Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

D-Link Warns of Vulnerable Routers

Posted by kdawson on from the in-the-front-door dept.

wiedzmin sends in news of a vulnerability in some D-Link home routers. The company has made new firmware available for download. "D-Link announced today that the problem, discovered by security researchers SourceSec, affects three of its wireless routers: DIR-855 (hardware version A2), DIR-655 (versions A1 to A4), and DIR-635 (version B). The problem lies in D-Link's implementation of Cisco's Home Network Administration Protocol, which allows remote router configuration. The scope of the vulnerability is greatly reduced by the fact that these router models were not shipped with the affected firmware by default, so only customers who updated their firmware are potentially affected. Or at least this was indicated in the company's response to the SourceSac claim that all D-Link routers sold since 2006 were affected." SourceSec apparently made their research available, including an exploitation tool, without ever contacting D-Link.

133 comments

  1. Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by JoshDD · · Score: 4, Insightful

    to contact D-Link first? Maybe D-Link could have updated the firmware before this exploit became public knowledge. I doubt SourceSec cares about D-Links customers.

    1. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      hahahaha
      dlink wouldve done jack shit like every other company without being publicly humiliated.

    2. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All that would have earned them is a lawsuit. Plus Dlink would never have fixed it.

    3. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think anyone on the planet can find a D-Link security contact. More responsible companies make this easy.

    4. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Koby77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But what does SourceSac get out of the deal? Is the publicity for essentially releasing a 0-day really going to earn them that much money? Despite their brilliance in discovering such a flaw, I'm not sure anyone would want to associate themselves with this company for security. With friends like this....

    5. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by digitalunity · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Indeed, this is becoming the reality. Software and hardware vendors have become complacent with the fact that researchers will give them ample time to ignore a problem.

      The only reasonable solution to reduce vulnerability in the wild is to publicly expose the issues to force vendor resolution more quickly. Seems counterintuitive, but it does work.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    6. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by OverlordQ · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So, is it irony that their site links to "Ethical Hacker Network"?

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    7. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by davester666 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      TFA mentions that DLink has published new firmware for the routers already. But I've got a DIR-655/A4, and their support site still only lists firmware from last September (v1.32NA) and the firmware check in the router says it's the latest. Where are these updated firmwares available?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    8. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      You are not very familar with the security scene are you? This is just how things operate, hardly anything new.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    9. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      The way I'm reading it, they mean the company that found the problem has published its own bootleg patch. I don't think D-Link has done anything. And if I were you, I wouldn't broadcast the fact I had that router.

    10. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      your going to use Microsoft as an example of what to do with security? haha, that is funny.

    11. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 2, Insightful

      dlink wouldve done jack shit like every other company without being publicly humiliated.

      Yes, but it would have been even more humiliating to say "We provided them with an exploit 4 weeks ago and they still haven't done shit, so now we are going public". That has the added advantage of giving them the chance to do the right thing, even if they don't take it and makes them look like douches instead of the security company.

    12. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by odd42 · · Score: 1

      Is this your method of implementing the infamous 'Disagree' mod?

    13. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only reasonable solution to reduce vulnerability in the wild is to publicly expose the issues to force vendor resolution more quickly. Seems counterintuitive, but it does work.

      While that seems reasonable if the vendor either doesn't care or is dragging along on a fix, in this case they didn't even tell the vendor in the first place. Perhaps it's unlikely that DLINK would have responded to the security company but it seems they deserved a chance to do the right thing. It's not that disclosure is wrong, it's just that it's wrong at that stage of the game -- they would have lost nothing by trying to cooperate with D-Link and only disclosing if those lesser steps failed (or took too long). Plus, think about how much worse it sounds:

      "Here's a huge vulnerability that we discovered but didn't tell anyone until now. Surprise!"

      versus

      "Here's a huge vulnerability that we discovered. We went to D-Link 3-4 weeks ago and they wouldn't give us the time of day. Finally, we go through to someone that assigned it a low-priority and has been promising a fix but not delivering. At this point, we are tired of hearing their excuses and we don't think they are interested in fixing it so we are disclosing it."

      TL;DR version: Public disclosure is the last resort, not the first. Carrot first, stick second.

    14. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      No sane admin would ever allow remote router configuration anyway, so admitting the use of a router that has a remote exploit, is not really a problem. It is allowing the remote access to begin with.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    15. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not afraid. I have one of these routers and if anyone wants to try to hack it, the IP address is 77.232.92.199

    16. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Farhood · · Score: 1

      Gimme a minute to RTFA, and I'll check your router for you.

    17. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I'm not afraid. I have one of these routers and if anyone wants to try to hack it, the IP address is 77.232.92.199

      No, it was 77.232.92.199!

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    18. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's true, silly odd42

    19. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I pulled a reverse DNS lookup on it. It's static, and points back to servage.net in Germany. But wait, there's more...

      Look at all of these registered Domains and where they point to. http://www.robtex.com/ip/77.232.92.199.html

      Clearly the AC wanted readers on Slashdot to become useful idiots in a DOS attack. Not me.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    20. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by wvmarle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If that is true, then just publishing it is the only way to go. And that would indeed show stupid arrogance on the side of D-Link (in this case), and will come back to haunt them.

      However I still think it would be nicer to first notify D-Link, followed by full disclosure after a reasonable time (which I think is no more than 30 days). That should allow D-Link to come up with a fix in time. If D-Link doesn't then it's time to put them to shame.

    21. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what does SourceSac get out of the deal? Is the publicity for essentially releasing a 0-day really going to earn them that much money? Despite their brilliance in discovering such a flaw, I'm not sure anyone would want to associate themselves with this company for security. With friends like this....

