Slashdot Mirror


Backdoor Account Found in D-Link DIR-620 Routers (bleepingcomputer.com)

Catalin Cimpanu, writing for BleepingComputer: Security researchers have found a backdoor account in the firmware of D-Link DIR-620 routers that allows hackers to take over any device reachable via the Internet. Discovered by Kaspersky Lab researchers, this backdoor grants an attacker access to the device's web panel, and there's no way in which device owners can disable this secret account. The only way to protect devices from getting hacked is to avoid having the router expose its admin panel on the WAN interface, and hence, reachable from anywhere on the Internet.

118 comments

  1. OpenWRT/LEDE is the only solution by Jimbo+God+of+Unix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is why I will never buy or recommend any router that cannot be flashed/used with OpenWRT/LEDE.

    1. Re:OpenWRT/LEDE is the only solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't say that. He said it was a necessary first step.

    2. Re:OpenWRT/LEDE is the only solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's cute that you believe flashing a firmware with something else is an absolute guarantee of security.

      When did he say that? Oh, that's right, he didn't. Please stop trying to fill in blanks where there are none.

    3. Re:OpenWRT/LEDE is the only solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation?

    4. Re:OpenWRT/LEDE is the only solution by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      He didn't say that

      Actually he did. Before you can secure the router, you have to buy the router. Before you buy the router, you have to decide whether it meets your criteria. By providing his criteria, he indicated his first step.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    5. Re:OpenWRT/LEDE is the only solution by gweihir · · Score: 0

      You are welcome to get fucked yourself as long as you like. Just do not expect others to be as stupid as you are. Anybody that thinks a long-standing FOSS project with an excellent reputation needs to have the code reviewed by every user in order to be better than closed source is a complete moron.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    6. Re:OpenWRT/LEDE is the only solution by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Calm down man you get any more angry and that Fedora is going to fly off. Your argument died with Heartbleed. Open source that nobody looked at.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    7. Re:OpenWRT/LEDE is the only solution by fred6666 · · Score: 2

      I just installed openwrt/LEDE 17.01.4 on a TP-Link Archer C7 v2. I downloaded the file, used the web page to upload it and waited. How could it be any easier?

      I then configured the router using the LuCI web interface which is better than most stock router web interface.

    8. Re:OpenWRT/LEDE is the only solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Once it was checked, the news was out quickly, and fixes not far behind. Contrast that with propriety security flaw handling.

    9. Re: OpenWRT/LEDE is the only solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bash environment variable exploit? That sat there for 40 years open source bub.

    10. Re:OpenWRT/LEDE is the only solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your tired old lies and deliberate misinterpretations died even longer ago.

      "Many eyes makes all bugs shallow" refers to the fixing of bugs, not necessarily the detection or avoidance of creating them. Which Heartbleed aptly actually proved.

      Now sit down, and get started on that nice cup of STFU.

    11. Re:OpenWRT/LEDE is the only solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just this February 2018, there were more than a dozen Kernel bugs found by Google engineers. You know what it means to exploit the kernel, right?

    12. Re:OpenWRT/LEDE is the only solution by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Just continue to be stupid. It is no use arguing with people like you, you have all the answers and no clue. There is just no basis to explain actual reality to you, you are utterly disconnected.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  2. You're telling them about our backdoors? by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Funny
    1. Re:You're telling them about our backdoors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't even have to click to know what that was :-)

    2. Re:You're telling them about our backdoors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody's interested in Malvin's back door.

    3. Re:You're telling them about our backdoors? by p0larity · · Score: 1

      Aww, the big softie.

  3. Disable WAN access you say? by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know how many people actually enable WAN access to begin with. And it's off by default.

    But, regardless, that's probably not the major problem. The major problem comes if your own network is compromised, say, by an IoT device. Then it potentially has a password to your router.

    That seems to me to be likely a much bigger problem.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    1. Re:Disable WAN access you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know how many people actually enable WAN access to begin with. And it's off by default.

      How many routers actually have any kind of service control configured by default? Remote management is another issue. Don't those rental modems that are updated by the provider all have it enabled?

