Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both R710 and R720 are currently supported. I installed an update last week.
Yeah, but one cannot upgrade them without purchasing annual support contract from Ruckus.
No, you do not need one for unleashed.
Whistleblower: Ubiquiti Breach “Catastrophic”
741–750 of 815 posts
Re: Whistleblower: Ubiquiti Breach “Catastrophic”
#742Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely 802.11r has a purpose, yes?
Yes, roaming by sharing SSID and passcode is a world of pain. 802.11r solves all those pains, I've been using it on OpenWRT for months without a glitch.
Yes, it's why I use 802.11r. It works with most devices, although the one which does not support it makes me laugh. Nintendo Switch will not switch from one AP to another. It holds on, tooth and nail, to whichever BSSID it used when it first connected.
My kids have to go into settings, reconnect, and move on.
Re: Whistleblower: Ubiquiti Breach “Catastrophic”
#743Re: Whistleblower: Ubiquiti Breach “Catastrophic”
#744Earlier quoted context omitted.
No you do not, only setup. You can disable it after. See my other comment.
I just tried. It does at least not work for protect and it does not work for the IOS apps.
I have not looked at Protect yet, however for Network you can disable remote login after creating a local account. Open Network app on IOS and make sure you go the main page that list the controllers. Click on the arrow. Next screen you will see a section called “Launch Type” which list all the access methods, local IP 4, IPv6 and cloud. Pick the local IP adresss.
Re: Whistleblower: Ubiquiti Breach “Catastrophic”
#745Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that on-prem isn't much better in many cases. Only the largest organizations have the capability to operate deep defenses against these threats whether it's the cloud, or the on-prem. If you and your team have the skills you can operate fairly effectively on a small scale, but that's a pretty luxurious situation. Most home users can't tell the difference between a router and cable modem hence it's in t…
on-prem is much better in most cases because if there is a bug an attacker would have to scan the internet and find you before a patch is released and you update. If that bug is only accessible from inside of your network to begin with, then that means the attacker would already have to be inside your network. As far as the team having skills, there is not much that ubiquity does that can't be handled on prem, I mean…
> on-prem is much better in most cases
Counterpoint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Microsoft_Exchange_Server...
Re: Whistleblower: Ubiquiti Breach “Catastrophic”
#746Earlier quoted context omitted.
And Cisco does? With it’s known back doors from the NSA?
Never, ever happened. Ever. You're conflating "NSA secretly rerouting shipping company deliveries to end-users, installing their firmware, then senting it on" with "Cisco willingly did that". Cisco was unaware, and once aware (thanks to Snowden), Cisco took steps to try to prevent it, by altering shipping destinations, at the last minute, on route.
I’m not conflating anything.
Check your facts.
“ Way back in 2004, Cisco wrote an IETF proposal for a “lawful intercept” backdoor for routers, which law enforcement could use to remotely log in to routers. Years later, in 2010, an IBM security researcher showed how this protocol could be abused by malicious attackers to take over Cisco IOS routers, which are typically sold to ISPs and other large enterprises.” https://www.tomshardware.com/news/cisco-backdoor-hardcoded-a...
Next time know what the fuck you’re talking about before opening your mouth.
Re: Whistleblower: Ubiquiti Breach “Catastrophic”
#747Earlier quoted context omitted.
Protect still needs cloud to be activated for authentication it seems. I used to have remote access turned off and accessed the video streams via the iOS app when my phone was on VPN to the local network. That no longer works. Remote access (cloud) needs to be activated in order for the iOS app to work, no matter if you are on the local network or not.
When did that start? My controller is only on 6.0.43 but i can access it via iOS app on VPN. My contoller only does Wireless/AP management though. nothing more.
He said Protect, which only comes on the new cloud key gen2 devices and requires a Unifi cloud account. The old stand-alone controller (key or installer) does not unless you tie it to your Unifi cloud account.
Re: Whistleblower: Ubiquiti Breach “Catastrophic”
#748Earlier quoted context omitted.
Protect still needs cloud to be activated for authentication it seems. I used to have remote access turned off and accessed the video streams via the iOS app when my phone was on VPN to the local network. That no longer works. Remote access (cloud) needs to be activated in order for the iOS app to work, no matter if you are on the local network or not.
i've run my own controller locally for years without forced cloud login.. i've never used the ios app, what can you do from it that you can't do from the web interface?
He said Protect, which is only part of the newer Gen2 cloudkeys (controller + video surveillance). The app just lets you manage the basic config of your devices and see network stats. There is a separate app for viewing your security cameras via Unifi cloud.
Re: Whistleblower: Ubiquiti Breach “Catastrophic”
#749Earlier quoted context omitted.
These recent posts about Ubiquiti have made me look again at MikroTik. Their hardware is more affordable than I had remembered. Is there any good intro to their hardware - there are certainly a lot more options than you get with Ubiquiti. Even before now there are some limitations with UniFi that have annoyed me. Setting up more complex DNS and firewall rules requires editing the JSON config. IPv6 tunnelling isn’t we…
It may sound strange, but for Mikrotik, I find it more productive to concentrate on setting them up via CLI. It's certainly more trainable. CLI for Port Forward: /ip firewall nat add chain=dstnat dst-port=1234 in-interface=ether1-gateway action=dst-nat protocol=tcp to-address=192.168.1.1 to-port=1234 VS having to document the same task in the GUI: IP->Firewall->Nat-> Add New General Tab Chain: dstnat Protocol: TPC Ds…
The benefit of the GUI is that it documents what has been changed: in the GUI there is a list of port forwards.
With the CLI you either need to document it yourself, or you need to know to query if there are any port forwards. That can be a problem if there is more than one person responsible for the network, or if someone else needs to inherit your setup.
Documentation of configuration sometimes isn’t an issue on your own home system because you generally have a high level memory of what changes you made and their purpose. Conversely I still struggle sometimes with Ubuntu because I customise my configuration using command line tools, and I find keeping track of those changes or the implications of those changes is difficult.
Re: Whistleblower: Ubiquiti Breach “Catastrophic”
#750Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Note, however, that roaming between APs is a feature of the 802.11 standard; In theory yes, but man do a lot of devices have terrible roaming heuristics. "I can still see beacons so id better stay here even though i havent received a packet in the last minute. Wouldnt want to pay the time cost of associating with that other BSS that has 5X the signal"
Do people _really_ need wifi roaming in their homes? I have multiple cheap APs setup in my house using the same SSID and it's fine. As long as I'm not holding a realtime conversation and moving around between APs I never have any problems. And since I almost never hold a Skype call while walking through my house I almost never have any issues.
Even if you don't "need" roaming having more coverage lets you dial down the power on all of your APs, so you can get much closer to the theoretical maximum throughput.