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.'"
Legal? yes. Ethical? no. Tolerated by your customers? Hell no.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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.
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...
Wow. Recent Netgear switches I've bought were doing the whole 70% packet loss thing (of the five white Netgear hubs I've dealt with, three have been completely worthless; haven't tried the blue metal ones lately), and now DLink moves right along with them onto my do-not-buy list. Linksys (won't work reliably with upstream switches) and Belkin (Wi-Fi routers crash constantly when passing wireless traffic) are both so buggy (to the point of being unusable) that they've been on my do-not-buy list for years. I've just about run out of networking hardware manufacturers....
Why can't just ONE SINGLE networking product company make a pledge to stop cutting corners on quality and looking for ways to make a quick buck off their users and just deliver decent hardware!?!?!?!?!?! Don't ANY of these companies' management chains have the SLIGHTEST bit of fiscal common sense?
Sheesh!
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
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.
Hell NO. They're absolute garbage! I've seen more fried D-Link routers than every other brand combined. I'd sooner buy any other no-name brand for *more* money. Plus, they've been doing "evil" stuff like that for ages -- not long ago they were hammering a tier-1 NTP server with their firmware (and the poor guy was footing the bill for them on his own). Their garbage is best avoided.
You want a good router? Get a Linksys WRT54GL (that is NOT the G or GS). Then put tomato on it or DD-WRT (they're Linux distros). Then setup opendns and all that in it too. Best router you can get under $500 perhaps (short of a specialized/fancy cisco router that runs IOS and is easy to mis-configure, an expensive specialized routerboard, or power-hungry computer with moving parts...)
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.
Consumer-grade shit is consumer-grade shit in every industry. But I think we can have some expectation that when we buy a router, even a cheap shitty one, that it makes a best effort to send the data we ask and not its own marketing message. To use a bad car analogy, I don't expect my car to corner like a race car, to tow a 16-wheel trailer, to be as comfortable as a Benz. But I do expect that it steers where I turn the wheel, and not to the nearest mall.
Lots of consumer-grade shit is ad-supported; we get cheaper shit in exchange for being coerced into buying more cheap shit. Maybe if a company is going to introduce an ad-supported business model to a class of products where it's generally unexpected they should be required to label it prominently.
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
If you RTFA, you'll see that you CAN disable it.
What are we becoming? Now every sleazy behaviour is ok as long as you can opt-out? That hasn't worked for spam for the past 20 years, has everyone suddenly got a learning disorder?
The default behaviour of absolutely everything that's not a requested feature has to be opt-in.
Opt-out is not good enough. I thought we'd learnt that by now.
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
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