    2. Re:Disable WAN access you say? by houghi · · Score: 1

      On the one hand I could turn of the IoT stuff as they add nothing really. On the other hand it is just my toaster and it runs Linux, so it is secure, right?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    3. Re:Disable WAN access you say? by sheph · · Score: 2

      There's typically two levels. There's the level for the user, and then there's the administrative level that's for your service provider. It's how they magically push updates to your equipment, and I'm not sure you can turn that off.

      --
      I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
    4. Re:Disable WAN access you say? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      The DIR-620 is a consumer Wi-Fi router, I actually have one somewhere although it's not in use. It's not something you'd get from an ISP, who would generally want something with either a DSL or cable modem built in, otherwise they'd have to give you two boxes and risk you screwing up the configuration between the two somehow.

      I can say it's pretty insecure to begin with, default username 'admin', no password, with nothing to encourage you to set a password.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:Disable WAN access you say? by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      Service providers don't use the web admin interface
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    6. Re:Disable WAN access you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      otherwise they'd have to give you two boxes and risk you screwing up the configuration between the two somehow.

      lol. Really? The casual user's cablemodem gives out an ethernet port, which you connect your own router to, which will work out of the box in every case as new routers are already set to DHCP. If you're like me and have a business, then the cablemodem will give you multiple ports, which will behave the same way. I have static IP addresses, so the configuration becomes a little (just a little) more involved, but "screwing up the configuration" is not on the agenda.

    7. Re:Disable WAN access you say? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      otherwise they'd have to give you two boxes and risk you screwing up the configuration between the two somehow.

      lol. Really? The casual user's cablemodem gives out an ethernet port, which you connect your own router to, which will work out of the box in every case as new routers are already set to DHCP. If you're like me and have a business, then the cablemodem will give you multiple ports, which will behave the same way. I have static IP addresses, so the configuration becomes a little (just a little) more involved, but "screwing up the configuration" is not on the agenda.

      The ISP gives you one box by preference and if you are lucky, it operates in straight passthrough in one form or another requiring a customer to use their own router which the ISP cannot deal with. And then there are ISPs like AT&T which expect you to use their modem/router and passthrough mode is crippled so you never get full functionality if you use your own router.

      I like how AT&T would update the firmware on their router resetting all configuration to reenable things like the WiFi and breaking all security. I never used their Wifi and always had my x86 FreeBSD router between their router and my LAN despite how they crippled this mode of operation by blocking protocols and limiting connections.

    8. Re:Disable WAN access you say? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      It sounds like you didn't understand what we're talking about. The person I was responding to thought that the DIR-620 might be the type of device ISPs give out. I said it isn't because it's just a router. ISPs don't generally give out routers unless they also have a cable modem or DSL modem built in.

      You seem to be reading that backwards as "ISPs don't give out DSL modems or cable modems unless they have a router built in" which is (obviously!) not the case. ISPs will provide customers with bare modems, but they won't give their customers routers, unless they're also modems. Some obscure ISP you've never heard of that was really cool to you one time excepting, of course.

      The point is that ISPs wouldn't send their customers DIR-620s, and so would never have cause to need remote admin access to one enabled.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    9. Re:Disable WAN access you say? by p0larity · · Score: 1

      Somebody didn't even read the article summary.

      Right in it they say Russian ISPs actually did give it out.

    10. Re:Disable WAN access you say? by p0larity · · Score: 1

      I'll save you the trouble:

      Not that many devices left around to exploit

      The good news is that D-Link DIR-620 devices are older router models and there aren't that many around to exploit.

      Most of these devices were deployed by Russian, CIS, and Eastern European ISPs as on-premise equipment provided to broadband customers.

      The vast majority of these devices are located in Russia, and Kaspersky said it already contacted ISPs to inform them of the issue.

      Shodan searches for these devices reveal less than 100 DIR-620 routers available online, showing that most ISPs have headed Kaspersky's warnings and restricted access to these devices on their networks.

  4. Why would you expose the admin interface to WAN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean seriously, who in their mind would ever expose the admin interface to the WAN in the first place? There is no good reason to ever do this.

  5. Re:Why would you expose the admin interface to WAN by mi · · Score: 1

    There is no good reason to ever do this.

