Slashdot Mirror
D-Link DIR-655 Firmware 1.21 Hijacks Your Internet Connection
chronopunk writes "Normally when you think of firmware updates for a router you would expect security updates and bug fixes. Would you ever expect the company that makes the product to try and sell you a subscription for security software using its firmware as a salesperson? I recently ran into this myself when trying to troubleshoot my router. I noticed when trying to go to Google that my router was hijacking DNS and sent me to a website trying to sell me a software subscription. After upgrading your D-link DIR-655 router to the latest firmware you'll see that D-link does this, and calls the hijacking a 'feature.'"
Is this even legal? This is my device; if it does something I don't like, and can't disable it, that seems like an attack on my rights; to do it to sell ads... that's just low, D-Link!
Thank you so much for the warning! I'll stay on 1.20 then and my next router certainly won't be a D-link.
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
I helped my father-in-law purchase a wireless router for his home and set it up for him recently. I was rather surprised when I updated the firmware and was then greeted by spam upon opening a web browser. I have to say that I'm really disappointed by d-link on this one. Here's to hoping that the backlash is enough to make them reconsider doing this type of stuff again.
Generally speaking, I'm a fan of their networking equipment (own a dgl-4300 that I'm very happy with myself), but if this is the direction that they are going in, I won't be buying or recommending their stuff anymore. I plan on e-mailing them and telling them I am unhappy with their practices.
there's a separate link at their firmware download page for the DIR-655 that says (in plain view, in a sensible spot): Click here for Firmware 1.21 WITHOUT SecureSpot 2.0
Well, I highly doubt that most customers know what "SecureSpot" is. So how are they supposed to know to download the non-annoying firmware update? Of course, you may say that this is the customer's problem: they should read up on all the features that are being installed in the firmware update, and be sure that this is really what they want, etc.
And, yes, in principle everyone should read every line of each and every EULA.
The fact is that any reasonable person would expect a firmware update to only fix bugs and security flaws. It would not be normal to expect entirely new features to be installed, and it is certainly abnormal for the new "feature" to actually include nagware that prompts you to pay for some new service.
The point here is that what they are doing is sleazy. The default configuration should have that redirect turned off. The link for a "without SecureSpot" firmware is nice, but the fact is that 99.9% of users will only notice that after they have already installed, and been annoyed by, the default update.
It's an annoying thing to do with a firmware update. And in that sense, it's a reason to not do business with them.
Conclusion? Non-story.
What if I want SecureSpot for its useful features? What if I didn't know SecureSpot redirects me like that?
Well now I know why the media is so sensationalist and ridiculous - apparently the average citizen / slashdotter isn't any better...
If it was that easy to resolve why even bother taking the time to post about it? It seems like it took longer to complain than it did to fix it.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
I've owned several D-Link routers, either through no fault of my own or pressed for time and had to buy it. In all of the years I've had to deal with them, I've learned this:
D-Link is Shit. Buy Linksys.
Even if there's an option to disable this, the fact that it seems to be enabled by default is enough for me. D-Link from this point on will never be on my list of vendors when looking for networking gear.
Apparently they didn't learn from the shitstorm that hit belkin when they did the exact same thing years ago.
Another vendor goes down the tubes...
People that can't figure out how to turn this off, most likely won't be upgrading their own firmware.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
While I agree with your sentiment, said Luddite probably won't be updating his own firmware. Personally I think it's a horrible action, but am already a bit pissed off with D-Link hardware.. so doesn't surprise me.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
And, yes, in principle everyone should read every line of each and every EULA.
In principle, there should be no such thing as EULAs.
If true, that's the end of D-Link. We would never buy from them again.
Why are marketing people allowed to destroy companies? Then they go to a new company and do it again.
So let's see, Linksys makes generic crap. I'm not completely impressed with my NETGEAR device so I don't think they're that great either. Don't even get me started on how bad Belkin's stuff was. D-Link sounded good, but now this?
NOW what do we go with?
I do agree it's not a HUGE issue since it's able to be disabled, but it's still not good that it's an opt in thing. I'd be buying a piece of hardware to connect to the Internet. NOT a subscription service. It may be good for those not comfortable with computers, but still, not so comfortable with those that DO understand them.
Pancakes. Oh I blew it.
Plus, upgrading your firmware "just because". Why?
Because router firmware upgrades often mean closing security holes.