      My personal bet is that someone there has an axe to grind with D-Link. The "which router brand is best/worst" debate ranks right up there with the Microsoft vs. Linux and Apple vs. "PC" wars.

      Someone probably just got a hard-on by doing this. My logic? I also see no direct means to profit from releasing the details of the exploit. For an actual security company to release an actual exploit tool serves only one of two purposes, either someone has a way to profit (maybe has a put against their stock?), or has a personal interest in humiliation.

    22. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Have you ever tried to contact D-Link? Remember, they have DDOS'd NTP servers, and they continue to publish BUGGY dynamic DNS clients even when given bug reports.

      D-Link outsources their routers to 3rd parties. The developers can not follow bug reports unless, sadly, they are written in Mandarin or Simple Chinese. And unless the bug report is blindingly and stupidly obvious (or on Slashdot), there's no one at D-Link US headquarters who cares enough to start a billable conversation with the contract developers. Don't expect D-Link QA in India to catch it - D-Link USA did not put this in the test plan! And the router tech support (all outsourced to India) doesn't gain anything by presenting issues back to Corporate.

      Yes, I've worked with D-Link in one of the above scenarios. The best way to contact them is via a non-company contact, such as one of their major shareholders. I'm not fucking kidding either.
      I'm posting this anonymously because my employer is one of the above mentioned groups, and for years we have been TRYING to get D-Link to fix bugs in their software which affect us.

    23. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by BitZtream · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If by work you mean makes it easy for people to get exploited for no good reason other than 'to make a point (i.e. get some publicity)' then sure it works, as far as protecting people, no it doesn't.

      Instead of the potential that a few people may have found the exploit and may be exploiting it, you instead have lots of people most certainly do know about it, including the ones who are most certainly going to take advantage of it. Whats better is that the likely hood of these devices EVER being updated by the majority of their users is as close to less than 0 as you can possibly get. No nag screens or auto-updates for this one, no one outside the geek community is going to even know about it.

      It isnt' counter intuitive, its being an attention grabbing douche bag using the name of security as an excuse to gather publicity.

      Try to cover it in roses all day long and in the end this behavior will STILL BE BULLSHIT. Get a clue.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    24. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Indeed, this is becoming the reality. Software and hardware vendors have become complacent with the fact that researchers will give them ample time to ignore a problem.

      The only reasonable solution to reduce vulnerability in the wild is to publicly expose the issues to force vendor resolution more quickly. Seems counterintuitive, but it does work.

      ... and how do you explain the release of the handy-dandy exploit tool along with the "disclosure"?

      I smell a rat here.

      1. No notification at all, not even a couple days.
      2. They release not only the problem, but also a TOOL so it can be immediately exploited. (incite FUD)
      3. Report that ALL devices since 2006 have this issue. In reality, only a very small number have the issue (people who specifically updated on their own). (FUD ^2)
      4. Have a fixed firmware already setup to be installed, since D-Link won't be able to get one out for at least a few days.

      Which seems to lead up to a pretty nifty way for someone to get a LOT of malicious firmware installed in a lot of D-Link routers that weren't even vulnerable in the first place. Now I haven't grabbed it yet to see if it's up to any tricks or not. And even if it's "legit", that just means someone at this company either has a hard-on to trash D-Link, or figured a way to profit from a drop in their stock prices.

    25. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by AniVisual · · Score: 1

      Reputation, my friend, reputation.

    26. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by AniVisual · · Score: 1

      More likely: the AC gave us the IP of goatse.cx, which is actually hosted on ervage.net.

    27. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by jimicus · · Score: 1

      You'd better tell all the ISPs that. I know of at least one that thinks they can safely reconfigure a router remotely.

    28. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      I see a beta version 1.31EUb02 listed from the 18/1 with the specific changelog of fixing this vulnerability.

    29. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the reason I posted it was it is also the current IP you get if you ping goatse.cx ;-)

    30. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by fatphil · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find Microsoft are world leaders in security. They should be by now, they've issued more security patches than any other company ever!

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    31. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I second that. No contact for security is available on any of their web pages and googling for one yields no result as well.
      You can't really blame that you're not being notified if you do not provide a way for it.
      Do they expect security researchers to phone them? perhaps at their customers support? at the researcher's expenses of course...

    32. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      And I know a stack of corporate and educational sites, and household setups, that allow this. Some consider their internal machines secure (which they are not), others consider the "open environment" more important, others consider the ease of remote access for their single admin or their often telecommuting key technical admin more important.

    33. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Informative

      20 years ago, I would have agreed with you. But I survived the Morris Worm attack back then because I'm paranoid, and repeated attacks since then due to vulnerabilities that vendors refused to address. And the secrecy of such graceful submissions just leaves the knowledge in the hands of the crackers, who share it on their warez sites and IRC channels, and not in the hands of reasonable admins who need to assess the risks of patching and the risks of particular products. I've in fact seen this occurr with CERT, where I and peers have submitted security bug reports and seen them buried. And I've got reports from supervisors of security personnel in the US of vendors slapping them with court orders to prevent publication of the vulnerability.

      The kind of gracious pre-notification you are suggesting, in this day and age, needs to be earned. And D-Link hasn't earned it, with their history of GPL violations and delay on publication of security vulnerabilities.

    34. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      It also gives them the "chance" to slap you with a court order to shut you up. Take a look at the history of the "8lgm", or "eight-legged groove machine". Their old site is at http://www.8lgm.org/: it's a fascinating bit of security and legal history.

    35. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      The kind of gracious pre-notification you are suggesting, in this day and age, needs to be earned. And D-Link hasn't earned it, with their history of GPL violations and delay on publication of security vulnerabilities.