    Tweaking the router remotely for your elderly parents or other friends is a valid use-case... Yes, you can — and I do — achieve that by ssh-ing into a Unix computer behind the router, and then use a tunnel to talk to the router's LAN interface. But that may be too complex for most people, wouldn't you agree?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  6. Don't by ANY router that... by bobbied · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cannot be flashed with third party firmware. I use OpenWRT and DD-WRT and I *refuse* to buy any consumer router that doesn't have at least a porting effort to one of these third party firmware packages.

    It's not a perfect solution, but it's one heck of a lot better than just trusting the manufacturer to do the right thing and fix their security issues in a timely manner.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re: Don't by ANY router that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bob didn't say "absolute" so you are just being an ass.

    2. Re:Don't by ANY router that... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      That's cute that you believe flashing a firmware with something else is an absolute guarantee of security.

      To quote my original post:

      It's not a perfect solution, but it's one heck of a lot better than just trusting the manufacturer ...

      Having issues with reading comprehension? I think so.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Don't by ANY router that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DIR 615 can be flashed by openwrt easily enough. One problem is that the eeprom is only 4mb so you can't fit in modern openwrt versions without removing the web gui.

    4. Re:Don't by ANY router that... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. And while not perfect, you get updates and patches long-term and you can do thinks yourself if you like.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:Don't by ANY router that... by gweihir · · Score: 2

      The "only commercial software is good software" morons cannot even think. You expect them to be able to comprehend written language? That is wayyy beyond what they can do. At best, they can do keyword matching.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    6. Re:Don't by ANY router that... by Solandri · · Score: 1

      I browse with an extension that shows the flag of the country a site is hosted at in the URL bar. I was always nervous about using DD-WRT because for years the site was hosted in China (they changed hosts to Switzerland recently). So you shouldn't automatically trust third party firmware either. And if you're really paranoid you should be downloading source and compiling the firmware yourself. If you can trust that the source code is clean. (For those curious, OpenWRT is hosted in Germany.

    7. Re:Don't by ANY router that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asus Merlin is awesome!

    8. Re:Don't by ANY router that... by Agripa · · Score: 1

      That's cute that you believe flashing a firmware with something else is an absolute guarantee of security.

      It is better than the alternative of using the stock firmware but not as good as using something like Linux or FreeBSD on your own x86 or possibly now ARM hardware.

  7. No, that's what the Straw Man in you head believes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody said or implied it provides an absolute guarantee of security.

  8. Not the first time by klingens · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why would anyone still buy anything from D-Link or e.g. Cisco?

    With their stuff, backdoors are not the exception but mandatory feature for every device they sell. 2013, 2016, now.
    https://www.theregister.co.uk/... DIR-100, DI-524, DI-524UP, DI-604S, DI-604UP, DI-604+ and TM-G5240" maybe more.
    https://thehackernews.com/2016... DWR-932 B

    So, sure once maybe it's an error or oversight. But the number of backdoors with pretty much all router manufacturers, from low end cheapo consumer D-Link to usurious Cisco plated with gold stuff, shows it's not an oversight but pretty much deliberate. Both manufacturers are only examples here. All of them have similar holes several times over the last few years, repeatedly. Or they are too incompetent to be allowed to design and then sell anything to the public.

    1. Re:Not the first time by gweihir · · Score: 1

      D-Link is a nice base to flash OpenWRT on. No other sane use.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Not the first time by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Why would anyone still buy anything from D-Link or e.g. Cisco?

      Damn if I know.

      I gave up on D-Link more than 10 years ago when they reneged on firmware updates for Wifi security which they said they would support and then their routers just died one after another within a span of months. Since then I have been using the same Slot 1 x86 based FreeBSD router which is going on 20 years old now and has failed once ... when the ice machine upstairs sprung a leak and dripped water into it. And that only knocked it out of operation for 24 hours and 15 minutes of downtime since I had a spare Pentium4 to replace it temporarily; FreeBSD did not even blink at the hardware change.

