41–50 of 184 posts
It's funny to think that if you were to report all of your findings to your local newspaper (Turkish newspaper in this case), as to how Turkish ISPs have complete access to your router or how Huawei (China) has an SSH key for your router, people would go absolutely ballistic. But for us it's just another day of expected craziness and we're tired of talking about it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nat existed in somewhat wide use in 95, PIX had come out recently. It's not necessary today either.
It existed, but was definitely not in wide use. I worked for several early internet providers during that period (mid to late 90's.) Most folks had public addresses on their desktops. No customer we ever set up wanted NAT. Most didn't even have firewalls, sadly! Some of these were small companies, some of these were large corporations or universities. And I'd argue NAT actually is necessary if you want IPv4 for home…
You can access the web over v4 with other kind of proxies besides NAT, for example application level HTTP proxies. If you want working v4 for all the protocols, NAT is out by definition anyways.
Slightly off-topic: I'd really like to run screenfetch on my router (Asus RT-N66U), but it doesn't have enough free space to sftp the script to it [1]. Piping the script just freezes up. Does anyone know a good workaround? Has anyone ever tried this? [1] https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/510947/how-can-i-ru...
...and that's why my ISPs router is running in modem mode with a non-ISP-controlled router from Ubiquiti behind it - which I may replace with a pfSense box in the future. I'm pretty happy that my cable ISP is allowing this mode so I don't have to double-NAT in my setup.
My DMARC has a hot ethernet jack, and my firewall (PC running Linux) that I control is connected to that ethernet jack. No ISP shenanigans (other than what they can remotely do to configure the FIOS DMARC itself).
Apparently a polish carrier called Multimedia has recently introduced a new, revolutionary service for some customers. It's called "set up a custom wi-fi configuration", and it's just 5 pln (a little over $1)! It lets you think up of a ssid and password, and configure your router to use those! That's an amazing invention, isn't it? /s Some customers apparently have absolutely no access to their routers, not even to t…
Interesting read! There's actually 3 parts to this: Part 2: https://0x90.psaux.io/2020/03/19/Taking-Back-What-Is-Already... And 3: https://0x90.psaux.io/2020/03/22/Taking-Back-What-Is-Already... Summary from the end of Part 3: "So we managed to change passwords for both ssh and telnet, gain access to Root user for the web interface, changed that password too. We changed ACS URL to ours and remove the IP restrictions.…
"Still there is an authorized ssh key left in the firmware but for now it’s enough that we’re keeping the ISP out. Maybe in the future, we can repack the firmware with our configuration and keys and install it on the router. For now, take care!"
Fantastic write up from a hacking point of view. I did wonder about this statement though: "This is very invasive and unacceptable. It may seem necessary to apply security patches published by your ISP but the user should be able to disable it whenever she wants." Legally, at least in countries where I've lived, the ISP still owns the router. This surprised me a bit when I first found out, but then I got used to the…
In the Netherlands we now have a law where ISPs must allow your own choice of network equipment. This means they must give you the required information on how to connect your own device with their network. I have a fiber connection, which I connected directly to a Ubiquity router through a suitable SFP module. My ISP supplied the information on the fiber type and which VLAN ID's to setup for internet, TV and telephon…
Same in Germany! ISPs hate it because it it makes their lives a lot harder - in cable networks, they now have to deal with a zoo of endpoints on a shared medium vs. a small set of standardized devices. As a customer, I like it.
In other words, ISPs hate it because it forces them to actually do their jobs and be ISPs. The Internet itself is "a zoo of endpoints on a shared medium", and ISP stands for Internet Service Provider.
Fantastic write up from a hacking point of view. I did wonder about this statement though: "This is very invasive and unacceptable. It may seem necessary to apply security patches published by your ISP but the user should be able to disable it whenever she wants." Legally, at least in countries where I've lived, the ISP still owns the router. This surprised me a bit when I first found out, but then I got used to the…
...and that's why my ISPs router is running in modem mode with a non-ISP-controlled router from Ubiquiti behind it - which I may replace with a pfSense box in the future. I'm pretty happy that my cable ISP is allowing this mode so I don't have to double-NAT in my setup.
I'd be grateful for guidance eg a link to a writeup of recommended hardware and config for a reasonably technical audience, eg "Given a Verizon FIOS G1100, put it in bridge mode and connect hw that supports software X"...