While one might think this at first, there's no evidence that this is the case for this incident. It's just as likely, without a firmware being released with specific notes about "holes" that it "plugged", that the update created more bugs.
In this case, it was "I felt like upgrading the firmware". The downfalls: User obviously didn't know how the feature set changed (because didn't do research before upgrading the firmware, just saw that one number was larger than the other) and there's always the possibility of bricking your router that is already working just peachy.
So, no, I don't accept your reasoning, even though it seems "sensible" at the start.
Sounds like a prime example of what happens when salespeople get too much of a say in the development process. Wonder if they made them back-burner fixing actual bugs and security holes in favor of adding adware like this?
From the goddamn article:
So, you can turn it off. Not only that, but as of 9/30 there's a separate link at their firmware download page for the DIR-655 that says (in plain view, in a sensible spot): Click here for Firmware 1.21 WITHOUT SecureSpot 2.0
Plus, upgrading your firmware "just because". Why?
Double flame to you buddy.
1) I wouldn't call "WITHOUT SecureSpot 2.0" in plain view. It's not like SecureSpot means anything to me. It has the name Secure so it sounds like something I would want. Now if they named it KickInTheBalls 2.0 or maybe SlapInTheFace 3.2 I would know to avoid it. SecureSpot means nothing to me.
2) Upgrading firmware on a firewall/router why? Are you kidding me? You're going to be-little people who pro-actively secure their main entry point to the outside world. From now on you should lose your Slashdot posting privs.
So your message is "it's just a small pile of shit, swallow it already?"
No, sir!
It's still abuse if it's a small abuse. There's no such thing as "a little pregnant" or "a little dead". Abuse is abuse is abuse.
Why is this abuse? Because you will be very hard pressed to find a single customer who bought the product, expecting such a feature or, had you asked him, approving it.
If I give you a contract to paint my living room, that does not include the permission to record a porn movie while you're at it. And if I buy a router to handle my traffic, I don't give it permission to reroute me to advertisement.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The non securespot version has been there since the firmware was released.
"without SecureSpot" certainly doesn't sound like "without spam". It much more sounds like that version is lacking a security feature, don't you think?
Either way, it asks you if you want to try it twice, and then leaves you alone.
So? It shouldn't even "ask" once. Remember that "ask" in this case means intercepting and manipulating traffic. I'm not familiar with applicable US law, but in the UK and Germany, where I know the law a little, this "feature" runs afoul of criminal laws.
Besides, what kind of attitude is that? It's ok to feel up your wife if I stop after being told twice not to?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I do not agree with that. DNS hijacking should be considered illegal criminal activity, regardless of what the reason was. We have enough problems with DNS attacks, the last thing we need is for a company like D-Link to try and legitimize it.
If I buy a router, I wanted the router. I would not buy a router if I wanted a security stack; I would buy security software.
Palm trees and 8
Ya, but that's what release notes are for... I don't upgrade till I have a reason to. Back in my "Firmware Release Whore" days, I downgraded often, and it was a pain in the ass. (BEFSR41, the best residential router of it's time IMHO)
That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
We live in a world where we have to automatically upgrade adobe PDF, java, windows, iTunes, firewalls, antiviruses, antispam, smartphones, wmv codecs, xvid codecs, divx codecs, everything HP ever produced, video game consoles, etc. Of course people automatically update their routers: it's what we've been conditioned to do.
The ______ Agenda
*points to my $60 WRT54G*
It has been running OpenWRT in my apartment for the past three or four years. I couldn't be happier.
What nice things do I get for 3X the cost of this setup?
i would have read [wikipedia.org] your post [wikipedia.org] but was too busy clicking [wikipedia.org] on completely unnecessary hyperlinks [wikipedia.org] to stupid [wikipedia.org] shit on wikipedia [wikipedia.org] that were embedded [wikipedia.org] in it.
Regardless of whether or not you can disable it, unless it was an *advertised* feature -- if it redirected you to a fake, substitute website that was other than the website you _thought_ you were going to, isn't that evidence of an unauthorized invasion and hack of the device to introduce a 3rd-party, fraudulent, redirection mechanism that can potentially be used not only by D-Link, but also by a cracker attempting a phishing exploit?
In the US, the unauthorized addition of redirection software to a hardware device (which itself would probably qualify as a small computer), with the right lawyer or prosecutor, could result in jail time for the perp, or, if it's a corporation, probably a bonus for the project manger. ;^/