  9. Re:Why would you expose the admin interface to WAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Too complex for most people - yes
    Too complex for someone who can be trusted to remotely tweak a router - no

  10. Router found on backdoor by goombah99 · · Score: 2

    At this point, I think it's fair to say that it was a backdoor that also had a router. Indeed I suspect the router was probably found left on the backdoor.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  11. and D-Link wont update the firmware? by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    they rather you go buy a new D-Link Router, if i had one of these routers i would be sure to buy another brand, but if D-Link quickly made a new firmware and patched my router it would give me confidence in D-Link's attention to detail and would gladly make my next router a D-Link product, (something to think about D-Link people)

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:and D-Link wont update the firmware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I seriously doubt that the end-user has any place in their consciousness. Instead, keeping their channels happy and growing is undoubtedly the only thing of interest to their management, and the end-user doesn't figure in those calculations.

    2. Re:and D-Link wont update the firmware? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      To be fair to D-Link, that's a really old router that according to the article less than 100 are still being used. But D-Link did say that an update would be provided if an enterprise customer requested it.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:and D-Link wont update the firmware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      D-Link has managed to alienate their customers long ago. I had DIR-620 long ago, but replaced it as it did not work with Chromecast and many of the online FPS games. This firmware upgrades were also just bringing up new bugs and at one point even started preventing rolling back to older, more functional version. D-Link will never again sell a router to my networks.

    4. Re:and D-Link wont update the firmware? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      they rather you go buy a new D-Link Router, if i had one of these routers i would be sure to buy another brand, but if D-Link quickly made a new firmware and patched my router it would give me confidence in D-Link's attention to detail and would gladly make my next router a D-Link product, (something to think about D-Link people)

      I am still waiting on the firmware update for my DI-624s with D-Link's promised Wifi security updates. I am sure they will release them any day now; it has only been 15 years.

  12. Re: Why would you expose the admin interface to WA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are able to 'tweak' routers - it should be trivial for you to set up SSH/VPN etc. People who don't have that level of ability should not be bother to modify their router at all, since they'll do more damage in balance, for example, by enabling WAN access allowing others to hack their router...

  13. OpenBSD DIY by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    I basically just use an old Dell and threw OpenBSD on it. I have something that is really functional and secure.

    1. Re:OpenBSD DIY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, the only problem is that an old Dell uses ten times more power than a little ARM based router. Something like a $30 Raspberry Pi with Raspbian may be a better idea for a home router.

    2. Re:OpenBSD DIY by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Hmm, the only problem is that an old Dell uses ten times more power than a little ARM based router. Something like a $30 Raspberry Pi with Raspbian may be a better idea for a home router.

      More generic old x86 hardware does a little better. Underclock the processor, make sure power management is enabled, and replace the mass storage with solid state storage.

      The problem with ARM is finding something which has 2 or more *real* Ethernet ports for a reasonable price and none of them will have ECC memory. Low end x86 which can include ECC is a lot more flexible and still economical even for power.

      The Marvell Espressobin looks interesting given its low price. Ha! It even has OpenWrt support but I do not see any FreeBSD.

  14. Re:Why would you expose the admin interface to WAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tweaking the router remotely for your elderly parents or other friends is a valid use-case.

    Nope. It's actually invalid since such tweaking inevitably leads to them to further exposure, so it's actually more dumb to do it that way.

    You are really a good salesman for Russia, you should go back there.

  15. So done w/ commercial routers by sremick · · Score: 1

    And this is why I finished with commercial router firmware.

    First Tomato, then dd-wrt, now pfSense on custom hardware.

    1. Re:So done w/ commercial routers by gweihir · · Score: 1

      As anybody else with a clue is doing as well.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:So done w/ commercial routers by afidel · · Score: 1

      I have a clue, I have managed enterprise class routers and firewalls and been using Linux since 1995, I use a Netgear router at home. Their no cost integration with OpenDNS for content filtering and anti-malware protection is better than any opersource solution I have found. They also continue to provide security updates for years after the device is no longer for sale (previous model was ~8 years old when I replaced it for better WiFi performance, it had had a firmware update about 3 months before I retired it for a CVE).

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  16. Re:Why would you expose the admin interface to WAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russia didn't want this guy and told him to go and peddle his salesmen scams to the united states of asssuckery who will buy anything as long as they can make a donkey off of it.

    you should crawl back to the hole you came out of and die in front of it.

