH more secure than it was before."

      Doh.

    6. Re:Oops... by chris_mahan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >Why are companies allowed to get away with this crap just because we pay them for their shoddy wares?

      The answer lies within the question: Because we pay them.

      If someone paid you to paint a building and didn't care whether you stripped off the old paint first, I guarantee you you would just slap a coat over the old paint.

      >And I for one used to hold Netgear in reasonably high regard, too.

      Your mistake, then.

      >Never again.

      You should not say never if you want to reach them. This just makes the company execs think that since they can never reach you as a customer again, they won't make the effort. What you should say instead is: "I will purchase products from other companies since theirs do not address my needs at this time."

      This is reasonable to them, and they won't discount you as a hot-head but rather may take your advice.

      Just my .016 euro

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    7. Re:Oops... by NickFortune · · Score: 4, Funny
      In future I will purchase products from other companies since theirs do not address my needs at this time.

      I feel better for that...

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    8. Re:Oops... by div_2n · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My experience with Netgear products has led me to believe their quality has diminished dramatically.

      IANAL, but I seem to recall a lawyer I know telling me that with product liability, a company is liable if due diligence is not performed to fix an issue when a known problem exists. Of course, the trick becomes can you call changing a username and password due diligence? I feel certain every computer expert in the world would say no.

    9. Re:Oops... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why on EARTH is this not literally considered a criminal offense for a company to do?

      Just how many criminal laws do you think we need? Seriously. Do you think we need another one?

      There's no doubt in my mind that the vendor would be held liable for damages if anybody were harmed--financially I mean--by this kind of thing. But should somebody really go to jail over it?

      Geez. And I thought I was a fascist.

      --

      I write in my journal
    10. Re:Oops... by D-Cypell · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well... if there is one thing that can be said of slashdot... we certainly know how to fix that pesky 'obscurity' problem ;o)

    11. Re:Oops... by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Why are companies allowed to get away with this crap just because we pay them for their shoddy wares?
      The answer lies within the question: Because we pay them.
      Don't blame this on consumers. We don't have real choice until we have the relevant information. Things might be quite different with a bit of truth in advertising, like a sticker on the box which reads "Router WG602 - Now With Even More Backdoors!"

      The question of "why are companies allowed to get away with this crap" is a good one. They should either be forced to tell people what they're buying, or be accountable for the consequences of deception.

    12. Re:Oops... by gfxguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your last line says it all - they should be held accountable. If it's advertised as being secure, and a backdoor is found, they should have to buy back every single unit or replace every single unit with a working one.

      If anyone has been damaged by the availability of the back door they should be held liable even if they claim you waive that right in their license agreement (their license agreement does not state there may be the possibility of back doors, no?)

      If you claim something is secure, but that you can't prevent all future attacks so you can't be liable, that's one thing, but when the liability is clearly your fault, it's another.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    13. Re:Oops... by R.Caley · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Why are companies allowed to get away with this crap just because we pay them for their shoddy wares?

      You answered your own question. If everyone who owns one of these took it back and demanded their money back because it is not suitable for the purpose for which it was sold, they'd soon get the message.

      Why on EARTH is this not literally considered a criminal offense for a company to do?

      Because the civil courts are there to cope with this kind of thing?

      --
      _O_
      .|<
      The named which can be named is not the true named
    14. Re:Oops... by worst_name_ever · · Score: 4, Funny
      What's the second rule?

      I don't know, but I know Rule 8: If this is your first login, you have to change your password.

      --

      In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
    15. Re:Oops... by Fjord · · Score: 5, Funny

      The first rule of passwords is that you do not talk about your passwords.
      The second rule of passwords is that you do not talk about your passwords.
      The third rule is if someone uses "password" or nothing, there is no password.
      The fourth rule is only one person to a password.
      The fifth rule is one password at a time.
      The sixth rule is no sheets, no stickies.
      The seventh rule is password will be expired when they have to

      and the final rule of passwords is, if it's your first logon, you have to set one.

      --
      -no broken link
    16. Re:Oops... by chrispl · · Score: 4, Funny

      Be realistic, if the box DID have a sticker saying "Router WG602 - Now With Even More Backdoors!" most Joe-BestBuy-Consumers would flip it over and look for little doors on the back of it.

      Face it, until there is a major disaster involving IT security most of this type of information will remain the exclusive domain of security geeks and haxors.

      --
      What post? The one you're carrying inside your rusty innards!
    17. Re:Oops... by arivanov · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I do.