      And their customers, what have they done to earn the inevitable increase in attacks, other than to not know better than to buy D-Link products?

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
    36. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      This isn't about carrot and stick. The people that discovered this get nothing from it. They aren't the owners of the company, they don't work for the company, and they probably don't even use the products in question.

      In fact, the only thing these people -do- get is recognition that they found some serious flaws in other peoples' stuff. And they get that whether they work with the companies or not. (Sadly, they get -far- more attention if they don't work with the companies, so that gives them a push towards non-disclosure.)

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    37. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It probably has more to do with the fact that SourceSec isn't a security firm. It's an exploit blog. The whole purpose is the launch everything as 0-Day so script kiddies can get out there and use it, making companies look like fools.

      Make no mistake, these are the bad guys, they just dress up what they to do have an air of professionalism about it.

    38. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      20 years ago, I would have agreed with you. But I survived the Morris Worm attack back then because I'm paranoid, and repeated attacks since then due to vulnerabilities that vendors refused to address.

      Which vendors? Was D-Link one of them?

      There are plenty of vendors out there; if you've never dealt with one before give them the benefit of the doubt (at least once).

    39. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You survived a computer worm attack? Amazing! Did it look like the ones from Dune? Do you have any scars to show for it?

    40. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Raven42rac · · Score: 1

      I can't prove a negative but I'd like to think they would have patched it and publicized it if given the opportunity. This company just wants free /. pub, and it's working.

      --
      I hate sigs.
    41. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Actually DLink seems pretty good at keeping their products patched. Not as quickly as Multitech mind you (who've created custom test firmwares for me by E-mail), but still quite responsive.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    42. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Chas · · Score: 1

      No. DLink's response to everything consumer-grade is is thus.

      1. Act dumb (well, they're not REALLY acting)
      2. Sit on hands
      3. Offer an exchange
      4. Hope the problem customer just "goes away".

      Years of experience with trying to get them to actually SUPPORT the crap they ship has taught me this.

      Their "pro grade" support is SLIGHTLY better. But it's the difference between getting a root canal with no pain killers and getting a root canal with no pain killers while being repeatedly kneed in the nuts (which is ESPECIALLY impressive if you happen to be female).

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    43. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Chas · · Score: 1

      No, that just gives them time to draft the restraining order.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    44. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by unixfan · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Also some of the above posts are nothing but weak excuses for creating a problem. On top of it it's not the manufacturer who's at particular risk, it's all the users. One does the right thing regardless of the other party. Which should be a natural point of integrity for any person.

    45. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I remember once a guy found a vulnerability in some electro-mechanical door locks (can't remember exactly what it was but I remember it was super easy to pull off and could cause the locks to get stuck in an unlocked state without giving any warning). He said he would only release the info to the manufacturer if they promised to replace all the locks in question free of cost to the owners. They didn't, so he publicized the vulnerability and the company was rightly shamed.

      I thought that was a good way of going about it.

      I can't find a source now. IIRC it was on Hack a Day.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    46. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      And their customers deserve to be vulnerable for weeks or months longer if D-Link lags in producing an update or patch? Or not to be notified that they can simply turn off remote administration in the short term? No, leaving them vulnerable this way is a frequent problem with many software packages, and we as customers don't deserve to not be notified of these issues.

    47. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      It's not that disclosure is wrong, it's just that it's wrong at that stage of the game -- they would have lost nothing by trying to cooperate with D-Link and only disclosing if those lesser steps failed (or took too long).

      They would have lost time. Any time you wait for the vendor to address the issue (at their leisure) is time the black hats are exploiting the vulnerability freely. Announce the vulnerability immediately so those affected can take measures to limit their exposure. That is responsible disclosure.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    48. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      You bastard, you nearly got me. Luckily my office firewall caught it.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    49. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are a particularly stupid variety of AC

    50. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Ltap · · Score: 1

      It would have got out somehow, better a public announcement that will mean a quick patch than for it to slip out without D-Link knowing.

      --
      Yet Another Tech Blog
      (but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
      http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
    51. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Ltap · · Score: 1

      These are routers that would have had to have their firmware updated, as the update (from TFS) introduced the vulnerability. So yes, these are geeks that are in danger, ones who would be willing to update again.

      --
      Yet Another Tech Blog
      (but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
      http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
    52. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Ltap · · Score: 1

      Why does everyone think this is a company? It's just a 0-day blog. They have nothing (monetarily) to gain, just fame.

      --
      Yet Another Tech Blog
      (but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
      http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
    53. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Ltap · · Score: 1

      I must admit, I don't know how you have the balls to install beta firmware, I don't think I could...

      --
      Yet Another Tech Blog
      (but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
      http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
    54. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Raven42rac · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm sure they don't consult or anything.

      --
      I hate sigs.
    55. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Except that the lawsuit would have of course come with a gag order, thus foiling your brilliant plan.

    56. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question is not whether DLink has earned the luxury of pre-notification, but whether DLink's customers have earned a significant 0-day, for which there is NO MITIGATION at this time.

      You, good sir, are a spiteful asshat.

    57. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the article, which you apparently did not read, you cannot turn off HNAP. Go you.

    58. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Then start publishing the fact that you found a 0-day vulnerability, that supplier of said software/device is unwilling to fix it, and instead sued you and put you under a gag order that prevents full disclosure of the actual vulnerability - and suggest that it is just a matter of time before the black-hats find out as well, and that everyone is at risk. That's pretty much what I recall Google has done before ("we are forced to remove several links from your search results, click here to see which links that are").

      And next time indeed just skip this vendor notification part, but publish with reference to the first case.