  17. Is there a list of routers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...where the backdoor has not been found yet?

  18. Ports == Holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More open ports == more open holes.

    I have exactly one port open, 22, running ssh, but not on port 22 on the WAN side, but its port-knocked, geo-blocked, and other small security provisions.

    If I need to access the router, that's what sshuttle, or ssh -D dynamic forwarding is for.

    Also, if a router doesn't have a CLI, it's nothing more than a toy.

    1. Re:Ports == Holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost all TOY routers I encoutered do have an accessible CLI via telnet port.

  19. Which open router software? by sconeu · · Score: 1

    I'd like to replace my vendor supplied router with one running open software.

    I'm just not sure which is considered the most current, or the pros and cons of the various distros.
    * DD-WRT
    * OpenWRT
    * Lede
    * Tomato (is that even still around)?
    etc...

    Suggestions? (Maybe I should make this an Ask Slashdot?)

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    1. Re:Which open router software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personal opinion from personal experience, so YMMV.

      - DDWRT seems in constant beta these days - watch the forums for bug reports on Brainslayer's latest and pick one that doesn't have too many issues
      - OpenWRT/LEDE (they are remerging the project after splitting a couple years ago) - not as feature-rich as DDWRT, but the latest (17.01.4) is super-stable
      - Tomato - google FreshTomato - a rebuild of Shibby's 140 with updated SW modules. Not available for as many routers as Shibby's was.

      After messing around with these, I am currently running the latest pfSense (with Snort for IDS and pfBlockerNG for URL filtering). So far, so good.

      But if I had to go back, I'd choose LEDE. If your hardware is compatible, it pretty much seems to "just work".

    2. Re:Which open router software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use pfSense on a $600 computer inside a micro-ATX. Line rate gigabit NAT+shaping. Amazing what a $130 NIC will do.

    3. Re:Which open router software? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      First, check for patch history to see what is currently maintained. And then select the one of the remaining ones were you like the interface best.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:Which open router software? by sconeu · · Score: 1

      That's a good option, but I'm looking for Wifi too... want to use *MY* wifi rather than the ISP's, in case they decide to do fun stuff like turning my wifi into a hotspot...

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    5. Re:Which open router software? by pnutjam · · Score: 2

      Merlin works well if your running an Asus device.

    6. Re:Which open router software? by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

      DD-WRT is generally pretty solid and is available on a far greater number of routers.

      Tomato is my personal favorite, not the least of which because it does ad blocking at the router level and is a bit better with VLANs than DD-WRT.

      OpenWRT isn't my favorite, but it's gotten a lot better recently. I was particularly happy that it's available for some Cisco Meraki hardware. The least intuitive of the three IMO, but it does the job in lots of cases.

      All of them have upstream updates from within the past three months, so no one is particularly slacking. availability on particular hardware is a case-by-case basis, so that's the bigger factor. In addition, my recollection is that none of the current consumer router vendors have been very good with open-sourcing the drivers for their AC chipsets. Odds are pretty good that you'll notice a performance dip in wireless if you're using onboard. You can resolve that by using separate access points (for which I'll recommend Ubiquiti, or even the latest crop of TP-Link APs have been surprisingly solid), but you will end up running into the same issues with aftermarket firmware on the APs unless you only care about running OSS at the router level.

    7. Re:Which open router software? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      That's a good option, but I'm looking for Wifi too... want to use *MY* wifi rather than the ISP's, in case they decide to do fun stuff like turning my wifi into a hotspot...

      There are some FreeBSD friendly Wifi adapters but much better for both features and RF propagation is to use dedicated indoor access points like something from Ubiquiti.

    8. Re:Which open router software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just use a UAP-AC-PRO. I'm not a fan of my router dangling from the ceiling just to get good AP positioning. Integrating a wifi into the firewall is moot for me. I have multiple APs positioned around the house, I only want one firewall.

  20. Where is the "research"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How hard can it be to not just link to idiot's favourite website bleepingcomputer but to link to the actual "research"?