      In fact I drove all possible candidates for several days before I bought what I have now. It is quite easy. Every time you go on a holiday rent one of the candidates for "next thing to buy". You get to see it in all of its "glory" - lowest spec, run down by tourists and badly maintained. If it is still OK you go and buy it. You may suffer some minor discomfort compared to renting "the old familiar", but you save a lot of money :-)

      I also do the same stuff with computer equipment. Buy, test drive if it is shit - return. It is quite easy to do it in EU due to distance selling regulations. You are entitled to a free return no questions asked of anything you have bought over phone or Internet within 1 week after purchase. This limits you to internt purchases, but once you add this along with observations of company kit you are reasonably well positioned to get the right stuff...

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    18. Re:Oops... by Janek+Kozicki · · Score: 4, Funny

      one password to rule them all,
      one password to find them,
      one password to bring them all
      and in the darkness bind them

      oh wait... shouldn't people use more than one password?

      --
      #
      #\ @ ? Colonize Mars
      #
  2. Nice fix. by SpyPlane · · Score: 5, Funny

    That would be like "fixing" Windows 95 with Windows ME.

    --
    "We need a fourth law of Robotics: Stop Fingering My Wife"
  3. I wonder... by barcodez · · Score: 4, Funny

    I thought the last article said changing passwords was a good idea! Make your minds up.

    I jest of course.

    --

    ----
    1. Re:I wonder... by FearTheFrail · · Score: 5, Funny

      But it takes numbers + characters to make -strong- passwords. So the next logical step:

      Login: Theyllneverguess
      Password: cuzimso1337

      --
      ___ In the words of Gen. Douglas McArthur: "I'll be right back."
  4. Superman!! by Claire-plus-plus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well at least sys-admins and network engineers can finally use the login name they think they deserve.

    --
    99 bottles of beer in 175 characte
  5. Not funny at all by Ckwop · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't think there's anything amusing about this at all. I think the owners of these units should file a class action lawsuit, though i'm not even sure that's possible due to the EULA. If the EULA does get in the way then
    I think it's time the government steped in to protect the consumer and started making companies liable for acts as stupid as this. This just isn't the way a responsible company behaves.

    Simon.

    1. Re:Not funny at all by Dutchmaan · · Score: 5, Funny

      This just isn't the way a responsible company behaves.

      responsible company

      Trying to put these two words together is like trying to touch two magnet ends with the same polarity.

    2. Re:Not funny at all by pe1rxq · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is about a hardcoded backdoor that can't be closed by the user.

      Jeroen

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    3. Re:Not funny at all by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is BS. There are many responsible companies. Unfortunately they usually don't become big because being responsible usually means that they have to have higher prices.

      No, there aren't many responsible companies at all, and your post illustrates why. They have higher prices, less effective marketing (because they don't lie like their irresponsible competition), don't get ahead because they don't do unethical backroom deals, etc., so in the end they just go belly-up, and all the irresponsible companies get bigger.

  6. Now you did it! by saddino · · Score: 4, Funny

    They replaced the old user name 'super' with 'superman', and changed the old password to '21241036'. "

    And thanks to Slashdot, thus begins an endless stream of firmware updates; every time Netgear "fixes" their problem, I'm sure an article here will put the cycle in motion again. Let's see, who wants to guess what they change the password to next?

    "superduperman", anyone?

  7. Bianry Edit by HogGeek · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'm wondering if one could use something like bvi to change the username and password to something private.

    I've done it with other types of binary files, but never tried with firmware.

    Anyone try this?

    1. Re:Bianry Edit by catmaker · · Score: 4, Informative


      I'd imagine it wouldn't work. They've probably checksummed the file, and if you change any of the content you'd have to rechecksum it, if you even knew what kind of checksum (if any) they'd used.

      Nice idea though.

      --
      status is failure. status is failure
    2. Re:Bianry Edit by MrBlue+VT · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have an earlier Netgear product (RT314). It's actually a rebranded Zytel product, so this trick may not work on other models.

      However, it was possible to edit the firmware in a binary editor. There was a checksum in the firmware, but you could fix it. You needed to connect a serial cable to the management port. When you made a change and uploaded the new firmware to the router and rebooted, the router would helpfully tell you what the old checksum was and what it expected the new checksum to be. You could then just search for the old checksum string and replace it with the new one the router calculated for you.

      Pretty easy to do. And allowed you to run some of the newer Zytel firmware on the Netgear boxes.

  8. I would say this qualifies more as ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "security through stupidity".

    But that's just me.