    59. Re:Wouldn't the responsible thing be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This HNAP vulnerability exists in the latest North American firmware version, 1.32NA, for the D-Link DIR-655 router. There is no newer version of the North American DIR-655 firmware with a fix yet.

  2. Bad vendors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I don't blame them. Finding security contacts for consumer hardware companies is next to impossible.

    Whether it is D-Link, Belkin, Netgear - I don't believe any of them have a public security page similar to any major software vendors.

    1. Re:Bad vendors by abigor · · Score: 2, Informative

      For companies like these, all of the software and hardware is outsourced, right down to the board layouts and case design. I worked with Netgear a while back, and no one who spoke English as a native language had the foggiest clue of what the software did, or even where the source was.

      The same was true of Linksys before the Cisco acquisition, though now all of the development is being dragged back in-house, as is Cisco's preference.

      These sorts of companies exist purely as marketing and sales, and don't know much about things like security.

  3. Wow. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Who could possibly have suspected that silently enabling a "remote management" interface with weak authentication could possibly make a device less secure?

    To whose benefit is this HNAC stuff, anyway? It seems to be largely invisible to the user and not aimed at them. Are ISPs supposed to be "managing" our routers now?

    1. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Who could possibly have suspected that silently enabling a "remote management" interface with weak authentication could possibly make a device less secure?

      To whose benefit is this HNAC stuff, anyway? It seems to be largely invisible to the user and not aimed at them. Are ISPs supposed to be "managing" our routers now?

      a) No, ISPs aren't supposed to manage our routers, which is why HNAP is not supposed to be enabled on the outside facing interface. It isn't enabled on the outside facing interface on D-Link routers either, which is why the vulnerability write up mentions that this is an attack either from the LAN or via cross scripting to be executed via the home user's browser.

      b) The benefits of HNAP are very simple: management applications can correctly discover network devices on a home network if they implement HNAP, and can manage the devices via a common protocol. You can install an app on your machine that manages your NAS, your router, your streaming media player and whatever else you have on the network - and you don't have to learn their interfaces but can use one common app to do it all in case you're not too technically inclined.

      The protocol itself isn't really that bad of an idea - of course it should be implemented securely and ideally should also offer being disabled on a per device basis.

  4. Re:fdsfds by paintballer1087 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Because slashdot is the target audience for UGG advertising...

  5. Sky is falling! ...I think, maybe. by djupedal · · Score: 1

    >"The scope of the vulnerability is greatly reduced by the fact that these router models were not shipped with the affected firmware by default, so only customers who updated their firmware are potentially affected. Or at least this was indicated in the company's response to the SourceSac claim that all D-Link routers sold since 2006 were affected."

    It's one thing to be a commenter/whistle-blower - it is entirely another to be an apologist in the same breath.

    Once you pull the trigger, you can't run, catch the bullet and put it back in the same chamber, eh? A simple "only customers who updated their firmware are potentially affected" would have been fine...if only you'd left it there :)

    We'll let it go this time, but do it again and it's gonna be all 'look people! point and laugh! point and laugh!!!!

  6. UBICOM Based Routers? by Fnord666 · · Score: 5, Informative

    It looks like this might be a broader issue than just DLink routers. Several comments on TFA seem to suggest that the HNAP remote management interface is a part of the SDK for the board used in these routers. This implies that any router based on this board might have this vulnerability. The DD-WRT hardware incompatibility list happens to have a list of routers that use UBICOM boards.

    Some other UBICOM based devices listed in TFA's comments include:

    • D-Link Wireless 108G Gaming Router
    • SMC Barricade SMCWGBR14-N
    • Netgear WNDR3700
    • ZyXEL's MIMO-N line
    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    1. Re:UBICOM Based Routers? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      It looks like this might be a broader issue than just DLink routers. Several comments on TFA seem to suggest that the HNAP remote management interface is a part of the SDK for the board used in these routers. This implies that any router based on this board might have this vulnerability. The DD-WRT hardware incompatibility list happens to have a list of routers that use UBICOM boards.

      Given Ubicom makes their own CPU, I would be surprised if it isn't in all Ubicom boards past a certain software revision. Ubicom CPUs are their own architecture (they have hardware multitasking, and you load a scheduler register with the tasks you want to run. Each clock cycle, it executes one instruction from the designated task (each task has its own register file, and the scheduler register basically sets which register file to use every clock), so Ubicom makes their software SDK. It's complex and hard to get enough that only Ubicom makes the software kit, and the OEMs just do basic customization.

      And why hardware multitasking? This way they can do *everything* in software, including Ethernet (they have the MII interface, but it's basically a register you have to load and unload in real time). It's the ultimate in hard real time. But it also means the only software stack from software-based Ethernet MACs to the kernel and network protocols is all their code.

  7. LOL, if they think ,,,, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SourceSAC didn't come out of LOL town.

  8. Re:fdsfds by digitalunity · · Score: 1

    lol my thoughts exactly. Slashdot is the anti-ugg crowd. If you wanna spam, at least spam geeky shit. I might click on that.

    --
    You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
  9. http://www.dlink.co.za/support_pr.php by JoshDD · · Score: 1

    And as far as MS goes they NEED all the help they can get.

  10. DGL-4500 users left screwed by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If anyone has a DGL-4500 router, and experiences constant lockups with it (forced to power cycle the unit); your not alone. Apparently, there is a bug with DNS forwarding that started with firmware rev 1.21. It's been since July 2009, and the best you can hope for is an update still in beta. We are talking about their newest high-end gaming router here with extra features that make a nice small office router too.