  21. Backdoor found in 20 year old router by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Awesome, so the ZERO of these that are actually still in service should be upgraded right away...

    *sigh*

    1. Re: Backdoor found in 20 year old router by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I knew a guy who was running one 2 years ago. Far bigger problem than any built in account was that he had the WiFi set up to use WEP, since that was the standard back when he first configured it.

    2. Re: Backdoor found in 20 year old router by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't say that is a far bigger problem. WEP is fine in rural areas, especially when wages are low and technology is upgraded less often. And WPA isn't anymore secure than WEP anymore, your devices have to be new enough to support WPA2. Which means you either might as well use WEP, or not use devices at all.

      A publicly accessible admin portal being insecure is a far bigger problem as now the attackers don't have to be within spitting distance, and can't be monitored by motion activated security systems or such.

    3. Re: Backdoor found in 20 year old router by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      He wasn't in a rural area; he was in a heavily populated city. From his house I could pick up more than 20 other APs.

      There are numerous known weaknesses in WPA, but it's nowhere near as insecure as WEP. I've never seen a WEP AP which couldn't be broken into in a matter of minutes. The amount of time it would take with WPA can vary wildly depending on numerous factors but will typically be much longer.

  22. Re:Why would you expose the admin interface to WAN by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1

    If I were to help my parents out with their router, I'd simply remote in to one of their computers and proceed. There is absolutely no way I'd ever expose critical infrastructure to the wild wild web.

  23. Re:Why would you expose the admin interface to WAN by itsme1234 · · Score: 1

    Too complex for someone who can be trusted to remotely tweak a router - no

    And what is your suggestion for the case mentioned by the GP "for your elderly parents or other friends"? As somebody suggested earlier "just use an old Dell and threw OpenBSD on it"? Let them have a full computer just so you can tunnel through the router to it and then access from it the router interface? There's always a compromise between security and convenience and really in this case it isn't the worst compromise possible to just let the router interface available. I bet there are out there many more ancient windows boxes that haven't been patched for many years, fully exposed to internet than these routers.

  24. Re:Why would you expose the admin interface to WAN by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Cheaper than possible developers at work. They think this is the thing to do for easy debugging and, since nobody will ever find that password (right?), it can just be left in. Yes, morons on that level do not only exist, there are a lot of them in the industry.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  25. DD-WRT is pretty darned secure by thomst · · Score: 2

    ArchieBunker demanded:

    Have you done an audit of the code yourself? Are you sure anyone else has? Would you know what to look for?

    I use DD-WRT exclusively on all my routers.

    It's 100% open source, and there are several people who are still actively developing it. In addition, there's a lot of security-savvy users who closely examine and pen-test each release.

    In 2008, a pair of backdoor IP addresses were discovered in the code (placed there by one of the developers, at a customer's request). Both were accessible only from the NAT side of the router, and both were removed within an hour of being reported ...

    --
    Check out my novel.
    1. Re:DD-WRT is pretty darned secure by fred6666 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Too bad their last stable release (V24 SP1) is from 9 years ago. They are almost done with the SP2!

      And by 100% open source, you mean is heavily dependent on closed source drivers obtained from broadcom under NDA?
      With outdated info on their wiki on how to build the source?

    2. Re:DD-WRT is pretty darned secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My experience with DD-WRT is to mostly ignore the router database. They have updated betas that come out every couple of weeks that work just fine.

      https://download1.dd-wrt.com/dd-wrtv2/downloads/betas/2018/

    3. Re:DD-WRT is pretty darned secure by thomst · · Score: 2

      fred6666 sneered:

      Too bad their last stable release (V24 SP1) is from 9 years ago. They are almost done with the SP2!

      And by 100% open source, you mean is heavily dependent on closed source drivers obtained from broadcom under NDA? With outdated info on their wiki on how to build the source?

      As the AC who posted after your comment pointed out, there are beta releases all the time - many of which are by BrainSlayer (who was the principal architect for V24 SPI, and is the principal architect for SP2, as well). For popular routers (i.e. - inexpensive and relatively powerful ones), there are often 2 or 3 betas per month. So who the hell cares about the "stable" release of SP2, when Kong's v3.0-r33675M (which I use on all 3 of my ASUS RT-56U's) is reliable, stable, has all relevant security issues patched, and supports more functions than most users will ever need?