  9. Reputation damage by SamiousHaze · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am so irritated I don't know what to say. Seriously, How can netgear expect people to trust them again, is there any way to repair their reputation?

  10. Very sad by Sandman1971 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now this is very sad. How can any semi-reputable company call changing the admin username and password for a major security hole a fix? Especially since they should have realized this new username/password would hit the net faster than Homer at an all you can eat buffet.

    Since these things have built in firewalls, wouldnt the fix just include a user-invisible firewall rule preventing access to the router on whatever the admin port is (80, 8080, etc..)? Seems like a fairly simple fix to me.

    Thanks Netgear! You've just assured that I'll never buy one of your products!

    --
    It's better to burn out than to fade away
  11. full-disclosure hackers knew for a while by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The blackhats that subscribe to

    http://lists.netsys.com/mailman/listinfo/full-di sc losure

    knew about this on irc for a while.

    EU via interpol desires, and us's NSA/NRO both desire various entrypoints.

    cisco's fiascos may be a trend. This netgear is only the tip of the iceberg I bet.

  12. Re:A joke surely? by CaptainZapp · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I wish it was true.

    Unfortunately Heise (publisher of c't and iX) is the probably most clueful German publishing house when it comes to technology.

    Those Netgear bozos really seem to be dumber then my cigar cutter.

    The other explanation is that the equipment has such a fundamental design flaw that it can't be fixed at all. But then they act damn unresponsible.

    Then again: Thanks to such blunders I know what equipment not to buy.

    --
    ich bin der musikant

    mit taschenrechner in der hand

    kraftwerk

  13. Re:At least ... by bje2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's amazing. I've got the same combination on my luggage.

    --

    "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
  14. Who reads slashdot? by tony_gardner · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I realise that this is a bit redundant, but I read the slashdot artile linked to, and what to I see but:

    Re:Fixed in new firmware, available here: (Score:3, Informative)
    by Chucky B. Bear (785810) on Saturday June 05, @03:10PM (#9345433)
    I've just upgraded to the latest firmware. It is NOT FIXED!!!! They have simply gone and changed the username and password to something else. There is STILL a default superuser account with password.

    (You can find it yourselve by just taking similiar steps as in the securityfoces article.)


    Maybe reading slashdot sometimes would be a good idea.

    1. Re:Who reads slashdot? by Chucky+B.+Bear · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Yeah I hate to say it but told you so!!! ;-) I posted that just before the securityfocus mail. Its funny how this all ended up as a Heise article now. They could've at least given me some credit for finding it.

      I did talk to a netgear support engineer yesterday and he didn't know what I was talking about, so now I'm still waiting to hear anything back from them.

  15. Supermaning it.... by utlemming · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am amused. When I say the headline I just about died laughing. The sad part is that most people that have a Netgear router aren't going to update the firmware, and they probably don't even care or understand the issues involved. Further, what about all those units that are on the shelf somewhere? The problem is that Netgear has admitted now that they are not interested in security and they are not offering a secured unit. I was amused when I installed one for a friend -- she had bought the unit. No user name, just a password. I am thinking that IEEE or ANSI or whoever should adopt a standard for baseline security for routers. That way even an idiot that wants to have an open WIFI device won't have to worry about some Wardriver taking over his device. Well, all I can say is that I am happy that I was not the executive that made the Superman call.

    --
    The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
  16. 21241036 - For Backdoor Network Access, Call Jenny by Compulawyer · · Score: 4, Funny

    The new password is apparently someone's PHONE NUMBER in Germany! No idea whose, but I gleaned this tidbit by getting a Babelfish translation of the page (orig, in German). For those in the US - Is this the networking equivalent of calling Jenny? (867-5309)

    --

    Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.

  17. Article Text by Three+Headed+Man · · Score: 5, Informative
    Courtesy of this online GermanEnglish Dictionary and my German teacher, Frau Richards, whereever you are.

    Netgear has promptly reacted to the reports of a backdoor in the WLAN-Access-Point WG602 Version 1 with a Firmware-Update, however, the backdoor is still present, but with a new user name and password. They were a little creative with the name and extended the original character string "super" to "superman." With the password, Netgear has obviously taken the message of security seriously and changed the password to "21241036." However, to whom this telephone number points, Netgear did not comment. There, they knew nothing and initially only wanted to make themselves aware of the (details of the) problem.

    Again, there is not a real updated firmware design yet. The question arises whether users are still determined--after the second patch--to get new software. In the lawyer's opinions, this problem could be reason enough to take back the device to the retailer and receive a refund of the purchase price. For now, the retailer can try to fix the shortcoming, however, the chances of that are not very good.