    As it stands, users of this model are furious. Some are threatening a class-action lawsuit against them. By all means, please read through the D-Link forum before you think about buying one of their products.
    http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?board=144.0

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:DGL-4500 users left screwed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly it's been a while since I could buy them retail (although I've been looking at meritline to buy them online), but Airlink's routers are freaking awesome. Most are 'obsolete' reference designs from the design firms for the big guys, notably d-link, and with a bit of reading on openwrt can be loaded with custom firmware, but for 25 percent to 75 percent off the price of the equivalent d-link. I haven't had a single piece of hardware from them fail, and I've got about 20 now, ranging from older wired routers to like 4-6 wifi routers, 3 nas units, and a half dozen to dozen IP cameras. All of them except maybe the wired router run linux, all are pretty reliable, and pulling the case off you can have fun checking the silkscreened model numbers against those of the other guy who you would've paid 3x the price for :)

    2. Re:DGL-4500 users left screwed by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've found Airlink products to be pretty good too, for low-cost hardware. Though leaving a passwordless telnet root login open by default on their IP webcam wasn't the most secure configuration ever :).

    3. Re:DGL-4500 users left screwed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who would pick anything D-Link/whatever over something as simple as m0n0wall or pfsense or IPCop for a small office? Sounds like someone hasn't been doing their homework.

    4. Re:DGL-4500 users left screwed by clarkn0va · · Score: 1

      As much as I do love m0n0 and PFS, it's not really the same market. These require x86 hardware, while DLink caters to the low-cost OTC MIPS-type stuff, much more appealing to the non-techie home and SOHO user, to whom I enthusiastically recommend Tomato-compatible hardware, such as the always-on-sale ASUS WL520-gu.

      But yeah, I've never understood why DLink is as popular as it is. I've seen countless numbers of those things either fail right out of the box, or begin to fail, either outright or in subtle ways, just months after purchase. I'm not sure similar brands like Trendnet or the Best Buy rebate of the week are any better, and the Linksys brand has certainly gone into the sewer in recent years too, but DLink? That crap is everywhere. It's like the Norton of networking hardware.

      --
      I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
    5. Re:DGL-4500 users left screwed by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      For an office of say 10 employees, a SOHO router is just fine. It's cheap, easy to configure, and solid state. They can also be mounted on a telco baseboard along with the rest of the equipment too. Why cobble together a used PC (or new) to run M0n0wall for just 10 users? Not worth the time IMHO. Just plug in a WiFi Linksys box and be done with it!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    6. Re:DGL-4500 users left screwed by Giometrix · · Score: 1

      If anyone has a DGL-4500 router, and experiences constant lockups with it (forced to power cycle the unit); your not alone. Apparently, there is a bug with DNS forwarding that started with firmware rev 1.21. It's been since July 2009, and the best you can hope for is an update still in beta. We are talking about their newest high-end gaming router here with extra features that make a nice small office router too.

      As it stands, users of this model are furious. Some are threatening a class-action lawsuit against them. By all means, please read through the D-Link forum before you think about buying one of their products. http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?board=144.0

      Odd, I have this model... and with v1.15 (2008/10/29) the admin page says I have the latest version of the firmware. I wonder if they stopped pushing anything that came later.

      --
      Download free e-books, lectures, and tutorials at bookgoldmine.com
    7. Re:DGL-4500 users left screwed by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      If you RMA your unit, they ship you one back with the 1.15 rev (so I've read). Regardless, do not upgrade to 1.21. That would be a fatal mistake as you can't roll back.

      Silly me, I though all updates were supposed to be better than the last. Obviously not. Damn them.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    8. Re:DGL-4500 users left screwed by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      It's odd that these days the top-of-the-line, most expensive flagship products are the most buggy. See:

      - MSI X58 Eclipse SLI (BIOS reflash bricking problem, some problems with the IOH (northbridge) thermal compound application from the factory, and it's not their first board to have this)

      - Nokia N900 (hardware flaws including the USB port coming clean off the board in normal use, a fuckton of bugs in original OS release).

      - There's a similar clusterfuck with a high-end Linksys router (can't remember the model, high-end "gaming" unit with two separate wireless adapters).

      - All Logitech PC gamepads (including some very costly cordless models): the potentiometers wear out after a few months. Some people reported them faulty right out of the box. Logitech has entirely ignored the issue and continued selling these products.

      - The Intel SSD clusterfuck (rapid performance degradation, drives bricked during reflash, total data loss, etc).

      - "self-bricking" WD and Seagate terabyte drives (from what I hear they weren't truly bricked, and could be fixed with a reflash)

      Not just electronics, cars too:

      - Early Mazda RX8s had engines that would eat themselves.

      - The Toyota MR-S has oil starvation problems in hard cornering, which is kind of like a motorcycle having oil starvation problems in hard acceleration.

      - Early Honda S2000s had a suspension setup better suited to a skilled driver intent on track use than the other 99% of the owners (guess what happened).

      - The Evo 10 initially had shitty ECU code that caused it to guzzle gas and run like crap, and a plastic e-throttle pedal that would break clean off if you were unlucky.

      - Don't forget the Lexus luxury cars where the ECU thinks the e-throttle is floored (I think they tried to pass off some excuse about floor mats?).

      - The Caparo T1, a half-million dollar breakdown machine that's also had problems with the e-throttle sticking open. Luckily there are ignition and battery cutoffs on the dash.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  11. Attack is Significant but Will not be Pandemic by phantomcircuit · · Score: 3, Informative

    This attack only works when a system on the LAN initiates it.

    It is possible to get a system on the lan to initiate it with a DNS rebinding attack and javascript on a malicious web page, but that is far from a trivial attack.