      (BTW - I agree with that guy about ignoring the router database, too. It's full of misinformation and outdated releases that no sane admin would choose to install on an Internet-exposed router. Newbies to DD-WRT should search the forums for advice on the best forks and versions to install for their particular make and model, instead.)

      As for the Broadcom code, again, openwrt uses a set of reverse-engineered drivers, and it is a freakin' nightmare to configure. DD-WRT is straighforward. I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling donut that the comm driver is proprietary. I care that it works.

      I will grant your point that, for Broadcom-based routers (including mine), the DD-WRT drivers are proprietary. I just don't care - and the fact that the DD-WRT developers choose to use them, rather than replace them with the reverse-engineered versions speaks volumes about how efficient, stable, and reliable they believe the open-source ones are ...

      --
      Check out my novel.
    4. Re:DD-WRT is pretty darned secure by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      As the AC who posted after your comment pointed out, there are beta releases all the time - many of which are by BrainSlayer (who was the principal architect for V24 SPI, and is the principal architect for SP2, as well). For popular routers (i.e. - inexpensive and relatively powerful ones), there are often 2 or 3 betas per month. So who the hell cares about the "stable" release of SP2, when Kong's v3.0-r33675M (which I use on all 3 of my ASUS RT-56U's) is reliable, stable, has all relevant security issues patched, and supports more functions than most users will ever need?

      (BTW - I agree with that guy about ignoring the router database, too. It's full of misinformation and outdated releases that no sane admin would choose to install on an Internet-exposed router. Newbies to DD-WRT should search the forums for advice on the best forks and versions to install for their particular make and model, instead.)

      Sounds like a very badly managed project from one man in his mom's basement. Why should newbies have to search on forums and use a fork? What's wrong with the main branch? Why don't they fix it?
      I wouldn't trust DD-WRT with security updates if I have to use a beta fork.

      As for the Broadcom code, again, openwrt uses a set of reverse-engineered drivers, and it is a freakin' nightmare to configure.

      You probably haven't used openwrt in the past 8 years or so. It's very easy to configure with a web-based UI like any other router.
      It's also much easier to configure if you want to build from source and choose which package to include.
      But you are right that broadcom-based devices should be avoided with openwrt.

      DD-WRT is straighforward. I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling donut that the comm driver is proprietary.

      Well just don't say that DD-WRT is 100% open source and this will be fine with me.

      I care that it works.

      I will grant your point that, for Broadcom-based routers (including mine), the DD-WRT drivers are proprietary. I just don't care - and the fact that the DD-WRT developers choose to use them, rather than replace them with the reverse-engineered versions speaks volumes about how efficient, stable, and reliable they believe the open-source ones are ...

      They don't just choose to use the proprietary drivers, it's worst than that. You can't just go to broadcom web site and download them. They are given to DD-WRT under NDA. I believe part of the driver must be recompiled for each kernel. It also forces DD-WRT to maintain several kernel branches and with the limited staff they have, I am sure they can't maintain security updates in all of them. I am not even sure I'd trust them more than D-Link on security.

  26. Re:Why would you expose the admin interface to WAN by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 1

    Yes, but most of those ancient windows systems are behind routers and firewalls which prevents them from being readily accessed from the internet. However, having the firewall/router accessible from the internet just exposed all those systems behind it...

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
  27. Web-Facing Control Panels by Shadyman · · Score: 1

    "The only way to protect devices from getting hacked is to avoid having the router expose its admin panel on the WAN interface"

    Why would you willingly expose even the most secure login page to the net if you didn't have to? Between bruteforce, backdoor accounts, overflow errors, URL manipulation, and yes, even the dreaded default password,

    tl;dr: Why do you have your admin panel WAN-accessible in the first place? -_-

    1. Re:Web-Facing Control Panels by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      All of those can be mitigated without too much work. Let's no cower under our beds like NRA members.