    --
    I'm probably at the karma cap. Mod up a funny troll instead, it lightens the mood :)
  18. Re:Calm down... by bogie · · Score: 4, Informative

    First of all we are talking about a Netgear Product so what does Linksys's problem have to do with this? Second of all if you would bother to read the responses in the article you linked to, you would see that some people have already proved that its not a hoax with regards to the Linksys product.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  19. Not the first boner NetGear's pulled by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Informative

    Flawed Routers Flood University of Wisconsin Internet Time Server

    http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~plonka/netgear-sntp/

    Abstract:

    "In May 2003, the University of Wisconsin - Madison found that it was the recipient of a continuous large scale flood of inbound Internet traffic destined for one of the campus' public Network Time Protocol (NTP) servers. The flood traffic rate was hundreds-of-thousands of packets-per-second, and hundreds of megabits-per-second.

    Subsequently, we have determined the sources of this flooding to be literally hundreds of thousands of real Internet hosts throughout the world. However, rather than having originated as a malicious distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack, the root cause is actually a serious flaw in the design of hundreds of thousands of one vendor's low-cost Internet products targeted for residential use. The unexpected behavior of these products presents a significant operational problem for UW-Madison for years to come.

    This document includes the initial public disclosure of details of these products' serious design flaw. Furthermore, it discusses our ongoing, multifaceted approach toward the solution which involves the University, the products' manufacturer, the relevant Internet standards (RFCs), and the public Internet service and user communities."

  20. Here's why they didn't remove it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Yes, you're asking yourself "why didn't they just remove it, instead of changing it? Why was it there in the first place?"

    Well, it seems pretty obvious to me... it's supposed to be there.

    This shows that it was Netgear's intention to purposely put back doors into the product. The reason "why" is not really evident. I can leave that up to the tinfoil hat crowd.

  21. blimey by doofusclam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's crap. There may be a multitude of reasons why they couldn't remove the backdoor (no access to source code, the guy who wrote it was on holiday, whatever...) but they could have at least changed the password with a hex editor to something that was difficult to type from a keyboard, low-ascii values for example.

  22. Re:A joke surely? by pongo000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Then again: Thanks to such blunders I know what equipment not to buy.

    The fundamental problem here is that we're running out of vendors! Linksys and Belkin are on the shitlist; now NetGear. Who, exactly, does that leave for consumer-grade networking equipment? I don't know about where you live, but where I live, these are about the only three vendors that show up on the computer store shelves (well, there are some cheapo brands, but they suffer even worse quality control problems).

  23. Change the fix to something else! by netringer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Doesn't having the username and password in the clear mean that anybody who knows how to use a Hex editor can make their own patch? Just find those two strings and change them to something else, or better some sequence of bits that don't map to text.

    Is there a checksum or CRC check in the firmware loader on the router that keeps you from being able to do that?

    --
    Ever dream you could fly? Get up from the Flight Sim. I Fly
  24. Re:Firmware 1.5.67 doesn't take this password... by Chucky+B.+Bear · · Score: 4, Informative
    Maybe you typed wrong. ;-) I can confirm without any doubt that both versions 1.5.67 and 1.7.14 from the netgear site has these backdoors installed.

    As a matter of fact it was me who found the 1.7.14 username and password and posted it to securityfocus after updating my firmware from 1.5.67(which I tested with the super username and password) to 1.7.14.

  25. Re:According to Netgear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I would have thought the link refers to the "fix" we're discussing here.

  26. Has anyone looked at the website? by Xugumad · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's just that, according to the site, there's no fix yet:

    http://kbserver.netgear.com/kb_web_files/n101383.a sp

    Now, there is a firmware from the 4th:

    http://kbserver.netgear.com/support_details.asp?dn ldID=735

    that claims to fix the problem, but I'm tempted to suggest what's happened is they've changed the username and password while they test a full fix. After all, changing data is generally less likely to break stuff than changing code...

  27. Why isn't this ilegal. by Holi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I would think under current laws that installing an undisclosed backdoor onto someone elses property would be akin to using a trojan to allow access to anothers system. Just becaujse they sell the system does not give them the right to access to it after it is sold. I can see no beneficial reason for this as most consumer routers have a hardware reset that reloads the factory defaults.

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  28. Re:Bad Idea by Aumaden · · Score: 4, Funny
    In this case it's more like:

    "Oh, the white airbags don't work? Here, let me paint it blue."