    I'm guessing that this is successfully used only in highly targeted attacks.

    1. Re:Attack is Significant but Will not be Pandemic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This attack only works when a system on the LAN initiates it.

      It is possible to get a system on the lan to initiate it with a DNS rebinding attack and javascript on a malicious web page, but that is far from a trivial attack.

      I'm guessing that this is successfully used only in highly targeted attacks.

      That depends on who your attacker is. If, for example, one of the more popular ad servers out there decided to hijack people's routers, then a lot of vulnerable people would be pretty well fucked all at once.

    2. Re:Attack is Significant but Will not be Pandemic by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      How about just busting into their wifi? There is an AP near the tram stop I use called "DLINK". I use it some times to check stuff while waiting for the tram to go. Now every time I go past an AP called DLINK (and there are a lot of them) ubuntu tries to connect. A lot of the time it gets on too.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    3. Re:Attack is Significant but Will not be Pandemic by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Now every time I go past an AP called DLINK (and there are a lot of them) ubuntu tries to connect.

      This is the big problem with unsecured access points. Linux is probably pretty safe but if you have an unsecured access point called 'DLINK' at home and you run Windows with the network set to 'home' or 'work' then it is going to connect to any unsecured access point called 'DLINK' (how would it tell the difference?) and you could be pwned pretty readily either by the owner of the access point or by someone else who just happens to be connected too.

    4. Re:Attack is Significant but Will not be Pandemic by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      if you have an unsecured access point called 'DLINK' at home and you run Windows with the network set to 'home' or 'work' then it is going to connect to any unsecured access point called 'DLINK' (how would it tell the difference?)

      The MAC address?

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    5. Re:Attack is Significant but Will not be Pandemic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anyone has a DGL-4500 router, and experiences constant lockups with it (forced to power cycle the unit); your not alone. Apparently, there is a bug with DNS forwarding that started with firmware rev 1.21. It's been since July 2009, and the best you can hope for is an update still in beta. We are talking about their newest high-end gaming router here with extra features that make a nice small office router too.

    6. Re:Attack is Significant but Will not be Pandemic by jamesh · · Score: 1

      The MAC address?

      Hmmm... that is visible but I don't think Windows pays any attention. Otherwise if you added another unsecured 'DLINK' SSID down the other end of your house it wouldn't 'just work'.

    7. Re:Attack is Significant but Will not be Pandemic by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      I can't say for all the affected routers but the D-Link 655 has a guest mode for unsecured wireless networks. This means this essid only provides internet and not access to the LAN. To get to the LAN you need to use the other secure essid (the router can handle multiple wireless networks with varying security).

  12. Just checked D-Link's website by bytethese · · Score: 1

    I don't see any update for the DIR-655, last firmware is from 07/2009, v1.32NA.

    I hope they release soon, I know a few not so savvy users who have this model.

    1. Re:Just checked D-Link's website by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      Do you have any suggestions for a good wi-fi router, without replacing the firmware with your favorite open source firmware?

    2. Re:Just checked D-Link's website by crispytwo · · Score: 1

      Whatever you do, don't install v1.32NA. It's garbage! I wish I never did!

      I've been waiting for an update for months now, with a reboot every couple of days.
      When it works, it's fine, but it is not certainly not stable.

    3. Re:Just checked D-Link's website by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      Turn off the internal DNS stuff (DNS Forwarding, I think it was called?). That fixed it for me. I was really upset about it until I found that fix.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
  13. Not afraid of this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are that high tech, you probably would have a custom Router anyway? Hmmmmm.

  14. I have nothing to contribute to this conversation by Anrego · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I really don't :(

    Hopefully this whole thing gets corrected without too much harm :)

  15. Problem Is More Widespread Than Reported! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is nothing new. In fact, review the many easy hacks against several router manufacturers and you'll discover a lot of them (many exploiting uPnP) have FAILED to patch these issues for many YEARS. A good many of these routers are wired routers with the public being told to buy a wireless router instead (many of which remain unpatched to several malicious exploits!) when all they really want is wired. Many wise individuals do not want to go wi-fi nor should they be forced to do so.

    Search for some of the exploits yourself, many of them uPnP, visit the router manufacturer's webpages listings for each of their routers, check their latest firmware update release and discover for yourself just how many routers haven't received any updates for years. What's even more shocking is many of these routers CONTINUE to be sold IN STORES and online, often the boxes still claiming how much security they offer when no firmware updates are available for many of them! Many old firmware patches resolve some issues with uPnP but do not offer protection against newer uPnP (and other) attacks!

    This is clearly insane!

    Router manufacturers should continue to patch old routers, especially those products of theirs still being sold in brick and mortar retail outlets!

    This is obviously being swept under the rug, as many individuals who have been screaming on manufacturer's forums, mailing lists, e-mails, even via snail mail are being disregarded, posts/threads being shuffled off quietly, people being told to buy a newer router than the one at the store which claimed to offer a good degree of security, only to find their newer router purchased often with old firmware and no modern firmware available!

    Governments and people need to hold these manufacturers accountable!

    1. Re:Problem Is More Widespread Than Reported! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Router companies would then have to charge $400 for a consumer grade router. It is a trade-off that is unfortunate. Either price the router factoring in a 10+ year supported life if not more, or price them low, and run them obsolete.

      If it were up to me, the absolutely best choice would be to have the router be open sourced and flashable. This way, a router that ends up EOL still has a way to get flashed by modders so the security of it remains solid, even after manufacturer support has long since ceased.

    2. Re:Problem Is More Widespread Than Reported! by clarkn0va · · Score: 1

      Tomato.