    2. Re:Web-Facing Control Panels by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Why would you willingly expose even the most secure login page to the net if you didn't have to? Between bruteforce, backdoor accounts, overflow errors, URL manipulation, and yes, even the dreaded default password,

      If you trust the hardware and software, which I would not for any commercial or consumer stuff, then you might expose a secure login to the router so that the firewall rules can be modified to allow incoming connections only from your current IP.

  28. And that is why Kaspersky is outlawed in the USA by johanw · · Score: 1

    They are too good at finding US backdoors in US products.

  29. Re:Why would you expose the admin interface to WAN by mi · · Score: 1

    I'd simply remote in to one of their computers and proceed

    So, you are fine exposing "one of their computers" to the "wild wild web", but not the router itself?.. Because routers are somehow uniquely exploitable?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  30. Re:Why would you expose the admin interface to WAN by itsme1234 · · Score: 1

    Most of those "fully exposed to internet" systems are "behind routers and firewalls"?

  31. Interesting another ISP router by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So like Comcast in the US deploying crappy hole ridden hardware also happens with Russian ISP's and D Link. So tin foil hat people, begin your conspiracy about companies deploying equipment that can be access by anyone including governments. Seriously I would not trust Comcast or any Russian ISP not to do this.

  32. M0D P4r3nt up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's the truth

  33. I've used a cheap linux pc... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as a firewall for years. Yes OpenBSD is probably more secure, but Linux is what I know.
    Does everything I want with nice fine-grained filtering if that's what I need. Plus you can
    ssh in and take a look at the external traffic for fun. The wireless router is just an access point,
    I guess I have to trust that.

  34. But we don't trust Kaspersky! by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    Kaspersky is a shill of the Russian government right?

    We don't trust anything they say!

  35. Re:Why would you expose the admin interface to WAN by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1

    I was expecting this level of paranoia. A 30-minute session in a program I won't mention because neckbeards annoy me, problem solved, and program closed, is better than exposing a router 24/7.

  36. Re:Why would you expose the admin interface to WAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The DNC called. They want their Russia shtick back.

  37. So, what's the login ? by Kopp · · Score: 1

    I happen to have an old DIR 620 Router of which I'm locked out ....

  38. Re:Why would you expose the admin interface to WAN by mi · · Score: 1

    Whatever program you are using, neckbeard, talking to whatever computer, if you want to tweak a device without moving your dimply behind into very close physical proximity of the device in question, you must allow remote access of some sort — that is, as you put it, expose something to the "wild wild web". That's a given and unavoidable risk inherent in the requirement.

    The entire conversation is about mitigating this risk — such as by using a more secure protocol or a more reliable device.

    My preference is ssh-ing into a FreeBSD computer behind the router — because I trust ssh and FreeBSD more than I trust router-makers. Most people, yourself included by all appearances, use Windows at home, and I struggle trying to understand, why you'd prefer trusting Windows over the router firmware...

    Whatever your personal preference, the use-case I described remains valid.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  39. Re:Why would you expose the admin interface to WAN by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1

    Holy Messiah, it's not complicated. Mum connects to a hosted service, I connect to same hosted service. The security of this hosted service is orders of magnitude beyond what I could do on my own. And, again, 30 minutes later we're DISCONNECTED.

  40. Re:Why would you expose the admin interface to WAN by mi · · Score: 1

    The security of this hosted service is orders of magnitude beyond what I could do on my own

    It is also a magnet for hackers and subpoenas... It also costs you money, or privacy, or both.

    It is perfectly legitimate to not want any third parties involved...

    Finally, if you are willing to have your mom involved in the tweaking process at all, instead of training her to use this 3rd-party, you can teach her to enable the WAN-access feature of the router — and disable it 30 minutes later.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  41. Re:Why would you expose the admin interface to WAN by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1

    Fuck off. And while you're fucking off, shave that stupid neck.

  42. Re:Why would you expose the admin interface to WAN by mi · · Score: 1

    Seldom is one's online-debate victory quite as complete, as this one is today... You made it adversarial, and then lost.

    Not only are you bad at anything IT, you are, evidently, a bad person as well.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  43. Re:Why would you expose the admin interface to WAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, you managed to make mi look coherent and not a loon. Please don't post this kind of stuff again, it's obnoxious and shitty.