      --
      I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
    3. Re:Problem Is More Widespread Than Reported! by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Router companies would then have to charge $400 for a consumer grade router.

      Producing a router that doesn't have a fancy web interface that allows any web site to reconfigure it with an embedded image URL is likely to be cheaper than producing one which does have a fancy web interface with vast security holes.

      The problem is that the companies go out of their way to make routers 'user-friendly', and in the process make them cracker-friendly too.

    4. Re:Problem Is More Widespread Than Reported! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good suggestion but that's for wireless routers, NOT wired which the parent poster was mainly referring to.

      Also, inclusion is very limited, per Tomato's homepage:

      "Routers that are known to work with Tomato:

              * Linksys WRT54G v1-v4, WRT54GS v1-v4, WRT54GL v1.x, WRTSL54GS (no USB support)
              * Buffalo WHR-G54S, WHR-HP-G54, WZR-G54, WBR2-G54, WBR-G54, WZR-HP-G54, WZR-RS-G54, WZR-RS-G54HP, WVR-G54-NF, WHR2-A54-G54, WHR3-AG54
              * Asus WL500G Premium (no USB support), WL500GE, WL520GU (no USB support)
              * Sparklan WX6615GT, Fuji RT390W, Microsoft MN-700"

      That's several, but not enough.

    5. Re:Problem Is More Widespread Than Reported! by clarkn0va · · Score: 1

      but that's for wireless routers, NOT wired which the parent poster was mainly referring to

      I don't see how that's a problem. Wireless routers work fine wired. Disable the wireless if you don't want it. Most of the compatible models are not expensive.

      Also, inclusion is very limited, per Tomato's homepage

      How many do you need? Some of these are more available than others. Some are less expensive than others, but in the end, once you get Tomato on them, they're all more or less equally functional.

      --
      I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
    6. Re:Problem Is More Widespread Than Reported! by cyberjock1980 · · Score: 1

      So is a user better off using a Linux box as a router? How about Windows Server 2008 R2? Anyone know?

  16. Don't make me upgrade to 1.3x! by ender- · · Score: 1

    That's the latest I see too.

    My concern with the DIR-655 is that I'm still at v1.21 [HW rev A3]. I've read nothing but nightmare stories of people with perfectly stable 1.2x routers who then upgraded to 1.3X firmwares and had tons of trouble and instability. At v1.21 my router is absolutely rock solid. This is the best, most stable wireless router I've ever had. If the 1.21 firmware is affected, and I'm forced to upgrade to 1.3X and it causes my router to become unstable, I'm going to be PISSED!

    I realize I might as well be wishing for a free Ferrari, a Unicorn and a date with Mira Sorvino, but it would be great if D-Link released a 1.2x firmware with just the fix for this issue. Alas, it is unlikely.

    --
    Nothing to see here
    1. Re:Don't make me upgrade to 1.3x! by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      I upgraded my DIR655 to the latest and started having a lot of trouble. Then I turned off the internal DNS server and POOF, everything was great again. if you hvae trouble after the upgrade that is obviously coming, put that on your list of things to try when you have weird issues.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    2. Re:Don't make me upgrade to 1.3x! by multisync · · Score: 1

      I know the bug you're talking about, that seems to be more common with firmware versions later than 1.21. Connection to the outside slows to a crawl, then stops altogether. You can still talk to other machines on the LAN, but you can't get to the router's management page, so the only thing you can do is reset the device.

      I've had this problem even with version 1.21 of the firmware, but the frequency has gone down dramatically over the past few months. I've only had to reset it once since the new year, so I am loath to update the firmware to a version that might increase the frequency of this problem. And, since D-Link has not acknowledged that the problem even exists (AFAIK), I doubt any firmware updates will make things better.

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
  17. Let me be the first idiot to ask, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does it matter, presuming your computers are all safely configured for direct connection to the net? Or does a vulnerable router mean you're wide open to say a man in the middle attack?

    1. Re:Let me be the first idiot to ask, by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      I don't know how far this attack goes, but there was an attack on some models of home routers in Mexico a while back which used an embedded image URL to reprogram their DNS to forward connections to a bank site to a phishing site so that they could steal passwords. If you can reconfigure the router in arbitrary ways then you can pretty much take control of the Internet as far as the computers on the LAN side are concerned, at least if they use DHCP to get their network information.

      This is one reason why I have hard-coded all my computers to use the ISP's DNS servers rather than the router.

  18. DI-524 workaround? by hobdes · · Score: 1
    I've got an affected router (DI-524 Rev C1 v3.23 firmware). From the advisory:

    Older models, such as the DI-524, require authentication for all of the supported SOAP actions, but allow both the administrator and user accounts to execute any of these actions. This allows a malicious individual to use the often-ignored user account (default login of 'user' with a blank password) to perform administrative actions

    If I read that right I should be fine as long as I secure the user account as well as the admin account. (And, of course, disable remote access.) Can anybody confirm/correct? Thanks.

  19. It's a terrible idea. by khasim · · Score: 1

    So, you're surfing from home and you go to a site with a banner and you get a drive by infection.

    Now that app can find and configure your firewall to open the port and map it back to you so that you can be used to spread more infections.

    Who the fuck thought it would be a good idea to allow other apps to open the firewall?

    1. Re:It's a terrible idea. by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Who the fuck thought it would be a good idea to allow other apps to open the firewall?

      Sales and Marketing?

    2. Re:It's a terrible idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you're surfing from home and you go to a site with a banner and you get a drive by infection.

      Now that app can find and configure your firewall to open the port and map it back to you so that you can be used to spread more infections.

      Who the fuck thought it would be a good idea to allow other apps to open the firewall?

      What exactly is the problem with management apps reading from and writing to network device configuration as long as it's implemented securely? This is the very same principle as SNMP, for example. Only people not interested in technical details wouldn't be willing to deal with the complexities of SNMP, so an alternative approach was developed requiring device makers to not implement a full SNMP stack but to utilize the usually already existing web interface for consumer grade hardware.

      It's too bad D-Link implemented the idea badly but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

    3. Re:It's a terrible idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you're surfing from home and you go to a site with a banner and you get a drive by infection.

      Now that app can find and configure your firewall to open the port and map it back to you so that you can be used to spread more infections.

      Who the fuck thought it would be a good idea to allow other apps to open the firewall?

      Presumably the people that figured out that most consumers cannot be bothered to learn the complexities of SNMP administration, and that most low end consumer grade manufacturers have no interested in implementing a full SNMP stack on their devices but could probably be convinced to utilize the usually already existing web interfaces instead.

      Just because someone implemented it badly in one instance doesn't mean that centralized network device management is a bad idea. In fact, it's a damn fine idea to bring from professional environments into the home - you just have to be very careful with your defaults.

    4. Re:It's a terrible idea. by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      What exactly is the problem with management apps reading from and writing to network device configuration as long as it's implemented securely?

      That it won't be implemented securely in many cases.

      Effectively you have an RPC interface which can be called by a web browser; that is an insanely bad idea, because any security flaw which exists can be remotely exploited by telling the web browser to access the relevant URL. I don't believe there's any similar way to remotely exploit flaws in an SNMP interface.

    5. Re:It's a terrible idea. by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Who the fuck thought it would be a good idea to allow other apps to open the firewall?

      UPnP allows something similar. Disabling such features wouldn't necessarily gain much because if malware does get in, it's just as easy to initiate the connection from inside the home firewall and keep it open - with the added benefit that the control server knows which nodes are online because there are connections open to them. Otherwise it'd have to keep a list of which IP addresses are compromised and contact each one whenever it wants to do something - which would be slow, and wouldn't deal very well with offline nodes or dynamically assigned addresses.

  20. Only fools buy D-Link trash anyway by Fotograf · · Score: 1

    from routers, switches to cameras, all i have seen is half finished overpriced junk

    --
    God's gift to chicks
  21. Re: Hardcode to ISP DNS server, by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

    I reckon it depends on how much you trust your ISP (Is it Comcast? comes to mind), but you could roll your own DNS server.

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  22. Re:I have nothing to contribute to this conversati by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

    Don't feel bad. All I have to contribute is "A stable rev of dd-wrt for the DIR-655 that addresses speed issues with the existing version, and I won't care." (Besides, my wireless routers are behind another unaffected router.)

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  23. Re:fdsfds by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    Yeah, why do we always get the lame spam? To me this is just a sign of a lazy spammer. Target your audience spammers! At least offer us dodgy RAM or fake CPUs or something we might actually care about!

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  24. Re:fdsfds by Hitokiri+Battousai · · Score: 1

    He didn't even fgsfds right...

  25. DIR-615 by Nonillion · · Score: 1

    Maybe that's why the last DIR-615 was acting strange, I replaced it with another DIR-615 but it has firmware version C1. Guess I'm safe, for now..

    --
    "I bow to no man" - Riddick
    1. Re:DIR-615 by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I have a DIR-615 (got it for free) running the latest firmware. It's mostly reliable but sometimes it kicks off all the computers on the wireless. Used to happen once every two days or so. It happens less frequently since I disabled "Short GI."

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  26. Dlink-feh by jridley · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't buy a BRICK from DLink anymore. I have yet to see anything made by them that wasn't the worst I'd ever seen of whatever it was. NICs, routers, switches, whatever, they were all crap, with crap drivers, crap firmware, crap everything. They must have the schmoozingest marketing department ever to still be in business.

  27. D-Link... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    D-Link goes ape-shit about home router, really ?

    How about freaking professional ISP Access Switches DES-3028, which love to turn themselves into hubs with high probability ?

    http://forum.dlink.ru/viewtopic.php?t=96443
    http://forum.nag.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=52882
    http://nag.ru/news/15587/
    (in russian, use google-translate if must)

    instead of learning MACs(48 bit) and VIDs(12 bit) its Broadcom board uses weak 13 bit hash of partial MAC+VID...
    guess what happens when its own hash match client's one or several or other switch...

    does D-Link, Zyxel and other vendors, who use same board, care about those ?

    I know, i know, only russian niggards use them, but DIRs and DGSs is what usually on the other side...

  28. Re:fdsfds by Azureflare · · Score: 1

    My guess is that they are trying to improve their search results on Google. Yay slashdot as SEO?

  29. Plastic Bricks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting you should say "brick". About a year ago, I updated a DIR-655 with the latest firmware, version 1.20 I believe. It turned the router into a brick. It no longer stored anything - acted like it was working but then you'd reboot and nothing had changed. Couldn't even update it anymore, reflash it or whatever, nothing. A plastic brick.

    My recommendation would be not to update a D-Link router at all. The "tech support" from India was no help, and when the call time was approaching the limit, he hurriedly cut me off and wished me luck. They refused to send me an RMA or even talk to me after that.

    I eventually bought a new one, stuck the old one in the new box and took it back to the store. At least I have a working router now, which I will never update the firmware on. And a resolve to never by D-Link again.

  30. Contact with D-Link only for Windows users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To get in touch with D-Link you cannot write a email (at least not for Swedish D-Link) or fill in a web form, you have to install a plug-in to your internet explorer 6 or 7 . Thus I have my last D-Link product purchased! D-Link if from now banned on my network! // Linux on all computers at home!